Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.01.25REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the January 25, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR STUDY ITEMS Commissioners Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Commissioners Boju6s City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher The minutes of the January 11, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved. The order of the agenda was approved with continued items noted. There were no public comments. APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1359 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND JERROLD & JANICE SCATTINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: there is a two car garage, is there storage area inside or is the entire structure used for parking; would the applicant elaborate the hardship for the floor area ratio variance; has the applicant considered reducing the FAR by removing the balcony off the master bedroom or some other alternative; am having a difficult time finding the hardship on the property; am confused with the directions east and west as noted on the plans, please check; when was the garage built; provide a floor plan of the garage and clearly outline uses of the space within; staff and applicant need to agree on the square footage on the site since it is critical to FAR, reflect in staff report; eliminated windows, add shutters on other elevatins to increase architectural detail and ambience; how does the California Building Code deal with the windows shown to be closer than 3 feet to property line on the west elevation, explain. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on February 8, 1999, providing the; responses are submitted to the Planning Department in a timely manner. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO EXCEED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING BOAT AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CHUCK GONG, APPLICANT AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA (STATE LANDS COMMISSION), PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: will the applicant be applying for an entertainment permit, if so what kind; how will the parking lot be lit and at what intensity; all the landscaping provided affects the amount of area available for parking, how large would the parking variance be if there were less landscaping and how big if all the landscape requirements were met; does decomposed granite on the walkway meet disabled accessible requirements; explain the lighting on the site, at the entrance, at the driveway, in the parking lot, on the pathway along the channel. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on February 8, 1999, providing the responses are submitted to the Planning Department in a timely manner. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR 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) APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1405 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JACQUELINE FOSTER, PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 8, 1999 - INFORMATION NOT RECEIVED Commission asked that 1400 Alvarado Avenue be removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular calendar. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1400 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TORIN KNORR, AIA, APPLICANT AND DAVID M. & REGINA A. MCADAM, PROPERTY OWNERS) and 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) C. Coffey moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners 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 6-0-1 (C.Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORE.' ADDITION AT 1400 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TORIN KNORR, AIA, APPLICANT AND DAVID M. & REGINA A. MCADAM, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked about the plans, the elevations are not consistent with the floor plans, should staff or the design reviewer have caught this, don't think it is possible to act. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Torin Knorr, architect, spoke asking where the discrepancies were on the plans; commissioner noted that the left elevation shows the addition within in 5 feet of the south end of the building and the elevations show this to be about 15 feet; there are other discrepancies including the way the roofs are drawn, the depth of the eaves around the house are not consistent with the elevations, how is the room over the garage accessed; architect agreed but noted that it seemed to be just a problem with the elevation and he would like to bring revised plans back to the next meeting. Commissioner pointed out conditions state built according to the plans, in this case cannot approve since do not know what plans show; is the fire place legal, will the chimney be extended, will be a factor in design; unsure that the second floor windows will serve as adequate emergency egress, should be checked; show eave overhang on roof plan in traditional format; provide information on plate heights and document so do not need to use scale to determine; revise stairs so that clear can meet building code since revision to this element can change stairwell and window location; feel height, bulk and mass are within reasonable parameters, the difficult aspects are how the addition aligns with the other elevations of the house and especially the south elevation off Hillside. Applicant asked if could be set for next meeting, staff did not know depended on agenda and timing of submittal of revised plans which will need to go through interdepartmental staff plan check again. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key moved to continue this item to the next meeting if the materials were submitted and could be reviewed in time. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: commissioner noted that this item was submitted before the new code changes became effective, will they still be reviewed under the old code standards, with a continuance, yes. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent) vote. This item is not appealable since the commission took no action on the project. Chairman Deal left the chambers, Commissioner Coffey became Chair. BE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 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) Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions on the staff report. Acting Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Chris Keele, property owner at 1516 Forest View, spoke noting that the reason that the accessory structure was not moved to the rear 40 % of the lot was because of the plum tree, but more importantly they have installed a permanent play area for their children behind the present garage and wanted that area separated from the new garage structure and work room for safety; they reduced the size of the dormers in response to the commission's comments; commissioner noted like the smaller dormers addresses the scale issue with the garage, concern is primarily with the variance for side setback, do not see the hardship which is an extreme condition on the property which limits what would be fair to a property owner to do with their site, the tree is not a "heritage tree", the workroom is something you want but do not need, have to weigh these factors when decide on a variance; applicant noted that the safety of the children playing in proximity to the structure is also a concern, feel concept of hardship should be applied on a relative basis, preservation. of the tree, the location of the established play area, and the fact that the solution, removal of the workroom, would eliminate a beneficial use of the property. Is the play structure moveable, no seated permanently, is a fixture of the property. Commissioner noted concerned that this one car garage with workroom is consuming square footage that under FAR. will limit the size of a future addition to the house and will also limit the number of bedrooms because it houses only one car, would like a statement added to the conditions to make future owners aware of these limitations; minutes should show that commission felt that because this garage at this location cannot be expanded to accommodate two cars it should not be used as a justification for an exception later. Work space area will be used for garden tools and things which would normally be stored in a garage. Asked City Attorney if could condition this application if want to add to house later would need a bigger garage, CA Anderson noted that the commission could add a condition that if the property is developed with this project it will limit the future expansion of the main structure and as a condition of approval it will be recorded with the property. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: concern is about the hardship to justify the side setback variance, there are options available on this lot to move the garage structure back within the rear 40 % of the lot, perhaps can be done without removing plum tree, tree is not a protected tree; commission is seeing more large garages because people want more storage area, but they are taking away from future increase in the main structure; architecture is quite nice, have no problem with other requests -conditional use permits and special permit; cannot support variance there is no hardship; to CA can approve some of the requests, CA Anderson responded; need to see how fits into the neighborhood, if cause garage to be relocated need to review so can approve placement, can indicate agreement on other requests and applicant can return with application which addresses concern, this would be done with a denial without prejudice; hardship should be looked at in the context of the neighborhood, will the side setback affect anyone else not the neighbor to the east or any other adjacent neighbor, either already second story or structure too short, many garages -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 in area much closer to front property line than this one, fits in well; today children's toys are much bigger and need more space to play also have more yard equipment. C. Coffey noted am in favor of the variance because of the placement of the play structure, the plum tree, it does not affect any aspect of the neighboring properties or neighborhood and this is a young family which needs the additional space and move approval of the variance, 2 conditional use permits and special permit based on the findings made, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Discussion on the motion: would you consider a condition that if the property is developed with this project it will limit the future expansion of the main structure and a two car garage shall be required; not convinced on the side setback variance, have to find exceptional circumstances which do not apply to other properties, a 6" plum tree and play structure don't seem to qualify; difference between a conditional use permit where only need to show not detrimental to the neighborhood and variance where have to show hardship on the property, lack of effect on neighboring properties is not a hardship. Acting Chair Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion was denied on a 2-3-1-1 (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, C. Bojues absent) vote. C. Luzuriaga then moved denial without prejudice of the side setback variance, conditional use permits and special permit for the reasons stated by the commission with direction to either move the garage back 2 feet and eliminate the variance or relocate away from the property line and reduce the width of the garage so the side setback requirement is met. Comment on the motion: another alternative might be to make the structure narrower and move it over to meet the setback requirements. Acting Chair Coffey called for a vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal Abstaining, C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, ARl?A AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 11, 1999 Chairman Deal returned to the chambers and took over the gavel. Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked why sign E was still in application, previous sign E had been two signs, one of these, the relocated one, has been eliminated, so sign E is now one sign. Staff noted that in the past the city had problems with an illegal banner sign located on the tennis -5- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 courts of this complex, asked that a condition be considered to add a prohibition for banner signs on this property and a mandatory review of the sign exception if a banner is installed. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Mog, Arrow Sign Company, with Tom Newin, Arrow Sign Company Permit Manager, spoke. He noted that the reason returned to existing signage on Rollins frontage was that the existing monument sign on Carolan fell apart and could not be relocated; asked before January 11 meeting why wanted internal illumination, that letter is in packet; key reasons are sign is more resistant to vandalism by pedestrians and others, face will be less brightly lit, cars and trucks will not run over exterior light fixtures; way the sign is designed the interior light will only be visible in an outline around the opaque letters set in an opening in the opaque sign face; submitted pictures taken of a similar sign at night, noted that sign will create less light than indirect illumination; commissioner asked if the face of the sign will be white, glossy plastic like a 7-11 sign; no will have a high gloss white paint on an aluminum face, the only plastic is what the opaque letters are mounted on for the "halo" effect, that plastic is mounted inside the metal box. There were no more questions from the commission or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the sign exception because the argument for protection from vandalism is sensible, the interiorly lit sign will not be boisterous, the swan logo is removed and the lighting concept is an interesting experiment, and the prohibition of banner signs as suggested by staff should be added to the conditions which are: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 19, 1999; 2) that any increase in the number of signs on the primary or secondary frontages of the property shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that any banner sign on this property shall be removed promptly or this sign exception shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code! and the 1995 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the sign exception. The voice vote was 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS. Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments :from the floor. C. Key moved approval of the revised Planning Commission Calendar for Design Review applications for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). -6- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the regular Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and the Council's Special Meeting - Goals Session held on January 23, 1999. Several Commissioners attended the Goals session so they too noted the highlights of the goals discussion: renewed focus on planning for infrastructure, need for study of Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area parking issues, continued work on design review including moving the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to February. - DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIRST FLOOR ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION. - Discussion of First Floor Design Review: CP Monroe began. by giving an over view of the problem as defined at the Special Planning Commission Meeting, on December 29, 1998; construction of new single family houses with attached one car garages not consistent with the established parking pattern in the neighborhood; very high plate lines which contribute to mass and bulk and which eliminate design flexibility if additions are made in the future; and large attic spaces with potential for conversion to living space later with inadequate on -site parking and design review which could not make the addition consistent with the neighborhood because of the base established by the original one-story structure. At the December meeting the commission directed staff to draft language to be added to the ordinance which would establish a design review for all first floor additions or new (demo and rebuild) one-story houses in which: 1. the addition exceeds 250 SF; 2. would be subject to review by a standing committee of the Planning Commission which would determine, on the basis of design guideline criteria, that the proposed structural change or new structure should be subject to the full design :review process; and 3. this proposed review process would end in 12 months, if it were not determined to be effective. Commission discussed the draft code language included in the staff report. In their discussion they observed: to be effective in this initial review need to have very clear criteria for how a project is chosen to move to full design review; problem is not how the new single story additions or houses look now, but how they will look when, in the future, they add a second story, so need to address this problem at the beginning; can issue be addressed through parking, i.e., increase parking requirement to two spaces for three bedrooms and require to match the pattern on the block; could parking be based on square footage in house as well as number of bedrooms; city directions are important, developers today want to give the city what it wants, traditional old world homes are what we want, need to be specific about what we want; the private sector can move faster than the Planning Commission so need to take a proactive step now; the big problem for the developer is the time spent waiting for approval, costs money when the property is leveraged; good idea to provide some kind of example of what we want; reviewers need something to hang their hats on so specificity of design guidelines should be increased. There is a great variety in housing styles among neighborhoods, we need to define neighborhood better, for some things it is the street for other things possibly a bigger area; other -7- City of Burlingai ze Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1999 cities have no guidelines, or very vague ones, why do we need more, need the flexibility for the designer and for the lot; sometimes it is easier if you tell people what is prohibited -have a list of concerns; pattern of garage location seems to be critical to each block and area; the proportion of the front of a property consumed by a garage is also an issue; can we require preliminary reviews for design to identify neighborhood issues; this additional first floor design review will add weeks to the review process for almost all single family residential development. Commission concluded from the discussion that they would like to proceed with design review of one-story additions and new single story houses where the construction exceed 250 SF for the purpose of determining how the mass and bulk would affect future construction on the structure and to give the applicant an idea of the potential conflicts inherent in the design; that the criteria developed for this screening review should include specifics about plate heights (for example 9 feet) and visibility of the project (addition or new house) from the street so people will know ahead of time what items may trigger further review. The commission reviewed what dates in February they might be available to meet jointly with the City Council to discuss the design review issue; the last two Saturdays of February were best for the commissioners present. Further discussion was differed to that meeting; however the design review subcommittee will be meeting with the design reviewers to discuss the current design review objectives for second story additions and construction and begin to further delineate the design guidelines used for review. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. MINUTES1.25a Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary 13