HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.07.26MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 26, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the July 26, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga (in (& 7:08) and Coffey
Absent: Commissioner Vistica
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher;
Planner, Maureen Brooks
MINUTES The minutes of the July 12, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as
mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Noted for the record; Item Nos. 14; 350 Lang Road and 15; 778 Burlway Road,
1380 Bayshore Highway, 1470 Bayshore Highway and 1755 Bayshore Highway were
continued to the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The order of the
agenda was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2804 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (ROD AND TAMMI DOWIAT,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented the staff report; the Planning Commission asked: explain the impacts on the neighbor to the rear
and ask neighbor to rear to comment on the application. The item was set for public hearing on August 9, 1999 and
can be placed on the consent calendar if the information is provided in time.
APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE,
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
AT 1337 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TODD ARRIS AND ALLYSON WILLOUGHBY,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commission asked: is there a need for the front setback
variance, the existing porch is more than 30" above grade, does adding a cover make the variance necessary; require
a variance; clarification of design reviewer's comments, notes entry should be eliminated but covered porch okay,
!ase explain; have applicant address the window types on the north elevation, they differ from those shown on
me rest of the house; provide front setback measurements for all properties on this side of street, have staff confirm.
The item was set for public hearing on August 9, 1999 and can be placed on the consent calendar if the information
provided.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26. 1999
APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR COVERED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND DESIGN
"rVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1515 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
_HERYL HOCHSTATTER, APPLICANT AND JOYCE DAVIS AND JEAN-PIERRE ROTHSCHILD,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commission asked: concerned with the second story octangular
dormer, very large and overbearing, ask applicant to address why it was chosen; turret structure seems larger than other
components and elements at rear are out of scale and inconsistent, switching from stucco and parapet gable to half
timber on new, please explain how fits the design; concern with circle top windows and consistency with this style
address; ask applicant to provide more dimensions for the covered entry which supports the gate, width and gate swing,
is there enough space for cars to enter. The item was set for public hearing on August 9, 1999 if the information is
provided.
APPLICATION FOR A LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND OFFICE FACILITIES FOR RENTAL CAR BUSINESS AT 1650
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BAYSHORE
HOLDINGS. LLC. PROPERTY OWNER,)
CP Monroe presented the staff report and the Planning Commission asked: there are 48 customers/employee parking
spaces and there are 66 employees, where do the rest of the employees park; the proposed office building is a temporary
structure, how long will it be there; will any cars be rented from the site; does the applicant have any mitigation
suggestions for the landscaping exceptions, are any improvements to the landscaping visible from the street proposed.
e item was set for public hearing on August 9, 1999 and can be placed on the consent calendar if information is
provided.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON
SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/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.
APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION AT 409 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES APPLICANT AND JACK
& EILEEN EASTERBROOK, PROPERTY OWNERS)
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING COVERED AND UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE
LENGTHS AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2612 HALE DRIVE, ZONED
R-1 (WILLIAM J. VAN HOUSEN, APPLICANT AND ROBERT AND SHARON PARATTE, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1434 PALOMA AVENUE,
ZONED R-1 LOU AND LAURA MATTEUCCI APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1322 DE SOTO AVENUE,
)NED R-1 (GENE J. FRANTZ APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999
APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW
"TACHED GARAGE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CARPORT AT 1540 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
, .,OM PARATORE. APPLICANT AND KEITH R. COULSTON, PROPERTY OWNER)
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (COUNSELING OFFICE) IN
AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1290 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 320, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B.
(DAPHNE CROCKER WHITE APPLICANT AND 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER)
and
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE
(PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICE) AT 1131 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B (BEVERLY B.
CONRAD AND MARY NEWMAN. APPLICANTS AND DAVE ADAMS. PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments
and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. It was noted
for the record that condition No. 2 of Item No. 11; 1131 Howard Avenue should read; "the hours of 3:00-ap.m.
to 7:00 p.m". The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and Items
5, 4090 Dwight Road; 7, 1434 Paloma Avenue and 8, 1322 DeSoto Avenue passed 6-0-1-1 (C. Deal Abstaining
and C. Visticas absent); Items No. 6, 2614 Hale Avenue; 9, 1540 Drake Avenue; 10, 1290 Howard Avenue and
11, 1311 Howard Avenue, were approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 401 BLOOMFIELD ROAD,
ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL AND ROBIN LIFFMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Reference staff report, 7.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Robin and Michael Liffman, property owners and Janet Campbell,
architect, 2 Parker Avenue, San Francisco, spoke representing the project noting that they made all the suggested
changes to the project except one. Commission recommended a single roof line revision, they felt that this would
look odd from Vernon Road and displayed mounted renderings to demonstrate their concern, noting that they would
remove the "punched out" dormer over the window on the preferred single gable rendering. Commission asked
if the window in the stair well was a different shape, yes it is no longer arched. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: this project has no variances or exceptions to the code, only needs design review;
applicant has responded to all the commissioners concerns except one; design reviewer gave the project a positive
recommendation before the changes made at commission request at study.
Bojuds moved, by resolution, to approve the project because of the changes made, with the added condition that
the gable roof line be used without the pop -out dormer as shown in the rendering, and with the conditions in the
staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
91
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes .Tiny 26, 1999
Comment on the motion: clarify that the motion was for the alternative with the gable roof with the pop -out dormer
-noved, yes; decision is hard because the drawings are difficult, all the views of the roof do not correspond, hard
act on at this point because there are problems with the plans to the extent that they may not represent the building
as it is going to be built; agree there are discrepancies between the elevations, roof plan does not agree with any
elevation, can't approve if I can't see what built, contractor will have to decide in the field how to build; revisions
are good, like multiple gable solution; felt like the response addressed all the commission's concerns including the
window in the stair well; gable side OK, took the pop -out off the stairwell; if the roof plan is inconsistent and cannot
be built are we ready to approve, do we need to continue item; rendering makes the project look good, what happens
next is the issue, and tight drawings are the way to insure it; concerned with the scale of the house, the existing
house is small in scale as are all the houses in the neighborhood, how will this bigger house fit; feel the motion
addresses all the items, there are no exceptions to the zoning code requested, it is within the envelope allowed, have
revised to address almost all of the commission's concerns, now there is a problem with the construction time table;
can these items be addressed with the applicant, no there is a motion on the floor; if there are inconsistencies on the
plans, cannot resolve in the meeting, applicants need to sit down with the architect and get them resolved, can this
be brought back on the consent calendar for the next meeting.
Continued discussion on the motion: Need clarification about exactly what revisions now want to see in the plans;
these have already been approved by the design reviewer; commissioner noted that there were many discrepancies
in the elevations regarding the roof structure, not the commission's responsibility to redesign the roof, called staff
this morning to let them know that there were too many discrepancies in the drawings and to try to contact the
architect, it is not the commission's fault that these elevations are incorrect; we need a new application with a roof
structure which agrees, feel could build the roof differently using each elevation; prefer a plan with fewer gables.
('A, Anderson noted should identify which elevation is in error.
Commission discussion continued: none of the elevations agree with each other, roof structure needs to be redrawn
it does not adhere to the roof plan, needs to reflect what is going to be built; design reviewer did not see this change,
commission directed that it be brought back to them directly.
Chair Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the design review with amendments for the pop -out
dormer and single gable roof alternative. The commission voted 3-3-1, (Cers. Deal, Dreiling, Keighran dissenting,
C. Vistica absent). A tie vote represents no action by the commission and the motion failed.
C. Deal moved to continue this item to the August 9, 1999, meeting so that the applicant can address the discrepancy
in the roof as it relates to the elevations and have it reflect the alternative with the gable without the pop -out dormer,
but the revisions need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Comment on the motion: these are professional drawings, if there are inconsistencies in them we do not know which
reflect the intention of the applicant, the applicant needs to work on and decide what they want. CA Anderson
pointed out that the applicant can contact commissioners about precisely what needs to be corrected on the plans.
Commissioner noted for example on Sheet A6 the window and door show different trim, the bay window cannot
be built as shown; on Sheet A7 the existing gable left of the garage is shown as existing and shown as new on the
north elevation, there is a difference in siding material as well; some of the trim detail is wider on some of the
elevations than on others. CA Anderson asked if these items were there before, yes comfortable with the revisions
ept the roof. Commission discussed fact that a motion to continue is not an action.
Chair Coffey called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1999. The
motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Vistica absent) vote.
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Iuby 26, 1999
Commission comment: is the direction clear; CA Anderson noted that the architect can call the commission or City
"'inner; the commission noted that they would approve the double gable alternative. The item was continued to
._.c August 9, 1999, meeting. Since there was no action on the item it is not appealable to the City Council.
APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 810 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1. (FAMOUS DESIGNS
ARCHITECTS INC APPLICANT AND JOHN & ELLEN HUNTER PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 7.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions from the commission.
The applicant, John Hunter, 810 Crossway Road and Mark Famous, 87 Westminster, Oakland, architect, presented
the project and were available for questions. Applicant stated that they had been thorough in answering the
commission's questions, noted that regarding the second floor decking and the concern with intrusion on neighbors,
have modified so the deck is now an outdoor walkway to get to the lower deck. at grade; criteria for building the
project is that it be private, the windows on the north elevation are for light only, not for view; regarding the cupola,
or stair tower, there will be no viewing from that, purpose is to allow light into the stair well; have redesigned the
stair tower so that it is more proportional on all sides.
Commissioner questions: Commissioner noted had worked with applicant in past and asked if this is really what he
wants; noted that the garage is giant; concerned that structure is not unified with house in front, exterior not
t-iched, another structure attached, added tower to unify the two, expressed concern before, don't feel has been
. .tressed, why not extend first floor over existing.
Applicant response: the lot is large too; now has children, 5 bodies in house, need more space, there is no living
space other than garage proposed downstairs; has been through design reviewer, planning commission now making
design suggestions, process is cheapened, don't feel need to address now; in favor of design review, but not
appropriate to re -do design review at this late stage, stair tower stays as far as he's concerned.
CA Anderson noted that the Planning Commission acts as design review oversight committee, design reviewer is
making a recommendation to the commission.
Mark Famous, 87 Westminster, Oakland, architect for the project, noted that there was a small space under
playroom for crawl space, added a wine cellar, when found out it counted as floor area, applicant did not see need
and it was removed; there is a lot of space on site, designed so garage can be at rear, can't be seen and allows other
parking on site; as far as the cupola, is common in Cape Cod Craftsman homes, this stair tower is similar to one
at Burlingame train station; intent was to use stair tower as unifying feature as well as matching other existing
features; tower is less than 30' high, important to keep look of house from front as is; the stair tower is 50' behind
front of residence, would have to be in neighbor's yard across the street to see top of tower; is about 3 or 4 feet
above the roof of the new addition.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
nmissioner comments: applicant is perturbed about process, this is a new process, something we're trying to
work with, trying to get design reviewers and commissioners on the same page; tonight some study items were
placed on consent, several applications on tonight's consent calendar were design review and all passed; this
subsequent review not happen often, this is a big building with lots of impact, need to review; is a large building,
W
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999
'tails are wonderful, concerned with size on north elevation, close to 100' of wall, a declining height envelope
. ariance is requested; regarding the turret, up for grabs, but main concern with north side elevation, real affect on
neighbor; tend to be in favor of application, had a study session, been through design review process, worked with
reviewer, shouldn't be penalized as process evolves, design reviewer was positive, project in substantial
conformance with intent of guidelines, trying to fine tune process, applicant done everything possible to meet
requested changes; this is a big lot, 5 people living in house, need space, concern is with stair tower, don't see how
it is fitting in, is there a way to lower it, strongly feel that it doesn't fit.
Chairman Coffey made a motion to reopen the public hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and the
commission agreed.
Applicant comments: the neighbor is on the up slope, our house is 10' below, their shop building accessory
structure extends back as far as the addition; not taking away a view; stair tower is only visible from the back and
when pulling into driveway, tower breaks up roof line.
The public hearing was closed. Chairman Coffey made a motion to approve the declining height envelope variance
and design review, by resolution, based on the findings of the design reviewer and with the conditions in the staff
report. There was no second on the motion.
Commissioner comments: agree on long side next to neighbor, still need to break up the length of the wall, there
are lots of ways to find a solution that works with the architectural style, eliminates the declining height envelope
-riance and does not compound a problem already created by the placement of the neighbor's house; concern with
,per, some way to break up the roof line, think there is another solution, agree regarding north elevation, minor
work could rectify; ambivalent on tower, could go either way, need to ease large and overbearing elevation on the
side for length shown.
C. Bojues moved to continue the hearing to August 9th, with applicant to come back to eliminate the need for a
declining height envelope variance. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Discussion on the motion: if hearing continued, applicant has no recourse, if project is denied without prejudice,
applicant has the option to appeal; uncomfortable with the two different structures attached with stairwell, based on
applicant's comments, this won't change, will vote against application; like to see structure blended into old and
like to see declining height envelope variance eliminated, not see hardship for this exception, neighbor's new long
wall is not enough; would rather see denial without prejudice, can still go to City Council.
C. Boju6s amended his motion to deny the project without prejudice. C. Dreiling, the second, agreed to the
amendment.
Commissioner comment: talking about Cape Code Craftsman style, will be precedent with attachments with joints;
common pattern in Vermont farmhouses, not uncomfortable with fragmentation, concern with impact of height,
could lower plate line, and still get space and stair tower, need to address declining height envelope variance.
The motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a roll call vote of 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting and C.
tica absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 1999
APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DISPLAY OF BOATS AT 350 LANG ROAD,
ZONED O-M. (BAY AREA BOATS, APPLICANT AND LANG CONTI TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (15
NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 1999)
Continued to August 9, 1999. The item will be renoticed.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CAR RENTAL USE AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD, 1380
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 AND 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
ZONED O-M. (ALAMO RENT -A -CAR) (continued from July 12, 1999, recommendation to continue to August
t 1999)
Continued to the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The item will be renoticed.
CP Monroe noted that the issue before the commission for determination is whether a subsequent full design review
should be required when a project approved for design as a remodel becomes a total demolition, and the applicant
is willing to rebuild it exactly as it was approved in the design review process.
',)mmissioners comments: in most cases would want to see project come back, but they have been through design
view so if have no variances and want to build what was originally approved should be able to, if design is
changed in any way it should be re -reviewed; does this defeat the design review process, might look at differently
if it were a new structure; feel should be reviewed again if want a new design; agree if willing to build as approved
its OK; only concerned about side setbacks, any addition to an existing building which had an existing side setback
exception should be required to go through design review again because it is a hardship to ask to have these changed
on an existing building, but feel that hardship is no longer there on a new structure; should add a standard condition
to all design review actions that if the structure is demolished would need to get a side setback variance for any
exceptions existing for the existing structure; perhaps any pre-existing code exceptions granted as a part of a design
review remodeled should be subject to re -design review if the existing structure is demolished; can conditions
include notification that if any approved structure is demolished all variances granted are voided; CA Anderson
noted that would not be consistent with what is now in the code since the non -conforming section for R-1 would
allow reconstruction of exactly what you have after a fire; staff could return at the next meeting with a draft of a
policy statement and a standard condition for commission to review; do we need a definition of demolition. CA
Anderson suggested that the commission could take action tonight on the narrower issue, whether a second design
review is required when the entire existing structure is demolished, the project required no exceptions to the zoning
code, and the replacement is proposed to be identical to what was approved in the design review; also noted that
a determination is a policy statement which becomes a part of the permanent administrative process.
Chair Coffey moved to approve a direction to staff that an existing structure which has received design review for
an addition and then been wholly demolished may be replaced without subsequent design review, so long as the
replacement structure is fully compliant with the zoning code and identical to the design which received design
iew approval. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Commissioner Deal abstained on the vote noting he had
a project in process which could be affected.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 1999
,air Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to direct staff regarding administrative processing of projects with
uesign review and no other exceptions to the zoning code. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 vote (C. Vistica absent,
C. Deal abstaining).
PLANNER REPORTS
STATUS REPORT ON ZONING ISSUES RELATED TO 320-330 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1,
SUBAREA A.
CP Monroe noted that an architect representing a project on Primrose Road had asked the Commission if the city
would provide his client relief from a zoning requirement that precludes the expansion of non -conforming real
estate and financial land uses in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Commission discussed this
item briefly at the meeting of July 12, 1999, and continued the matter to this meeting so that they could do a more
thorough site visit.
Commission discussion: the building is distinct, do not think that retail uses would survive, because the
entrance is built up on a podium, there is no sense of retail from the street, it is not pedestrian oriented for
retail and not visible from the street for retail shoppers; the building and entrance look as if it belongs to the
land uses across the street (real estate, office). What do they mean about the city providing relief; CA
Anderson responded architect would like the Planning Commission to initiate the change and sponsor it with
the City Council. Commissioner noted am willing to entertain an application to adjust the zoning of this parcel
to Subarea B 1 but do not feel that the city should initiate such a change. There was a consensus among the
commissioners that this was the case.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary
MINUTES7.26