Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.08.09MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 9, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called the August 9, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica Absent: Commissioners Bojues and Coffey Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Planner, Janice Jagelski MINUTES The minutes of the July 26, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. ROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1353 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND OTTO MILLER. PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: one cannot build an 8 foot plate height because of industry methods, staff should see that all conditions are set at 8'-1" for plate height, therefore these plans should be adjusted to show that the variance is for 6 inches not 5 inches; there should be a condition of approval that this ; a commissioner noted that the 8'-1" plate is on the second floor, the first floor of this attic space is not habitable area project shows a 9 foot plate line; explain what kind of landscape buffer is being proposed along the north property line between the rooms in the proposed house which look into the neighboring property and the property line, provide a sketch of how it will be when the vegetation is mature; provide detail sketch of what is going on at the eave and the window trim should be wood not ridge foam with stucco; windows should be wood with stucco :mold, this detail will make this design work; there is a foam band on this house, it should be changed to wood. There were no further comments on the project. If these items are addressed in the plans it was suggested that the item be set for action on the consent calendar. The item was set for hearing at the August 23, 1999, meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1300 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (CONDON'S RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND KARP COMPANIES, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: letter from the applicant needs clarification, they are open for catering and have take-out now, what is the current number of take-out transactions and how do they expect them to increase; if the business is sold will the take-out food service permit go to the next operator; can a fast food business operate on this permit, clarify the number of customers to this site, if it is 200 people after 5 p.m. how do they get that number on the site; if approve for 200 commission would need a more accurate count or justification for that number. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on August 23, 1999. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR REAL ESTATE USE (TITLE COMPANY) AT 1129 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY,, APPLICANT AND LAMANET FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and the commissioners had no questions. The item was set for action on the consent calendar at the August 23, 1999, meeting. APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO NEW SECONDARY FRONTAGE SIGNS LOCATED ABOVE THE FOURTH FLOOR AND FOR A GROUND SIGN WITH NO OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE BASE LINE OF THE SIGN AND THE GROUND LEVEL (2' REQUIRED) AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OWNER) .;P Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: not requesting any signage on the facade of the building visible from Airport Blvd. southbound, the only signage visible will be the monument sign, if want to address this now is the time; why does the code require a 2 foot opening between the base and the ground on a monument sign; there were no further questions from the commission and it was suggested that this item be set for the consent calendar. The item was set for action on the consent calendar at the August 23, 1999, meeting if all the information is available. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. C. Deal asked if a change in conditions would require a regular hearing. CA advised; no. C. Deal then asked that a condition be added to Item #6; 1337 Vancouver to read: "that all the windows on the second floor shall be replaced, those existing windows on the first floor may be retained as shown on the approved plans. 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) APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN `EVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1337 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. , fODD ARRIS AND ALLYSON WILLOUGHBY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1374 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LUIS A. ROBLES, APPLICANT AND CYNTHIA AND MICHAEL LAZZARETTI, PROPERTY OWNERS) REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 344 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TRICIA KAIN HAGEY, APPLICANT AND KAREN AND SCOTT MASON, PROPERTY OWNERS) and APPLICATION FOR A LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE :PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND OFFICE FACILITIES AT AN EXISTING OFFICE, STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR A CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION. APPLICANT AND BAYSHORE HOLDINCTS. LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) C. Vistica 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. I of Item No. 6; 1337 Vancouver Avenue should read; " that all the windows on the second floor shall be replaced to match the new windows on the approved plans, the windows existing on the first floor may be retained as shown on the approved plans ". The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Acting -Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and Item 5, 2804 Easton Drive passed 4-0-1--2 (C. Deal Abstaining and Cmsrs. Boju6s and Coffey absent); Items No. 6, 1337 Vancouver Avenue; 7, 1374 DeSoto Avenue; 8, 344 Occidental Avenue and 9, 1650 Bayshore Highway, were approved on a 5-0-2 (C. Boju6s and Coffey absent). Appeal ocedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 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 PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE - CONTINUED FROM JULY 26, 1999 Reference staff report, 8.09.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Planning Commission had no questions of the staff report. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The project applicant, Michael Liffmann, 401 Bloomfield Road, was in attendance he noted that he hoped in the revised plans they had addressed all the issues raised by Commissioners Deal and Dreiling. There were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the most recent plans were well drawn; that this project was an example of how the Planning Commission could not make a determination based on the plans submitted because they were so incorrect could not tell what would be built, now all the plans agree and the looks of the project are much improved from the original. (7. Deal moved, by resolution, to approve this application with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 3, 1999, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7, date stamped June 2, 1999, sheet A-1, and date stamped May 25, 1999, sheets A-4 & A-5, and that any K City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote (Cers. Bojues and Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR 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) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DIENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 8.09.99, with attachments. This project was revised and resubmitted to the Planning Department since it was denied without prejudice at the July 26, 1999, Planning Commission hearing. The City Planner presented the staff report and noted the aspects of the design that had been changed since the Commission denied the project. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions by the commission. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: at last submittal there were some problems with the project, but have worked with the design viewer feel plans not quite 'there' yet, but that it is time to approve the project; main concern impact on neighbor, satisfied that the declining height envelope variance has been eliminated, the original project had a significant impact on the adjacent neighbor along the north side; do not like tower in the middle of the project; rear elevation does not represent a smooth design; however, okay with the project. It was noted for the record; the applicant and his architect arrived during the discussion of the project. CA Anderson indicated it would not be necessary to reopen the public hearing. Further discussion: this project will have minimal impact on the street; is an example of how the Declining Height Envelope regulation fails to control the bulk and mass of a structure along the side! property line, but can approve this project. C. Keighran moved approval, by resolution, with the following conditions from the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 2, 1999, sheets T1, A4-A7, and date stamped June 23, 1999, sheets Al-A3 with the removal of the existing 1F x 12' green house accessory structure, and that any changes to the footprint, floor area, or expansion of living area within the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the requirements of the City Engineer's May 19, 1999, memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. `''he motion was seconded by C. Deal. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Boju6s and Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. ?PLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR COVERED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1515 C'HAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHERYL HOCHSTATTER, APPLICANT AND JOYCE DAVIS AND JEAN-PIERRE ROTHSCHILD, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.09.99, 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 from the commission. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, JP Rothschild, 1515 Chapin Avenue presented a one page written response to the study questions which were presented to the Commission. Mr. Rothschild verbally summarized this response: the residence's Tudor motif is reflected with the brick and stucco details proposed with the addition; the half round windows match the 11 interior arched doorways and help maximize light within the house. The two-story bay window appears as a half -turret that is consistent with the Tudor -style and serves to connect the addition to the existing residence; in response to commission concerns it was reduced 2 feet in height and 1 foot all around at the second floor bay and the half timber motif removed to give it cleaner look. Cheryl Hochstatter, 1624 Laurel, San Carlos, designer, responded the the commissioner's questions and explained the window detail, she stated that the new windows will have stucco mold to match the existing window finish. Designer noted that would put stucco mold around windows. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted: there is a high level of sensitivity to the design reflected in the drawings. This project balances e large size of the house with an appropriate level of detail that is consistent: with the existing residences in this neighborhood. C. Vistica noted that while he had missed the study of this item the design was no problem and represented a good effort, the application for the parking exception is reasonable since the difference is only 6" on each dimension, he then made a motion to approve this project, including a condition that the new window finish shall include stucco mold to match the existing windows, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 30, 1999, sheets Al-A7, that the new window finish shall include stucco mold to match the existing windows, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows, and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Deal seconded the motion. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Boju6s and Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 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 AND JULY 26. 1999) .eference staff report, 8.09.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe entered City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 into the record a letter from Richard Lavenstein, an adjacent property owner, dated July 30, 1999, which had been received after the staff report was prepared. Commission had no questions of staff. -ting-Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: do not see anything about this property to justify a variance, there is no hardship and there is no need to put the boats and sheds in the front yard; have scheduled this item 3 or 4 times giving the applicant a chance to participate, he has not shown. C. Deal moved to deny this application for front setback and fencing variances for boat and storage shed display and sales in the front setback, feel have given this operator many fair warnings dating back as far as five years, he has ignored the violation, and for the other reasons stated in the staff report and by the commission. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Additional comment: agree that there is no hardship on the property to justify the variances. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for variances for display storage and fencing in the front setback. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers Bojues, Coffey absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS TO EXTEND REVIEW TO FIRST FLOOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SOME FIRST FLOOR ADDITIONS. cting-Chair Luzuriaga noted that he had been asked if this item could be continued to the next meeting since there was not a full commission present tonight. C. Deal noted that there had been no discussion on this proposed amendment at Commission study and he felt that it was appropriate to proceed tonight. There was consensus among the commissioners and staff was directed to proceed. CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting that the action on this item was a recommendation to City Council. CA Anderson noted that staff needed direction on how the new ordinance should be phased in, it presently is written to phase -in in the same manner as the original design review requirements, i.e., completed applications submitted to the Planning Department prior to the effective date of the ordinance would be processed under the current design review requirements. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commission: important to make a clear record on why this legislation needs to be implemented, a number of reasons were discussed by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Commission including: the fact that strict adherence to the declining height regulations is terrible for some types of architecture but it is hard to make the findings for granting a variance for this standard, so changing the requirement to a special permit makes it possible to be responsive to specific needs of architectural character, however the change from variance to special permit should not be interpreted as a way to increase square footage or reduce the cost of construction; need to work with design reviewers to improve the consistency of reviews with commission concerns; location of garage has been a concern of design review and is addressed in the amendment in order to avoid a problem in the future caused by placement or reduction in number of spaces and then have house expanded in 40 years and have inadequate parking; ,want the house to fit its neighborhood in 40 or 50 years, the garage is important to the streetscape and facade; quiring a special permit for an attached garage means that commission gets to look at all as they come forward and determine if they fit their neighborhood; commission will see all the Mills Estates projects anyway because of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Hillside Area Construction Permit requirements, so not burdensome requirement; will review any change to the number of parking spaces, concerned about reduction from present off street parking when increasing size of living area; also able to encourage detached garages in the flat areas by making requirement to review if attached, will :sign detached to avoid review; the plate height requirements are included to -address bulk in new single and two story additions, going from 8'-1" to 9 feet on the second floor makes a big difference in terms of structural mass, this change does not address existing plate heights, only plate heights of additions. C. Deal moved to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion to recommend: want to be clear on the garage, the special permit gives the Commission the ability to look at the issue of consistency with attached garages, if all the garages on the block or in the area are attached, a garage being attached is not an issue; need to clarify when reviewing 9 foot plate height, is it any 9 foot plate, first or second story, CA noted that this regulation applied only to the plate height of any addition, if the existing plate heights in the house were 10 feet they would not need to be reduced or reviewed; 9'-0" is OK but should not talk about 8' foot plate heights, current construction methods and materials (sheet rock) require that a plate height be 8'-1", all conditions and drawings should state that. Discussion continued: how will this ordinance be phased in, this change is minor compared to the original initiation of design review where it was important to provide a lot of time to applicants, can these changes be implemented more quickly; CA Anderson noted that a fast implementation may cause someone who is proposing a first floor addition which might qualify for design review but is just about to get their building permit to be stopped and delayed by having to stop and go through a design review process, implementation for previous ordinance was based on date stamp and completed application to the Planning Department. How critical is the time frame for review of ?plications submitted before new regulations are effective; CP Monroe pointed out that staff and commission must review under two separate sets of zoning regulations during the transition e.g., on present regulations when effective in October 1998, still reviewing some with final submittals prior to October 25, 1988 in May of 1999. Commissioners continued: don't feel we are going to see a flood of applications with this change as we did before; can't even find a contractor now, so let them go though a regular time frame based on a complete building permit application submitted before the effective date of ordinance. CA Anderson clarified that with this proposed regulation completion of submittal for a building permit, not planning approval, would be the defining date. Single story houses are now exempt from planning approval so building permit is the guiding application unless project needs a zoning exception, so maybe should be completed application to building or to planning if need an exception. C. Deal amended his motion to recommend that the ordinance should become effective 30 days after adoption by the City Council and that the exemption for completed building permit and planning applications for new single story houses or single story additions to houses should be valid for 6 months and granted one 6 month extension so that their exemption from the ordinance should be good for about one year after the date of adoption. CP Monroe noted that extensions of building permits were made at the discretion of the Chief Building Official and that staff would need to check with him to determine if he could agree to this provision. The maker of the motion agreed to this stipulation. The second of the motion, C. Keighran agreed to the amendment to the motion as refined. Acting -Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to recommend the amendment of the design review regulations to extend design review to all new single story houses and some single story additions as well as other code amendments. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojues and Coffey absent) vote. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 The commission discussed briefly the next meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee and determined that it should be a second meeting with the Design Reviewers and should be scheduled as soon as convenient. ".ANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed items pertinent to the Planning Commission from the City Council's August 2, 1999, meeting. ADJOURNMENT Acting -Chair Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary MINUTES8.9.99