Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.08.24REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 24, 1998 7.00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the August 24, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: Commissioners Coffey and Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the August 10, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were unanimously approved. . APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. t STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G.STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: does the garage door have an automatic door -opener; the photograph included by the applicant shows a VW parked in the garage, when made site visit saw a VW parked on the street under a cover, is it the same vehicle and do they park it in the garage. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE AT 2810 TIBURON WAY, ZONED R-1. (JOHN L. STEWART, AIA, APPLICANT AND h_: TRA MORSHED-BER.GLOFF, PROPERTY, OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners• asked: story poles should be installed so that they and the neighbcrs can see the effect on views; asking 44 % lot coverage, what would need to be done to reduce the lot coverage to 40%; why does the house -1- Cary of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 include two master bedroom suites and two family rooms, what is unusual about the family which requires this. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998. APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA. PROPERTY OWNERS) and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: in the previous review of the project the commission asked that the building be moved to the rear and the guest parking placed more visibly in the front, why does the revised project not include this; concerned about delivery vehicle, how will they enter and exit the site; the cantilever seems to push the maximum possible and still have the building stand, show documentation that it can be built, can the parking be addressed in another manner which will reduce the extent of the cantilever; can there be a better design approach to mitigate the cantilever; in the previous application the bulk of the building was an issue that the commission asked to be addressed, did reduce the number of units from four to three but increased the size of each of the units so the building is almost to its previous size, can the bulk of the structure be :reduced; since there has been increasing neighborhood concern about the capacities and direction of flow of storm water and sewage as they relate to system capacities, could that be explained before the commission hears from neighbors in the area. The item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998, assuming that all the questions can be addressed in time. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE AT 1201 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC, APPLICANT AND 1201 HOWARD AVENUE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: the application indicates a maximum of 5 people on site at one time, how was that number arrived at when the maximum people per day is 12. There were no other questions and the; item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE TO ADD A SECOND STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE A RETAIL USE AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DBA GREEN BANKER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: have difficulty with the clock tower, not appropriate at this location; CA Anderson noted that since this is a special permit the commission has authority to work with the design of the structure; would like to know what the band of squares at the top of the building is; with the added residential unit the roof pops up at the center and looks confused, how can this be addressed; which two parking spaces would be covered; why would the owner of the building not hire a building maintenance firm to manage and maintain the building, security services are available in the community; it is not clear are there windows at the perimeter of the building; explain the site plan, where are the series of columns at the front of the building; what are the landscape requirements in this commercial zone, what is provided is minimal and hidden, it could be improved; can the commission see the original elevation without the second story dwelling; unit; could parking be improved instead of covered with a tin roof and looking inappropriate with the new building; what is the rear setback requirement for the first story and for the second story; the 2800 SF residential structure is almost a third of the size of the retail area, why is it so big, why does the on -site manager need so much space; it appears that everything submitted was an after thought, the addition to the building, the covered parking, why were these all not a part of the original application. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998, assuming that the information could be submitted in a timely manner. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. (HOW.ARD ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND JOHNSON LEE AND HUANGE LI-CHEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: applicant should define the 7 pieces of equipment which would be stored on the site, do they include an office trailer; would like a photo of each piece of equipment to be stored; need a proper site plan showing the sidewalk, property line dimensions, gates and fences to scale, if going to approve on the basis of the site plan we need to be able to read it and know it is accurate; could staff include a map showing the location of Mills and Easton Creeks relative to this site; when made site visit there was equipment parked on this site, why. There were no further questions on this item and it was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998, assuming that revised plans and other information was available in time. 11c2 Cay of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ACTION ITEMS August 24, 1998 CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. Chairman Deal noted that there were two items on the consent calendar, 1434 Columbus Avenue and 1336 Balboa Avenue. He commented on 1434 Columbus, noting that this addition appears to add as much on the second floor as on the first and will look bulky, he would have hoped for the design revision to be better but the commission did not see the first submittal; looking for more refined guidelines in the future so that we will get better projects than this. He noted that he was not calling this item up; he then asked if anyone in the audience: would like to call any items off the consent calendar. Andrea Enright, 1427 Desoto came forward and said she was interested 1434 Columbus but did not know enough to determine if she should call it up for public hearing. Chairman Deal suggested that she go into the hall and speak with the applicant, and the commission would delay action on that item for a few minutes. DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1336 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JANET CAMPBELL, APPLICANT AND JOSEPH A. LA MARIANA & THERESA A. BALDOCCHI, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Boju6s then moved approval of the 1336 Balboa Avenue project with conditions in the staff report by resolution. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent) vote. Action on 1434 Columbus Avenue was continued until after the next item. REGULAR CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN EXPANSION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SAKS FIFTH AVENUE AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was currently in its 20 day public review period and the applicant had asked if the commission would agendize an opportunity for the public to comment on the document. This item was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation and on the site. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the proposed project and noted that the purpose of this meeting was to take comments from the public. The responses would be included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration document which would be considered by the Planning Commission along with the project at the study and action meetings to be held after the 20 day public review period had ended. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 The commissioners noted in their review of the document: the parking study bases the estimated demand on "speciality retail" use but this is a department store, is there a difference; would like to know the seasonal flow of customers based on other sales stores experience, the heaviest vs. the lightest, the median or average, and a comparison of each by square footage; how the third and fourth floors are addressed in the text in places is confusing; section 2, figure 2-1 shows the parking layout, how will anyone move cars without stacking the cars on to Chapin, provide some diagrams to show how the valet parking will actually work; cannot tell the dimensions of the parking spaces, are some or all substandard, what would be the number provided if they were standard; item A in the executive summary is confusing, it is repeated several times in the document and should be edited. Chairman Deal then opened the floor to the public hearing. Sam Maloff, 1426 Burlingame Avenue; John Chiapelione, 1427 Chapin Avenue; Mark Hudak, attorney representing the Karp Family, spoke. They made the following comments: the west wall and roof top equipment of the proposed project will block the light into the tailor shop at 1426 Burlingame Avenue, natural light is important to the tailors; equipment being added to the roof near his property line will bring additional noise to his employees; parking congestion caused by valet parking is also an issue since the easement providing egress is behind his building and it is also used for deliveries throughout the day, in addition there is on -site parking for his building along the easement, how will it be affected by the increased traffic; anticipate an increase in carbon monoxide pollution since there will be more cars and because of valet parking more will idle; where will the valet parked cars be placed and where will Saks employees park; not sure people would not abuse valet parking to get access to the Avenue, so Saks should explore with the city the possibility of adding lot under the apartment building next door to increase the parking lot, this could be purchased and turned into a one, two or three story parking garage. Concerned about valet parking, hardly enough parking on street now for the 400 to 500 transactions their business does today, adding 29 spaces is inadequate, the parking lot for employees on Chapin is filled by 10 a.m., where will the employees park; how will deliveries be made to Saks, will they conflict with deliveries to the Garden Center; if he cannot have deliveries from the easement, the trucks will have to block Chapin; he paid into the assessment district since its inception, originally they were going to be condemned for a parking lot, but assessment fell short of money and his site survived, they should pay their way and they will need parking to do the volume of business they propose. Comments continued: owner of 1411 Chapin does not intend to use his site for parking; he does not want Saks if site will bear a disproportionate burden; the impacts to the apartment buildings at 1411 Chapin are an almost constant flow of traffic around the buildings six or seven days a week, since will enter on to Saks lot, use the easement and exit through the public lot on the other side of the building; with the office use the impact would be less since the parking spaces would turn over 1 or 2 times a day, but retail spaces turn over 6 to 8 times a day, that's 175 to 250 trips; each car which comes to valet lot will drop off passengers/driver be circled around the building and parked, reverse with pick up, the whole impact is on the Karp property; valet -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 parking has its own problems, parking attendants with loud radios, running back and forth, etc, in what is presently a quiet lot; these issues are not addressed in the Negative Declaration and should be. Have a concern about fairness, have kept a watch on parking on Burlingame Avenue, often people ask for a variance for 2 or 3 spaces and are turned down, other applicants have had to buy additional property to satisfy city requirements, how justify giving Saks 29 spaces and turn down next request for 2 or 3 spaces; will loose control of the planning process. There were no further comments from the floor. The Commissioners noted: would like information on Molly Stone applications, number of employees, shifts, was there a parking variance; how does the Noise Element of the General Plan apply to the noise impacts caused by this project; how will the fee be charged for the valet parking, will they validate for customers who purchase goods in the store; illusion in study is that once the valet parking lot is full they will move cars to other sites, is this so, are there long term contracts for those other sites; provide data on the number of employees, their time schedules for work and their affect on available parking; evaluate the ability of the tenants at 1411 Chapin to come and go during the time when valet parking is offered; how will valet parking affect the use of the easement and parking in the public lot; need a new parking study done after school starts, in January had a lot of rain and must have affected the number of customers downtown, so data provided is not accurate; want to see use in long term and short term lots; carbon monoxide is generated when cars start and idle, what will be the effect on the apartment house, foliage in the area, will the gas damage clothing in the shops. Concerned about deliveries, the number and their frequency, and the type of truck: used; there has been a lot of concern about the valet parking effect on parking and traffic in the area, what will the consequences be. CA Anderson noted that the notice posted indicated that there would be a study meeting on this project on September 14, 1998, that meeting may not be held on that date because the information requested here may not be available in time. Notice will be given and posted on the building letting people know when the project will be studied and acted upon. There were no further comments and the item was referred back to staff. CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED) DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1434 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. RICHARD P. & MAUREEN N. HARBER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Chairman Deal reopened the continued consent calendar and asked if the public had any questions about the project at 1434 Columbus Avenue. There were no requests from the floor. C. Key moved approval for the project at 1434 Columbus with conditions in the staff report and by resolution; the motion was seconded by C. Bojues. The motion was approved on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised for both projects on the consent calendar. El City of Burlingame Pkmning Commission Minutes REGULAR CALENDAR August 24, 1998 APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2500 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1. (PAUL GUMBINGER, APPLICANT AND ROBERT D. KUGEL & DIANA S. DAMAZO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.24.99, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect, rioted how the applicant had responded to the commissioners' concerns at study and had installed the story poles requested; they show that the peak of the new roof ridge is 9'-4" higher than the existing garage roof ridge; they removed the stairs in the garage and changed the swing of the door; they also showed how the owners cars fit, new cars are smaller than cars in the 1970's; the bay window has been moved to align better and the siding will match that existing on the house; there are three bedrooms in the house now, there will be three when done, one will be removed downstairs and the city counts the master bedroom area as three bedrooms when it will be used as one. The variances are for existing conditions, when built the house will be as you see it now, it is hard to change these existing setbacks when not changing walls; tried to keep second floor moved it in from the sides to reduce impact on neighborhood; front setback for second floor is 33'-6" (where 17'-9" is the average on the side of the street) setback on the west side is 26' (7" required) on the east it is 13' (7' required), this is a large lot 11,500 SF, only have 19 % lot coverage, FAR is .3 where .45 is allowed; feel the addition fits entirely within the code, blends into the house and fits with the neighborhood; asks for approval. Commissioners asked applicant: could not understand story poles, thought the wind might have torn ribbon by time of site inspection; issue raised at study was that addition seems to be front loaded on the house, listened to tapes question seemed to address the alignment of the bay window, the entire addition is set within the parameter of the existing house; error in the plan elevations which would affect the roof pitch on the front elevation (pitch different on front and side views), pitch at front view is correct, increase side to 3.5/12 to match front; saw a fence under construction on -site visit posts were very tall, appeared to be almost 15 feet, what is being built, doing a lot of clean up of the site they are not going to have a 1.5 foot fence; they will need a permit for a retaining wall and fence, staff should check. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Commissioners comment: did go inside neighbor's home at 2517 Valdivia Way, looked at story poles, did not affect view at all. Chairman Deal noted that there were no letters about view blockage, so riot concerned; the front set back is existing, see this condition often and it is unfair to ask applicant to move back wall when not changing it; side setback is close to being within the code, it is existing and it is unfair to ask to replace the wall; looking at these variances because of the definition of "new construction" so the commission could review this when people are removing most of their houses and replacing, this is not the case here; parking is off by 1.5 feet, not worthwhile to move in any direction, can park two cars and one in driveway, the double garage door does not front on the street but faces the side, a benefit to the neighborhood and this condition will continue so will make a motion to approve the variances requested for this project by resolution with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: concerned that people are not addressing the issues, parking is important to the neighborhood, the parking here is inadequate since two, cars cannot be parked easily in the garage, two cars won't be parked there; could fix by moving the interior garage wall into the house 1.5 feet, have space on the interior of that side of the house; seem to spend their money on their own living space not on the neighborhood benefit; at some point the commission needs to show that they are serious about the parking problem. Not see exterior walls lengthened, a second story is being added, garage is turned not facing the street so cannot see double door from street; not economically correct to demand applicant increase width of garage by 1'-2% if he was changing entire first floor except the garage would feel differently; the architectural integrity is kept, no views are blocked, existing conditions are what we need to look at. CA Anderson noted that since 5 commissioners are seated, the commission would need three votes to pass a motion. Commission comment continued: addition is well done, not block views, but its OK to ask for a little more money to have parking useable, would benefit the neighborhood. No bathroom was proposed where exercise room and sewing room (2 bedrooms) are located on second floor, so more likely to be used as part of the master bedroom suite; applicant's wife noted that it would be hard for her to open the garage door with two cars in the garage; even if you had a wider garage you would still have only a 14 foot wide door which would limit use; making door bigger would not be a problem since cannot be seen from street, therefore not a hardship. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve all the variances by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 1, 1998, Sheets A-1, A-3 and A-5 and date stamped August 17, 1998 Sheets A-2 and A-4 with a maxium roof ridge height of 26'-9" as measured from average top of curb (elevation 0'-9"); 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that any changes to the footprint, building height, 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 4) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The commissioners voted 3-2-2 (Cers. Bojues and Vistica dissenting, Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Deal called for a break at 8:45 p.m.. The commission reconvened at 8:50 p.m. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (4' PROPOSED) AND FOR RECREATIONAL USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PAUL E. BROEKER AND SHIRLEY E. LEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.24.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Chairman Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from action on this item. He turned the gavel over to C. Key who would act as Chair. CP Monroe noted that the commissioners had a desk item before them which included the applicant's response to the study questions. Staff provided a summary of this information in the staff report but, by oversight, failed to attach the actual comments in the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Paul Broeker, 1445 Cortez, applicant, spoke. He commented that he did not have any new information, they had tried to respond to the commissioner's questions at study. They intend to keep two cars inside the garage, they need the attic area for storage, they added the potting area at the back to get maximum usage from their yard so not need another place to keep gardening tools, lawn mower etc. Commissioners asked: what siding is proposing for the garage, stucco to match the house except for the potting area which will have wood shingle siding so it will be more compatible with the yard; where will you put the potting bench in the workshop area; below window, the sill height might be a problem, but sill height is 3.5 feet and the bench is about that height; good that show a wall section, what will the interior wall finish be, detail shows gyp board on property line, have not decided finishing on inside walls yet; this is a potting shed, where is the water, have a hose bib in the backyard, no water in shed; will use area to store pots for potting, lawn mower, may do actual potting in backyard as do now; where is the floor drain, is none, do not want one because do not want water/sewer connection to the structure makes it too easy to convert later. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: asked the city attorney if could place a condition prohibiting any future division by wall within the parking area; yes, condition 3 now states what cannot go into the structure; no problem with variance because there is a 10 foot easement at the back of the 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 lot and heavy foliage behind the window; window OK because of easement adjacent; parking OK if not allowed to divide it up later and use rear of area for some other use; believe that additional square footage for none parking uses should be added to the house not included in the garage. C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the application noting that the property owner wants and needs more space, can get two vehicles in and have potting shed, concern is water and sewer which add potential for an illegal use in the future and neither is proposed to be provided in this project; also concerned when the size of a garage limits the future expansion of the house, that not a problem here; less concern about the window 4 feet from property line because there is a 10 foot easement adjacent making the separation 14 feet to the neighbor's rear property line; good that the project includes no skylights which could glow into neighbors yard and the recreational use is a very light one, potting; the proposed project does not exceed the city's size limit on detached garages, which is positive and a reversal of the recent trend of projects seen by the commission, and which substantially impacts future use of the house without more exceptions to the code. Based on these facts and those stated previously in the record move approval of the 2 special permits, window within 4 feet of property line and recreational use (potting shed/gardening), in an accessory structure 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 August 3, 1998, Sheet G-1, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 6, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include plumbing or a toilet without an amendment to this special permit; and the parking area shall never be divided; and 4) 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 a commissioner asked how many votes would be required to approve this action since the commission was down to four. The CA noted that three votes would pass a motion. Acting Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 3-1-1- 2 (C. Key dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE (6' PROPOSED) ANI) FOR RECREATION USE FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JESSE AND MARIA GUERSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.24.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 conditions were recommended for consideration. Staff noted two letters from Mrs. Johns at 37 Stanley Road submitted after the packet was distributed; in the first letter she opposed the project and in the second she withdrew her opposition. There were no questions on the staff report from the commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jessie Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue, noted that he had spoken to Mrs. Johns regarding the setback between their properties, he clarified what they were asking for and how it would affect her and she agreed to support the project. Commissioners asked: have phone jacks in both parking and potting shed areas why, thought nice to have so not have to go into the house to answer phone; show fireplace rather than wall heating unit, why need heat; so that when work on week -end can be comfortable and to create some ambiance inside to enjoy while working, understand city's concerns about second units, they have no plans to convert; don't think you will, but it will be there as a potential in the future; how will walls be finished, gyp board with exposed rafters, have not finally decided; neighbor's kitchen window faces side fence with lots of vegetation on your side, how will you protect, will remove one tree that she and we do not like at rear, will increase vegetation by planting vine on fence and lattice, she wanted more light so put storage at rear with a lower roof line on her side, tree to be removed is the one that is 6 inches in diameter on the fence line, no way to save, it is the one the neighbor does not like either; what will be stored in storage area, edger, lot of tools, lawn mower, long narrow space 3'-6", not want to keep all that equipment in garden workshop because like to keep things clean, in recreation space would store plants, produce plants, storage because lack space in house; why did you apply for a variance to make the entire structure longer at same location when remove existing, now the garage is 1'-6" in front of the rear 30% of the lot, want to get as much square footage as possible without disturbing the neighbor's pond and with the least effect on them, without the variance would lose the storage area at the rear and the neighbor would see a taller wall; what will the flooring be, concrete; have lived in the city a long time, bought house recently, love Burlingame, in architectural business want to do what is best for property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: can't agree to the fireplace in the potting shed, it creates a room, know they will use as they say but it creates a future potential for conversion to a dwelling unit, this area should be added to the house. Chairman Deal noted we are seeing more people who want accessory structures to look better; he addressed the rear storage by reducing the roof height, this reduced bulk, 3.5 feet in width is plenty to store things in; regarding placing the structure in front of the rear 30%, he is using the existing location, there is a wide driveway which provides a big side setback so a future addition to the house can be within the declining height envelope; have to provide 4 feet between structures so expansion of house would be limited where garage is; fireplace is going too far for a potting shed/work room, and causes this to take on a character beyond that of an accessory structure; sheet rock inside is OK; so moved to approve side setback variance for placing the -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 garage in front of the rear 30 % of the lot for the reasons stated; reducing the bulk of the structure is to the city's advantage; special permit for recreation use is not detrimental to the neighborhood with the fireplace removed; adjoining neighbor has no problem with the landscaping increased, add a condition that requires planting to soften the wall and removes the fireplace by resolution with conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: no problem with accessory structure having occasional use, design is very nice, nicer than some homes, so aesthetically pleasing with phone jacks, many electrical outlets, pretty french doors, if it was in my backyard I would use it all the time, perfect office or design studio, unfair to neighbors will vote no. If use is changed to office, what would they need, to amend the conditional use permit such change usually occurs on complaint; no problem with variance is consistent with proposed code change but could make few feet shorter and would not need variance; fish pond is going to be disturbed during construction no matter what; to me fireplace is OKay, but use as a garden workshop is not convincing, well laid out for office use especially since the house is so small; application shows limited use, have way to stop more potting shed use recorded with deed, future buyers will know limitations; fireplace sets up for some other use, phone jack is not an issue. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with conditions to eliminate the fireplace and provide planting on property line for the adjacent neighbor. The motion failed on a 2-3-2 (Cers. Key, Luzuriaga and Vistica dissenting; Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent). C. Vistica moved to deny the application without prejudice based on the fact that the variance is not necessary to the project and the definition of the garden workshop in the accessory structure is too vague. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Deal advised the applicant of his rights to appeal; the appeal period ends September 9, 1998. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SOLID ROOF COVERING OVER AN ENTRANCE OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1411 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (VICTOR GRAY, APPLICANT AND ARTOUR KATANSKI AND NADIA SHEIBANI, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 08.24.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the commission on the staff report. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Victor Gray, representing the property owner, noted an error in the staff report the metal post supporting the roof over the door is 2 inches by 2 -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 inches not 2 feet by 2 feet; they are upgrading the building and trying to increase the comfort for the tenants and their guests; the face of the building was placed at the front setback line, the stair case was allowed to extend into the setback, will not extend the roof covering into the front setback beyond the existing staircase; the covering will look as if it was a part of the original building. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key moved to approve the front setback variance for the roof over the front entry because it improves the quality of life in the building, provides safer access to the front door and mail, will improve the looks of the building by providing variation along the front facade and it will not affect the neighbors, 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 date stamped July 23, 1998, Sheets 1-8 (11" x 17") and that any change to the size or support of the roof covering or railing shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the area covered by the solid roof covering shall not be enclosed and the improvements shall be painted to match the existing building; and 3) that this 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: the record should show there is little alternative to the variance since the building was built at the front setback and the access stair into the setback. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with conditions; the motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Reference staff report, 08.24.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. conditions were recommended for consideration. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND REVISIONS TO THE R-1 ZONE REGULATION. Public Hearing and Action on Design Review Process and Revisions to the R-1 Zoning District Regulations CP Monroe reviewed briefly the two items before the Planning Commission and how the revisions to the R-1 district regulations suggested at the study meeting had been incorporated. CA Anderson noted that this would go forward to the City Council as two ordinance, one for the design review process and one for the R-1 district regulation changes, because Council must act on the design review process by their second meeting in September in order for a seamless movement from the interim regulations to the permanent ones. The C.P noted that because of the time constraint a third ordinance extending the existing interim regulations for some months would also be included, to give Council the flexibility they might need in the review of the -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 process. The CA pointed out that the Commission's action was one: of recommendation to Council. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comments by the commission: Commission reviewed the proposed design review process and the corrections to the R-1 district regulations and suggested some editing changes to clarify wording regarding window enclosures in the declining height section, use of a preposition in the declining height section referring to the point of departure, replacement of the words "habitable area" with "improved space" in item 6 of the declining height section, and modifying the definition of bedroom to define the minimum area as being "70 square feet with no dimension less than 7 feet" rather than referring to the California Building Code which continues to change. The commissioners discussed at length the definition of "trellis" and decided to approve it as it was written. C. Key moved to recommend the design review panel process and the changes to the R-1 district regulations as modified this evening to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Coffey and Keighran absent) vote. Staff asked the commission for a clarification of the meaning of the conditions presently being included in the commission's design review actions. Currently there is a condition which includes in the approval the plans submitted, reviewed by the design reviewer and acted on by the city. It is staff s understanding that the inclusion of this condition means that the applicant cannot change any part, including an area on the first floor, of the structure without returning to the planning commission for re -approval. The commissioners agreed, noting that some time after the construction has been completed and is in place, an owner could make a first floor only addition without another design review, but since the existing first floor is an integral part of the review for the second floor addition, if a change is made to the first floor only before the project is built and finaled, then surely it requires design review. There is also a standing condition that puts applicants on notice that any change to the second floor in the future would also require design review. Commission felt that this was appropriate. PLANNER REPORTS CA Anderson ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Key moved for adjournment; the motion was seconded by C. Vistica. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. MINUTES8.24 Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary NO