Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082304PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 23, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the August 23, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:07 p.m. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1417/1419 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What is the maximum FAR that can be built on this site? • How will the use of the second floor of the accessory structure be divided between the two residences; who will get to use the recreation room? • Why was the accessory structure located where it is proposed? • Could the applicant provide a phone number so it would be possible to schedule an inspection tour, gate was locked when visited. • How was the front property line determined for this land-locked site? What use does the R-2 district allow, this is an extraordinary situation which makes it difficult to interpret the code. • Is the Commission approving the landscaping? • With this plan there is potential for several dwelling units, why will the recreation room over the garage or addition not become another dwelling unit? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 2 2. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES (ELLIOT SCHAFFER, APPLICANT; COEN COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Conditions should limit the number of car sales per year from this site to be sure the auto sales does not take over. • What is the type of business done by the other tenant of the building? • Does the lease for this business assign parking spaces? • Signage for this new tenant should not include car sales because it is a retail use. Also there should be no sales signs on the cars. Feel that the number of sales per year should be limited to 10. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. 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. 3A. 1570 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3B. 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW RETAIL TENANT (SMITH AND HAWKEN, APPLICANT; SILMA GONZALEZ, ASHDOWN DOWNEY LLP, ARCHITECT; CAPITAL REALTY GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran 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 report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1(C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 615 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID AND ARLEEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PIERLUIGI SERRAINO, DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 3 Reference staff report August 23, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. David Cauchi, property owner, noted that the existing house contains three bedrooms, also noted that there is an error on the plans regarding the bathroom window at the rear, revised plans note that the bathroom window was reduced to 36" x 36"', window will actually be 74" x 28" in size. Commission noted that at the last meeting it was suggested that the shed dormer at the rear of the house be offset on the west elevation, feel that it can be easily done, would be a big difference in composition, would read like a dormer, why was it not done? Property owner noted that he reviewed the suggestion with his structural engineer, engineer believes that offsetting the dormer is not a structurally sound option, this portion of the building is not visible except to the next door neighbor. Commission noted that the west elevation was visible from the street when driving by the site, not difficult to offset the dormer as suggested, disappointed that it was not done. Continued discussion: Commission noted that there is a lot of articulation on the west elevation, this elevation is not that massive; respect the structural engineer's comments about offsetting the wall, this side of the house is not highly visible, can support project as proposed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2004, sheets A.01 and A.02, and date stamped August 6, 2004, sheets A.03 through A.06; 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; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s June 1, 2004 memo and Recycling Specialist's June 2, 2004, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 4 5. 818 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVE RANDAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD AND NANCY SCIUTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (97 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report August 23, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for a clarification regarding the landscaping, Sheet 1.1 shows landscaping on either side of the front walkway, however the photo in the staff report shows paving, which one is correct? Plr Hurin noted that the photo was outdated since it was taken several months ago, can have applicant clarify further. Commission noted that the shading comparison of the existing and proposed house on sheet 3.1 was very helpful. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Steve Randel, designer, 1655 Mission Street #529, San Francisco, noted that the changes to the side of the house were made as suggested by the Commission, clarified that there will be landscaping on both sides of the front walkway at the front of the lot. Commission noted that there are three bedrooms in the house, can be flexible with the existing garage since only one covered space is required, the garage takes up so much of the rear yard space, should consider reducing the size of the garage in the future; Commission pointed out that the north arrow is incorrectly shown on the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the addition is modest and blends in well with the existing house and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 22, 2004, sheets 1.1 through 3.1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 7, 2004 shall be met; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 5 Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 6. 745 LEXINGTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WALT WORTHGE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN WACHHORST, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report August 23, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that condition #7 requires the roof height to be surveyed, how will the FAR be similarly checked during construction so that it is not exceeded? CP Monroe noted that the building inspectors will ensure that the footprint and walls are built according to the plans. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Walt Worthge, designer, 21 Avila Road, San Mateo, noted that the roof height was lowered by 18 inches by removing the first floor barreled ceiling. Commission noted that the top of the first floor plate is at 8'-4" and the top of the second floor is at 10'-6", typically see 1'-2" space rather than 2'-2" as proposed, why do you need 2'-2"? Designer noted that he likes to separate the ceiling joists and second floor floor-joists to provide an additional 1'-0" for heating ducts and plumbing pipes. Commission noted that the proportions are much better with the revised plans, project looks better. Commission asked if the existing hedges will be retained at the front of the lot? Designer noted that the hedges will be removed for the addition, have not thought about replacement landscaping. Commission noted that there needs to be something to bring more focus to the front door, can be done with landscaping on each side; designer agreed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that the project was greatly improved through the design review process and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 21, 2004, Sheets 1 through 7 site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the landscaping at the front of the house shall be designed to enhance the front entrance door; the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 6 a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official’s memos dated June 4, 2004 shall be met; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: would like to see a condition added which requires the front yard landscaping be designed to bring focus to the front entrance, and that the landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 7. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the property. The City Attorney also recused himself because he was involved in an enforcement action on a neighboring property which involved the same applicant. C. Keighran and the City Attorney left the chambers. Reference staff report August 23, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She also entered into the record a memo from the City Traffic Engineer, dated August 20, 2004, prepared at the request of neighbor Mrs. Garcia, in which he reviews the study and its conclusions prepared by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project, he noted that he had not expected that the discussion on this project would come down to the location of the driveway. He noted that he had located the driveway on the south (left) side of the house for what he felt were three obvious reasons: there would be fewer cars at the end of the block; it would be better for 1552 Drake because it would be easier to use their driveway; and it would benefit the houses at the "dead" end of the street. These observations were supported by the professional traffic engineer the Commission directed them to hire to evaluate the circulation. He submitted pictures to support his observations. In picture A it shows a car parked in the one spot that the Garcia's are concerned about, if the driveway is on the north side will have to juggle around. Picture B shows how the driveways currently converge and the potential for vehicular contact. He also noted that he had prepared a shadow study. Commissioners asked: in picture B where would the curb cut be located? would replace in front of both 1553 and 1557 in the public right of way; feel it would be better to move the driveway to the north side of the house based on the test that the people who live there say not on the south side and they are the ones who will have to live with it? Architect noted that both the private consultant and the City Engineer supported relocation to the south, will be safer; thought that the shadow study was thorough and clear. Comments from the public: Janet and Jay Garcia, 1557 and 1561 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1561 Drake. Upset that the City Traffic Engineer visited the site without contacting her and talking to her in the field as did the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 7 consulting traffic engineer; if there is not a red curb in front of the proposed house, she will not be able to get out of her driveway because the car has to clear her front steps before it can begin to turn, also will be impossible if a car is parked in the proposed apron area; in 23 years she has never had a problem turning using the existing converging driveways. If have second car in the driveway in front of garage door, can't go right without going all the way to the middle of the street, often back in so able to pull out; if one has an emergency with children will delay because have to maneuver in/out; for 22 years never had a problem, including when all three houses occupied; why did the developer not ask them in the beginning? Opposed to losing on-street parking, the proposed new houses are bigger and will need place to put cars. Study prepared does not address delivery trucks who use the combined driveway to turn around at the end of the street; lived there almost 20 years, back into driveway so sure children playing at end of street are safe when pull out; the 5 driveways at the end of the block create a "de facto" cul-de-sac; someone maliciously built a fence between 1557 and 1561 which makes it harder to maneuver at the end of the block; need to consider the credibility of the applicant, asked previously to look at this as a four unit subdivision, has not abided by the construction requirements regarding trucks off street on lot 11, even if allowed to build here will he abide by the conditions of approval, the de facto cul-de-sac has worked for 20 years, not need to change now. Commissioners asked property owners: in your view if the driveway is placed on the south as proposed would it hurt your property value? Not thought about, will change the way we live there; if it were harder to get out? guess it would affect value as a safety issue if you have a family. You are the property owner of 1557? yes. Would it hurt the value of 1557 to relocate the driveway to the south side? 1557 is next door to the new house, it would block the view from the side windows, value is not an issue have raised or plan to raise. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: feel that this is the wrong site location for the building, take the neighbors seriously, may not be the aesthetic solution but it has worked for them for 20 years, its common sense since the street was built as a dead end; feel property values of both 1557 and 1561 will be impaired by building in the proposed configuration especially when there is an alternative, like the building design it’s the location which is unworkable. Disagree, even neighbor said no property loss, in fact believe new houses will enhance value; neighbors have created a fog over loosing a parking space, experts reports say that the location to the south will increase safety, there are still five driveways at the end of the street. Agree that adding pretty new houses will improve value whether driveway on left or right. But there will be significant movement problems created and that will impair the value of the driveway and parking of 1557 and 1561. Traffic reports state driveway safer on the south side; accident opportunity is slight only if cars backing out of driveways at the same time; study did not address delivery trucks, configured as it is now (north side) is safer for those types of vehicles; concerned with the impact of shadows of the new house on the house next door, particularly 1553 at the north edge would caste significant shadows on next door house located on an odd shaped lot and would affect where new development on this lot would be located, the shadow impact should be borne by the new house on lot 11; prefer driveway on the north side. Would like to leave action open for architect to make change. Design is tasteful, nice elevations. This house is nicely designed, confident architect can do another as nicely, recognize it is not as easy as flipping the current design, would not encourage flipping the current design. C. Bojués noting the present house is nicely designed and that the architect is very capable, can do a suitable design with the driveway relocated to the south, moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: regarding the design, think that the second floor deck at the rear is big enough to affect the privacy of the neighbors using their back yards, should make deck smaller; asking for a special City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 8 permit for height, 31'-10" with a 12:12 pitch roof, feel could lower the first floor plate 6" and reduce the mass and bulk some. Commission discussed briefly the alternatives for action. CP noted that if the item were denied without prejudice it is an action and the applicant can appeal to the city council if he wishes. If the item is continued there is no action and the applicant may return with a new design to the Planning Commission. There are no additional planning fees in either case. C. Bojués, maker of the motion, moved to amend his motion to deny without prejudice, to a motion to continue action on the item to allow the applicant to respond to the issues raised by the Commission, particularly the relocation of the driveway to the north side of the property. C. Brownrigg, the second on the motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to continue this item until the applicant had had an opportunity to revise the plans and relocate the driveway to the north side of the property. The motion to continue the item passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent) roll call vote. C. Osterling noted that this action is not appealable, and revised plans will be brought back to the commission as soon as they have been submitted and plan checked by staff. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dias and took her seat. CA Anderson also returned to the chambers and took his seat. 8. 1411 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A WALL SIGN ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING WHICH ABUTS AN ADJACENT PRIVATELY OWNED PARCEL (KYLE BACH, SITE ENHANCEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT; RONALD KARP, PROPERTY OWNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report August 23, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is a limit on illumination the sign with this application? No. Commission also asked if the proposed sign would create a sight line variance? No, there is no burden created on the adjacent property with this sign proposal. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kyle Bach, applicant, 3601 W. Lathrop Drive, South Bend, Indiana, noted that they found that the building was offset five inches from the side property line, so reduced the width of the sign to five inches so that it does not extend across the property line, original design had sign extending onto the adjacent property; submitted copy of lease agreement with the adjacent property owner for the overhanging sign which documented that they allowed the encroachment, not necessary now since the sign does not extend across property line. Commission asked about the maintenance of the sign, does the agreement allow access to the sign from the adjacent property? Yes. Commission asked if the existing and proposed signs would be lit all night? Applicant noted that he thinks the existing signs are lit all night, the proposed sign would also be lit all night. Commission noted that sign illumination can be limited with a timer. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the wall sign (E3) (2'-1" x 10'-5", 22 SF in area) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 10, 2004, sheet 1-10 (8½" x 14" sheet); 2) that the wall sign (E3) on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 9 the northeast wall shall have a maximum depth of 5-inches from face of the sign can to wall of the building and that the maximum height of Sign E3 shall be 29'-0"; that any illumination shall be confined within the can and face of the sign; 3) that the proposed sign shall not extend over the shared side property line between 1411 Chapin Avenue and 1420 Burlingame Avenue, nor shall the sign be installed, repaired or maintained from the adjacent property without written permission; 4) that the property owner at 1420 Burlingame Avenue shall not be responsible for any damage which may occur to the wall sign (E3) on the northeast wall of the building at 1411 Chapin Avenue; 5) that the placement of the proposed sign in the approved location shall not vest any rights to the property owner of 1411 Chapin Avenue which would prevent future development on the adjacent property at 1420 Burlingame Avenue; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: would like to see only the sign on the front of the building lit all night, other signs on the side of the building should be limited. CA Anderson pointed out that the Commission can only address the proposed sign on the east wall. Commission agreed to place no limit on the illumination of the proposed sign on the east wall. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 716 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND JENNIFER CASTELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked about the removal of the existing Magnolia tree and the Italian Cypress trees in the landscape design, noting that they would be contrasting to other proposed species and should be replaced with something less dramatic. Staff commented that a permit was granted for removal of the Magnolia. Commission also stated that the Crepe Myrtle trees in the front would not properly bloom because of the shade in the area and that other flowering species should be considered. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Alfredo Reyes, applicant and designer, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, submitted a list of neighbors who were in favor of the project; that the addition is consistent with the existing home, the surrounding neighborhood and that it looks like only one story from the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: • Think the project is a beautiful design and appreciate how the mass of the home is set back from the street; • Concern with the privacy of the neighbors and the lack of detail along both side elevations; • Suggested breaking up the side elevations by adding a trellis with vines growing up it, adding windows along the garage wall and extending the stone veneer along the sides further towards the rear of the property; • A fence along the right hand side of the property would visually break up the side elevation; • A landscape plan should be submitted as part of the resubmittal. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 10 C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 10. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BOB KOTMEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer, 405 Bayswater Ave, spoke in favor of the second story addition which meets the needs of his client’s growing family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners asked that the applicant address the following: • What material is the proposed chimney made of? • The random placement of the windows along the right side elevation should be more organized; • There should be an overhang over the proposed front entryway; • A full set of landscape plans should be provided for the action meeting; • The windows and doors should be true divided light; • The applicant should submit studies of alternative heights for the front entry tower, the plan should reflect his preferred choice; • The size of the corbels should be increased to help the design. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1444 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREW YOUNG, YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID CROSATTO, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Don Crosatto, property owner, stated that he grew up in this house and was given the house by his father, his father will live with his family in the remodeled house. Andrew Young, applicant and architect, 261 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA, stated that a reduction was made in the originally proposed FAR because of the inclusion of the basement area in the calculation. The side was trimmed to avoid a variance for driveway width. He also stated that a neighborhood meeting was held , 9 neighbors attended to take a look at the project. Only one neighbor expressed any concern, it was City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 11 with privacy. To address, offered to raise the sill height to 5’ which is possible and still meet egress requirement. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked that the applicant address: • The chimney in the front should come down in height; • The front picture window on the right hand side should be dressed up; • A street tree should be added as part of the project; • The second chimney should also be reduced in height, could it be a gas fireplace? C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 12. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND SEATING AREA (RIYAD SALMA, APPLICANT; STAN VISTICA, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Vistica recused himself because he has a financial interest associated with the proposed project. He stepped down from the dias, but stayed in the Chambers to answer questions on the project. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if material samples were requested? No. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Riyad Salma, applicant, 2504 Easton Drive, Burlingame, and Stan Vistica, architect, 24 Arundel Road, noted that the four existing retail spaces which would be combined into one large space are now relatively small, their floor plans are awkward, the buildings’ mechanical systems are outdated, intent is to enhance the building and the vitality of that corner, this is a focal point of the commercial area, are not at the point of choosing specific materials, type of tiles. Commission noted that the materials should be made available since this is a highly visible corner. Architect noted that only change to the exterior would be the tile color and window system, awnings will be canvas and the color will be chosen depending on the tenant. Commission asked if a tenant has been chosen. Applicant noted that a tenant has not been chosen at this time, it is difficult to choose a tenant without having an approved project, however, Italian, Mediterranean and pizza establishments have shown interest, the anticipated number of employees and customers were derived from sampling other food establishments in the area. Commission asked for clarification about how the proposed operable windows will function? Architect noted that they would most likely slide open, since windows cannot encroach into the public right-of-way. Continued discussion: the proposed large food establishment may be a substantial intensification of use at this location, concerned about impacts on parking in the area, asked if valet parking can be required with the project? CP Monroe noted that it can be required if shown that it is needed. Applicant noted that the restaurant would provide valet parking if it would help with parking, could only decide to add valet parking once the restaurant is operating. CA Anderson noted that in the past valet parking program was referred to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 12 the Traffic and Safety Commission for review. Commission noted that the idea of valet parking should be considered. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the design changes are minor, will enhance and revitalize this corner, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: proposed use will be less intense than the existing uses, existing food establishments have no on-site seating and therefore have a higher turnover of customers, proposed restaurant will have on- site seating and customers will stay for a longer time, even the barber shop has a high turnover demand; do not oppose the project, but concerned with the traffic and parking between 5 and 8 pm. CA noted that the Commission can bring back the conditional use permit for review and ask for additional parking information. Commission asked if a review can be required in six months; yes. A six month review is appropriate, especially if a traffic/parking problem were to emerge. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when a materials board has been submitted and noted that conditions of approval should reflect the concerns expressed by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 13. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC., ARCHITECT) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Michael Kastrop, architect, 1101 Main Street, Redwood City, noted that the property was recently sold to a new owner, the existing building is in disrepair, the intent is to improve the building, trying to create an old world European feel, the proposed first floor retail use is a better use for the building. Commission noted that this is a major renovation to the façade, proposal is to reduce the number of windows at the front, is applicant aware of the costs to do the proposed improvements, want to make sure the applicant understands that what the Commission approves must be built, do not want to see the project come back with changes; project looks great, this is a big improvement to the building, would like to see a materials board submitted. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked the project to address: • Submit materials board for project. • Have the comments been addressed from the Fire Department regarding providing a dedicated rear exit for the retail and hotel rooms on the second floor? • Will the hotel residents and retail tenant be using the same trash room? Provide information on the adequacy of the proposed size, check BFI service requirements/frequency. • Who might the retail tenant be? • Concerned that the frequent delivery and trash pick-up area off Hatch Lane will block traffic, like to see comment from the City Engineer regarding this issue; could recommend a limit on delivery hours. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 23, 2004 13 C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information has been provided. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of August 2, 2004, was canceled. - Report on the regular City Council meeting on August 16, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions related to Planning which were taken by the City Council on August 16, 2004. - Planning Commission acknowledged the revisions to chimney material of an approved design review at 2414 Hale Drive. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\08.23.04.unapproved.doc