Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.09.25 Minutes -1- Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 25, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the September 11, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the August 28 and September 11, 2000 regular meetings of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1C(1), 1500 Easton Avenue, 1C(2), 415 El Camino Real, and 1C(3), 1310 Bayswater Avenue, were removed from off the consent calendar and placed on the regular action calendar before Item No. 5, 1720 El Camino Real. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, commented regarding the proposed office project at 999 Howard Avenue. She noted that she is pleased that the applicant chose the office project instead of the self- storage facility, but is still unhappy that a 3-story proposal was submitted rather than two-story, and noted she is curious to see the shadow studies for the proposal; would also like to see information on how many people will be working in the building, would like to see how to make the railroad tracks safer; noted that this is an entrance to our neighborhood and the project could be truly beautiful if it were two story with a hip roof with terra cotta tile. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 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. 1A.2616 HALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DONNA WILLS AND ERIC COLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; WINGES ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -2- 1B.709 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEORGE S. DOLIM, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RAMONA MARTINEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Deal requested that Item No. 1B, 709 Walnut Avenue, be called up for discussion, but noted that if no o ther commissioners had concerns would leave it on consent. No one else requested that the item be pulled off and the item was kept on the consent calendar. C. Bojués moved approval of the balance of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, 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. Keighran. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2.39 BANCROFT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ANTHONY P. MELISSAKIS, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Anthony Melisakis, designer, was available for questions. C. Osterling noted that on the landscape plan, are proposing mesquite and palo verdes, these species will not do too well here, you might consider looking at other species on the City s street tree list, look for large scale species. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal 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 September 1, 2000, sheets A1 through A6; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 3.1528 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARY DUNLAP, DUNLAP DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY L. AND DOLLY R. BAUER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. C. Keighran noted that she will abstain on this item because she lives within 300 feet of the project. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jeff Bauer, 1528 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the balcony on the rear elevation would look better if stucco columns were eliminated, they should be wood, or better, balcony could be cantilevered without posts. The applicant agreed to this change. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -3- Commissioners noted that the project has improved a whole lot since we first saw it. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, including the recommended added condition that the rear balcony shall either be built with no posts and be cantilevered or that the posts shall be timber: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 29, 2000, sheets 1-3, and that any 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 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 rear balcony shall be cantilevered without posts or the posts shall be timber; 4) that the City Engineer’s April 24, 2000, memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: this is an excellent example of the positive results of a project going through the design review process, at the end of the day it is a better project for everybody. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (Cer. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 4.1225 CABRILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GUSTAVO KUBICHEK, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JAMES C. AND MICHELLE FOWLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Fowler, 1225 Cabrillo Avenue, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the project is improved over what was previously submitted, it appears that on the front elevation the gable has a 3 foot overhang, should match other overhangs, it would look better; how are the windows made, details show frame around entire window, are there sills; on east elevation, the second floor window looks like a bay, but on the floor plan, it appears to extend to the floor. The applicant noted that the trim on the new windows would match the existing, the bay window just goes down to the sill, and he agreed to the change in the overhangs on the front elevation. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that this is a great improvement over original project, another case of design review improving a project. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amende d conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 18, 2000, sheets A1-A6, and that any 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 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 if at any time in the future the residential structure is further enlarged or remodeled to require two covered parking spaces, a floor area ratio variance may be required; 4) that the depth of the eaves shall be consistent throughout the building and match the planned depth at the sides and rear; 5) that the style of the new windows (detail around the windows and sills) shall be consistent with the style of the existing windows; 6) that the City Engineer’s April 3, 2000, memo shall be met; and 7) that the project shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -4- meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7 -0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 1C.APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS FAMILY SHELTERS IN THREE EXISTING CHURCHES TO SERVE HOMELESS FAMILIES: 1. 1500 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1/R-3 (REV. DR. PAUL WATERMULDER, FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 2. 415 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-3 (RECTOR WARDENS, VESTRY, ST. PAUL S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 3. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED C-1 (REV. ALBERT VUCINOVICH, ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, APPLICANT; MOST REV. WILLIAMS LEVADA, PROPERTY OWNER) 5.1720 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED C-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CENTER FACILITY TO SERVE HOMELESS FAMILIES (REV. CHANNING SMITH, SAN MATEO COUNTY INTERFAITH, APPLICANT; MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff reports, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration for each of the church site applications. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Chad Smith of the Transfiguration Episcopal Church and spokesman for the Interfaith Hospitality Network, project applicant, noted that a year ago, the religious community decided to respond to the issue of homelessness in San Mateo County and looked at the model used in ot her communities by the Interfaith Hospitality Network, the program uses existing space, is smart, low cost, dependent on community support; the program in San Mateo County would include 9 host sites, each site would host 3 -4 families for one week every two and one-half months, families in need of housing are triple-screened, program will not take families with substance abuse or domestic violence issues; the proposed day center would provide case management, laundry and shower facilities, there are now two other day service or care facilities in this building, Senior Focus and an Alzheimer’s care facility; housing for young working families is also a health care issue, they need help to address their circumstances; there are 30 families now on the waiting list, children do not adjust well to the homeless experience, found overwhelming support in the community, those wearing IHN stickers in the audience are in support of program, also received support from Mills Peninsula Hospital, and are working in partnership with Shelter Networks. Commissioners asked: families will be at any of the locations for one week, will it be the same group of families at the different facilities each week; is Burlingame the first place they have applied for use permits; since the center is a day center, not day care center, what happens with the kids during the day, what do families do at day center if not working; is there a track record of how long it takes to initiate a life plan, if family returns over and over is there another method used to help; what is the logic for moving families week to week. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -5- Applicant response: families would stay in the program until there is room in First Step for Families or in permanent housing; churches in program will only provide place to sleep and meals, showers will be at day center; there will be 3-5 families at any facility at one time; have applied and received approval for use permits in San Mateo, Redwood City did not require use permits; parents are responsible for their own children, some are in day care or go to school, some parents take care of children at center; working parents will be driving to work during the day, use center as time to rest, put together life plan, create structure to move in a particular direction tends to take about 30 days, may take longer because of housing issue in this area; Call Primrose and First Step for Families provide other programs, families are moved week to week to reduce the impact on the community, other programs at the churches only need to take a week off. Reverend Dr. Paul Watermulder, 325 Barriohlet, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Reverend Daniel Nascimento, 1310 Bayswater Avenue, Associate Pastor at St. Catherine’s Church, and Reverend Stuart Coxhead, Rector for St. Paul s Episcopal Church, spoke about the program as it would be at each of their churches; searched for most responsible way to address issue of housing on Peninsula, minister to families in transition, sent letters to people within walking distance of the church, after meeting held at First Presbyterian Church with 35 neighbors, everyone was supportive; do not intend to expand program; done research on legal background of IHN, checked out okay, other programs at churches have had concerns with parking and noise, if neighbors alert church to problem will respond immediately; homeless carries stigma, there is concern for fears from congregation, once understand it is functional families, concerns are alleviated, although there are risks, we will accept risks because see value of bringing hope and stability, children given the attention they need, love and affirmation to get family back on their feet. Public Comment: Janet Uliana, 25 East Carol Avenue, Yvonne Lembi-Detert, 1465 Burlingame Avenue, George Zannis, 1515 Carol Avenue, Lynn Linardon, 143 Dwight Road, Louise Natoli, 117 Bancroft Road, Bob Johnston, 1133 Killarney Lane, Doreen Campanilo, 1620 Howard Avenue, and Mario Palani spoke in opposition to the proposal at St. Catherine’s Church; it looks like this will occur more often than every 2 months, men’s restroom is located outside the main building to be used for the homeless program, there will be conflict with ongoing evening activities, concern with health and safety of children at St. Catherine’s, how will triple screening work, how do we know they are not HIV positive, will not leave needles strewn in playground, when program is at St. Catherine’s, children in school will not have hot lunches, students should have right to use all facilities at school, there could be other ideas such as job fairs, having children donate food and clothing, or put facility at senior center; taking people in that cannot afford to live here, bringing people in to try to find housing is impossible, will have to stay on list for a long time; how can we be guaranteed that people won’t be coming to the facilities and knocking on the doors to be let in, how will volunteer people be trained to deal with this; would gladly help anywhere that wasn’t used by kids, what does medical screening consist of, thought medical records were confidential, concerned that there is only one bathroom in facility, no hot water; can there be settlement if all parties brought together, try to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction. Terri Malaspina, 1512 Chapin Avenue, Mark Metcalf, 401 Occidental Avenue, Steve Shive, 1525 Chapin Avenue, Scott Mason, 344 Occidental Avenue, 405 Occidental Avenue, and Richard Jones, 407 Occidental Avenue, expressed opposition to the proposal at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church; there is no guarantee that there will not be problems, there are no controls, idea will snowball; statistics show that at least half of the homeless have drug/alcohol problems, there is risk that mistakes will be made in screening, monitoring of program will fall on homeowners, request that all screening information be given to neighbors, needs to be recourse if program doesn’t go smoothly, people need to live where they can afford to live, not one person that lives directly across from facilities is in favor, if something goes wrong, people next door will be affected. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -6- Tony Dicenzo, 1320 Castillo Avenue, Virginia Pegley 1344 Vancouver Avenue, and Sally Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue, spoke regarding the facility at the First Presbyterian Church; at first there were concerns, church has been responsive, will work with neighbors to resolve issues; want to know if any other locations were explored, why does it need to be in a residential neighborhood; support program, looking forward to opportunity of sharing the volunteer experience with my children, they will see that not everyone has benefits they do; can see them playing with these kids, see that these families are not that different from the rest of us; presented a petition signed by 60 neighbors in opposition. Cheryl Johnstone, 1148 Dufferin Avenue, Mario Knapic, 1108 Dufferin Avenue, Jonathan Gemora, 1104 Dufferin Avenue, Michael Lennon, 1128 Hamilton Lane, Grace Wu, 1132 Dufferin Avenue, Jim Hansen, 1116 Dufferin, and Edward Chen, 1113 Dufferin Avenue, spoke in opposition to the day center at 1720 El Camino Real; the proposed day center will be bad for the neighborhood, add more problems to the ones we already have, there are already buses for the two senior centers at that location, say program will include a few families, soon will have homeless all over area; like to see credentials of people running the program, concern with safety of children. Mary Watt, Call Primrose, 139 Primrose Road, Ellen Judd, 500 El Camino Real, Wendy Verba, 1548 Ralston Avenue, John Anderson, 702 Newhall Road, Ariana Spiegler, 1445 Bellevue Avenue, Diane Linn, 1720 El Camino Real, Director of IHN Network, Marsha Jensen, IHP Coordinator for Saint Catherine’s, Beth Southorn, 325 Villa Terrace, San Mateo, First Step for Families, Tim Fox, 1020 Paloma Avenue, Theresa Webb, Charlene Schmitz, 1237 Bellevue Avenue, Jonas Harschel, 8 Mariposa Court, Howard Page, 111 Central Avenue, Tom Roberts, 474 Cumberland Avenue, Homeless Coordinator for San Mateo County, John Carson, 500 El Camino Real, Carolyn Parker, 733 Lexington Way, Clarence Cravalho, 1265 Vancouver Avenue, Brian Moriarty, 340 Occidental Avenue, commented in support of the program; there are families in crisis waiting to get in to Shelter Network, have no option but to live in cars on the streets; this program will give place to sleep to 14 people; support program, should be concerned with health and safety of all children; hope can live in community that can do this, is minimally intrusive, live in time where teachers, police officers cannot afford to live here; concerns seem to be fear of unknown, we come into contact with homeless everyday; children in program are in school/day care during the day, there is a model for this program nationwide, any family that is not in compliance will be exited, goal is to get people into permanent housing; there will be 6 to 8 volunteers on site between 6:00 and 9:30 p.m., after that there are still volunteers there; will occur six times a year at each facility; in First Step for Families program, 85% of families served found permanent housing, this population is willing to overcome the situation, want to go to school, average child in program is seven year old girl, talking about children that need nurturing, support, education; 75 other cities have had this program, felt that all concerns have been addressed; should be tried for a year and reviewed; would be happy that if my children were in trouble, the church would help in this way; we have so much would like to share it with people with problems; participants are people that have resided in San Mateo County; can there be security personnel on site. Mary Watt, of Call Primrose, Beth Southorn of First Step for Families, and Diane Lynn, Director of IHN Network, offered comments on the concerns raised; regarding length of stay, whether they are the same 14 people or different, should be no concern; people cannot walk in for services, have to be referred by First Step for Families; first step is to go to Call Primrose, they identify the appropriate program for the family, start the screening process; all people doing the screening are trained in this field, look for patterns, consistency. Commissioners asked: how are criminal and health records accessed, is a complete background check done, how long does it take; criminal and medical records are confidential how do you obtain records; how do you deal with people who walk up on the street; are only San Mateo County residents eligible, how far back do you check. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -7- Applicant response: complete background check is done, doesn’t take weeks, matter of one or two days, people sign releases for medical and criminal records, if they don’t sign, would not be accepted in program, only San Mateo County residents are eligible, look at entire life history, do thorough check, in existing programs, people don’t walk up to facilities. Further comments: majority who come to program are first-time homeless, families give permission to check with physicians, landlords and employers; similar program in Los Altos, City Council supports and participates in program and property values are not an issue; all volunteers receive at least 3 hours training and have coordinators with much more training, families will not be performing functions different from parishioners, will be using health precautions normally used; homeless sometimes come up to churches now, when they do they are referred to agencies such as Call Primrose. Further commission questions: at day center, when people look for housing, do they look only in this area or outside as well, have there been any adverse affects in other areas with this program; concern with children attending schools associated with churches, would there be opportunity for interaction, what is the age range of children in program; what happens at 1720 El Camino Real between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; what would prevent homeless people who are not in program from coming to facility; do they anticipate placing people in affordable housing in this area; will families be socializing with their friends at the day facility. Applicant responses: people are encouraged to look for housing both inside and outside this area; in 5 years, there were no complaints with the program in Cincinnati, the impact on the community has been positive with participation; there is no overlap with school in the use of facilities, they would be on the same site but in different rooms, there is no criteria on age of children, but average is a 7 year old female; San Mateo program has not yet started, need all facilities in place before program can start; most family members will be at jobs or in school during the day, use day center for showers/laundry, some parents will spend a portion of the day at center, will be doing job hunting, apartment hunting, case management, making plans to get back on their feet; will not allow walk-in traffic, must have a referral, people at facilities will be sleeping in tents and on roll-away beds, people will not be beating doors down to get in, are just providing basics of safety, shelter and food; people in this circumstance generally are not interested in socializing at center, more pressing issues to think about. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission comment: when read packet and listened to comments, found program is well-intentioned, not 100% convinced that there are not still concerns; may be best to postpone action to get questions answered, support the program in Burlingame, there are still some misunderstandings, gaps in information; good program, but understand apprehension, if some questions answered and if groups could get together, maybe concerns could be mitigated, would like to get information on success of programs in other areas, more information on the three-step screening process, qualifications of staff; provide records from other communities, have there been any police calls, what happens if someone not in the program arrives at church; consider reviewing project after a year and see what can be improved; this is an opportunity to show our children, future citizens how well off they are; these are families that have lived in county; understand parent’s concerns, issues at St. Catherine’s need to be addressed. C. Osterling made a motion to continue the hearing on these applications to the Commission ’s October 23, 2000 meeting, provided the information requested is gathered and the applicant communicates with others in community to try and address concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. The commission took a break until 10:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -8- 6.1010 CADILLAC WAY - ZONED C-2 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE FOR NOT ENCLOSING THE SALES LOT FOR A FIRST FLOOR EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; E. JAMES HANNAY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. CE noted that the construction of the traffic light at Rollins and Cadillac Way will take place at the end of November. Commission asked how long will construction last. CE noted that it will take about 4 - 5 months for the construction of the signal. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ken Rodriquez, architect and James Hannay, applicant, were available for questions. The architect noted that the commission asked them to look at a few things, the lighting plan has been revised, presented photo and display boards showing the proposed lighting; there will be lighting at night inside the facilities, the only new signage will be on the building; the aluminum panels proposed are not highly reflective, using warmer tones, with a metallic panel around the top; regarding landscaping, propose to remove the 3 eucalyptus trees, they are in bad shape, propose hedge around vehicle display area, part of this hedge and all trees are on land leased from the City within the road right-of-way, propose to replace the trees with 5 large specimen palm trees evenly spaced, there would be no increase in the intensity of the exterior lighting; concerned with the condition regarding loading and unloading cars on Cadillac Way, will make sure that two curb side parking spaces next to driveways are clear during times of deliveries, when vehicles are unloaded, delivered cars need to be inspected immediately, so unloading needs to occur adjacent to the facility, has successfully off-loaded vehicles on Cadillac Way for a long time. Commissioners asked: regarding the landscaping, could the applicant work with the City Arborist to come up with another vertical tree species besides Palm trees; this is the entrance to Burlingame, need to have a tree that fits; regarding lighting, there is a tendency to light the building so that it becomes a sign, would that be done in this case; area needs to be improved, the building part of the proposal is fine, landscape edge and lighting are important, palm tree is not the right species, maybe consider redwood, describe the type of lighting that will be used; explain the proposed block wall; how often are cars off loaded on Cadillac and how long does it take, how many parking spaces would be affected, who parks in these short-term spaces now; why can’t off loading be done at the storage lot on the Caltrain right-of-way. Applicant response: willing to look at other species of trees as long as they are vertical; lighting inside the building will be incandescent spotlights and recessed lights that will not spill a lot of light, will light up cars, exterior lighting will not change, will provide low level of light, there will be no exterior light shining on the building; will use a low level back light for signs, all interior lighting will be incande scent, not that bright, showroom will have some lighting during the evening, will be lamped down when closed, want something elegant and subtle; 50 -75 foot- candles when opened, dropped by to 1/3 when closed, will close at 6:00 p.m.; the 6' high masonry wall proposed on west property line is intended to block the view of the neighboring building, will be a textured finish; there are 8 autos per truck in the vehicle carriers, takes about 25 to 50 minutes to off-load; happens about 2-3 times a week; the Caltrain storage lot is a half-mile away, there is no electrical service and no technicians, vehicles have to be inspected immediately; the cars could be off-loaded using two parking spaces and temporarily blocking the driveways, there are other exits which can be used during deliveries; the two spaces on street are now used by our customers, there is a 20-minute time limit on those spaces; think it can be policed as it is now, have been off-loading here for 33 years. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -9- The commission noted that there is a concern that with the new signal, Cadillac Way will have more traffic, there is a need to get transport trucks out of the travel way; regarding the trees, there are some species of eucalyptus that are neat, tidy and fast growing, would fit nicely; commissioners asked if proposed signage is within code, and asked where employees will park. CP Monroe noted that because of the existing large pole sign on site, any change to the signage will require a sign exception. The applicant noted they will not remove the pole sign and that as far as the size of the proposed signs, they are within what the code allows without the pole sign. There is a parking plan and designated areas on site for employee parking or they will park at the storage lot, there have been no problems in the past with employees parking in the surrounding area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that when first saw the proposal, had concerns, looked futuristic, lighting was a concern, the issues have been answered and with a different species of tree, proposal will work. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 15, Sheets 1-6, and Landscape Plan as shown on the Site Plan; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s August 8, May 31, and May 4, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, height of the building, or to the Landscape Plan shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that the applicant shall work with the Public Works Department so that temporary loading and unloading of vehicle can occur using two curbside parking spaces along Cadillac Way between the two existing driveways; 5) that irrigation shall be provided for the 3' tall hedge along Broadway and Rollins Road, and that an irrigation plan shall be submitted at time of building permit application to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; the 3' tall hedge and irrigation shall be installed before final inspection occurs; 6) that the applicant shall be required to apply for a permit from the Parks Department to remove the three eucalyptus trees along Rollins Road and the replacement tree shall not be palm trees and shall be approved by the City Arborist; that the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of any new tree planted in the public right-of-way area, and that before any new tree is installed, an inspection shall be made by the City Arborist to confirm that the planting area is large enough to adequately sustain the trees to be planted; 7) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 8) that all runoff from the parking lot, roof-top parking area, and landscaped areas shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project’s property owner; 9) that all site and roof drainage shall be filtered through oil separator drains and be directed to the street frontage on Rollins Road and Cadillac Way; 10) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction as required by the BAAQMD and City Engineer; 11) that before demolition and construction, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 12) that the applicant shall pay for the relocation of the stop controlled limit line on Cadillac Way if the traffic signal facilities are not in place and operational before completion of the showroom expansion; the location and striping of the limit line on Cadillac Way shall be designed to meet the current code standards and must be approved by the City Engineer; 13) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035); 14) that no structure shall be built over the existing sanitary sewer line or any other public utility on the site; 15) that the existing sanitary sewer line shall be relocated at the developer’s expense away from the proposed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -10- addition, and an adequate number of manholes and cleanouts shall be installed as part of the relocation; the portion of the existing sewer line to be relocated shall be televised prior to its relocation; and that the City Engineer shall review and approve all plans and construction before the city accepts it and a final inspection is scheduled; 16) that the existing sewer line shall be abandoned in place with sand backfill or removed completely as approved by the City Engineer; 17) that a new sanitary sewer easement shall be dedicated for the relocated sewer line constructed by the applicant at his expense and the existing easement shall be vacated; the new easement shall allow for access on private property and for maintenance of the sanitary sewer line; 18) that the project developer shall coordinate the relocation of the sewer line with the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, Engineering Division, during its planning, design and construction; 19) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary; 20) that the proposed project shall comply with Ordinance 1477 limiting exterior Illumination and all lights including signage, except low level security lighting as approved by the City Engineer, shall be turned off at the end of the business day or no later than 10 p.m. daily; and 21) that should any cultural, archaeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated, and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 7.1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED O-M - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FRONT SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 77-ROOM HOTEL WHICH EXCEEDS THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE O-M ZONE, AND TO VARY FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT (SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LEE GAGE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the staff report and plans revised September 17, 2000, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: number of compact parking stalls seems to have shifted back and forth what is the number now proposed, 12; are NPDES requirements addressed, yes in conditions 10 and 15. C. Dreiling noted that he had exchanged a number of phone calls and faxes with the applicant regarding the porte cochere. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Lee Gage, 7636 N. Ingram, Fresno, and Anut Patel, property owner, represented the project, noting tried to accommodate the Commission’s concerns, moved the hotel closer to the street, increased landscaping at the rear, lowered the porte cochere removed the plaster and reduced the size of the columns and proportionally reduced the size of the posts on the trellis at the front and increased the visibility from the street by adding windows. Commissioners discussed with the applicant: exterior lighting - included down lighting in the porte cochere, light walls with wall packs or property line lights directed at the structure, one foot candle lights in all parking areas; landscaping plans show sycamores, these trees are subject to windshear and may not like the salt filled clay - will select other species of trees; several locations at the side and rear of the building where there are recessed doors for pedestrians to enter can these be called out using a repeat of the trellis structure at the front which will carry that design theme around - can incorporate; do not see the 12 foot sidewalk at the front next to the street - area of stamped concrete at front could not continue to property line because sidewalk would end into the wall of a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -11- building, it needed to be tapered down to the existing 5 foot sidewalks at each side property line, another problem was the reduction in front landscaped area caused by the wider sidewalk across the site which increased the front landscaping exception; CE noted that there is only 8 feet between the curb and the edge of the street right-of-way at this location; CA noted that the part of the side walk on private property (inside of the 8 feet remaining of street right-of-way) will not be maintained by the city. Michael Nakamura, 810 Mountain Road, representing the adjacent property owner noted that they would prefer the original design with the hotel at the rear of the site; the proposed project which rotated building and moved it to the front of the site blocks the view from the existing small office area in their building next door at 810 Malcolm Road. The precedent for hotels being built at the back of the lot away from the street is established in the area with the Westin and Hyatt hotels. This project would block the view of the Bay from windows on the northeast side and the Marriott blocks the view of the bay across the street. He cited a number of advantages achieved by placing the hotel at the rear of the site, parking visible from the street, would look like a mansion, would open the view from his property, provide the hotel guests with direct bay views, and give the building more exposure to the street. He advocated including a pedestrian overpass over Bayshore Highway between the project site and the Marriott to increase bay access. Bought this property for its bay view, now it is being removed and his property is being damaged. Commissioner asked if he had owned the property where the hotel is proposed and sold it to the current developer. Applicant said that they had owned the property and sold it to this applicant. Had they developed the property they would have built an office building. Applicant response: it has always been their intention to prepare a project in line with Commission concerns, feel have addressed al concerns, 77 room density is consistent with what is allowed for site of this size; there will be 100 feet between the wall of the hotel and the windows on the neighboring property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that the architect did a good job changing the placement of the building, an 8 foot sidewalk is better than 5 foot, could add 4 feet to make the 12 feet later; the mitigated negative declaration is complete and mitigations address the concerns and are included in the conditions of approval; most of the code exceptions, conditional use permits and variances were caused by the Planning Commission’s request that the building be relocated, the height exception is the only one not affected by the relocation and the smaller foot print achieved by the taller building is preferable at this location; feel that for these reasons and including the reasons stated by the commissioners, in the staff report and at the public hearing, as well as the fact that the applicant has done what the commission requested he would therefore move for approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Discussion on the motion: feel that conditions addressing the following issues should be included in the motion: providing an 8 foot wide sidewalk across the front of the property; cover the surface under the porte cochere with pavers not concrete; place additional trellises to match the trellis proposed at the front at each of the side and rear pedestrian entrances; replace all the trees proposed in the landscaping plan on site with trees of the same size at planting which would achieve the same size as a sycamore at maturity selected from a list of trees which will flourish in the Bayside environment, the City Arborist shall review the proposed selections for their environmental compatibility and potential mature size. C. Deal maker of the motion and C. Dreiling second, agreed to the amendment to the motion and conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration, four conditional use permits for use, height, front setback limitations and front setback landscaping, and variance for front setback with the following amended conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 13, 2000, Sheets SD1, A1, A2, A2B, A2C, A3, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -12- A3B, A4, and L1 with an eight (8) foot sidewalk across the entire front of the property, that the surface under the porte cochere shall be covered with pavers not concrete, that additional trellises which match the design of the trellis at the front shall be placed over all of the pedestrian entrances to the hotel located on the sides and rear of the structure, that all trees shown on the landscape plan (L1) shall be replaced with trees of the same size at planting which would achieve the same size at maturity selected from a list of trees which will flourish in the Bayside environment and which the City Arborist has reviewed and approved for their environmental compatibility and for their match for potential size at maturity; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s May 23 and May 31, 2000 memos, the Chief Building Official’s November 1, 1999 memo, the Fire Marshal’s November 1, 1999 memo, and the Senior Landscape Inspector’s May 30, 2000 memo shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, setbacks, or height of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that two lanes shall be striped or delineating through the porte cochere area; one of the lanes shall be marked Keep Clear so that guests already registered at the hotel can circulate through the porte cochere to parking spaces without having to stop and to allow departing vehicles to leave the site unhindered; 5) that the applicant shall provide airport shuttle service for hotel guests, this shuttle service shall be made available to hotel employees to connect to Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans at shift changes; 6) that the applicant shall be required to contribute a proportional share towards operation of the City’s FreeBee shuttle service, based on a prorated share of the operating costs to be determined by the City Finance Director, which provides transportation between this area and the transportation corridor and commercial centers on the west side of the freeway (U.S. 101); 7) that the project shall be built and designed to conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit is issued in addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035), and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect’s office; 8) that seismic-resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigations as approved by the City Engineer; 9) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 10) that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters; 11) that the project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces as approved by the City ’s structural engineer, and the building shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation to + 10 feet MSL as flood protection; 12) that all water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection; 13) that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as approved by the City Engineer; 14) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 15) that all runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project’s property owner; 16) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage; 17) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal; 18) that the applicant shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 19) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 20) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction as required by the BAAQMD and City Engineer; 21) that before demolition and construction, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 22)that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -13- payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Anza area shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one -half due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 23) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 24) that if the hotel proposes to charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot, an amendment to the conditional use permit shall be required, and the conditional use permit shall include conditions of approval which provide that employees can park for free, and that the rates charged for short-term parking shall be limited and the rate charged geared to penalize those non-hotel guests/visitors who would abuse the availability of parking; 25) that the developer shall pay for the installation of a median refuge area for vehicles turning left from Cowan Road to northbound Bayshore Highway; the median refuge area shall be designed to meet the current code standards and must be approved by the City Engineer; 26) that notwithstanding the Burlingame Municipal Code requirements, no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 27) that the hotel shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 28) that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and proposed flows, the capacity of the system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and mitigation of impact to the system; 29) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities; 30) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 31) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 32) that the developer shall pay (proportional share) for the installation of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line he will be required to pay for the development’s portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer will make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City will use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development’s share of the cost; 33) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 34) that the project applicant shall pay a fee to the City per square foot of developed space to offset costs of treating the additional wastewater and the project’s proportional share should the sewer pump station serving this area require resizing; 35) that the developer shall, as a part of the demolition work on the site, prepare, have approved by the City and implement a recycling plan for all material to be removed, prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit (Assistant City Manager, City Engineer); 36) that the proposed project shall comply with Ordinance 1477 limiting exterior Illumination; and 37) that should any prehistoric or historic archeological relics be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant acceptable to the City, can be implemented; all removal or restoration work shall be required to be supervised by qualified professionals approved by the City Planner. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits, often in old wells and privies. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:48 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -14- 8.348 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - DETERMINATION OF USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA (TIM AURAN, APPLICANT; DONALD F. AND P.A. SABATINI TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented her determination, the history of the site and facts. Commissioners asked: when a legal action such as the settlement noted here occurs is it attached to the deed; CA noted we do not have a title report, typically leases or dissolutions are not recorded. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tim Auren, real estate broker, 1323 Bernal, who had requested the determination spoke along with Mr. Sabitini, property owner. He noted that the law suit was settled before there was court action; that the other party had leased the basement area for storage and then changed the use to a manufacturing use, Fire Department stopped the use because a second exit was required, the tenant left because his use was restricted. Building was built in 1951, three stories including a full basement; basement area has an 8 foot ceiling, is fully sprinklered, concrete walls and ceiling; was used for storage for a restaurant which was on the first floor, so has always been active retail support space, restaurateur (also building owner) had an office for their business in the basement; was also used as a civil defense shelter to store emergency goods in the 1950's. The owners who built the building sold their restaurant business and the new owner moved it down the street; tried to lease, the grocery store with basement storage was one tenant, has been continually offered for lease but the Planning Department denied all tenants, actually added two stairways for exit because basement area is so big; Mr. Sabitini has an office in this basement area now and allows Mr. Auren to use some of the area for conferences too. Have an office tenant, a union, who would like to use some of the area and would be on site a couple of times a week, did not want to come one at a time with proposal but work out a resolution for the use of the enti re space. Would not have installed staircase in 1995 if knew could not use basement, architect drew plans, was done the way it was supposed to be done did not see note regarding parking variance. Tenants do not need the basement area for storage, have an office there, it is well built and clean, protected by a sprinkler system, don’t know why the sprinkler is there if the area can’t be used. Commissioners asked: there were specific conditions on the building permit, - applicant noted contract related to another party (contractor) never saw the piece of paper until staff report, was it hidden, building department had no record of the building permit, Mr. Sabitini would not have installed the stairway if he had known storage was the only use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: spent some time in the basement with Mr. Auren, to me the basement is a typical basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler system hangs low, there are signs of office use, but they are tacked on, not part of the original building; there is no parking on site and parking is what we are discussing here; this basement area is not a good candidate for office use; have a number of basements on Burlingame Avenue people use fo r storage for businesses on site; when see no HVAC system know that space is meant for storage; do not feel that this is nonconforming office space. Did not understand that ordinance change prohibiting storage and warehouse use in C-1 and C-2 would prohibit owners from leasing existing space for off-site storage. This is not a nonconforming use, to recognize it as such would be to grant a large parking variance, already building has a real advantage because they have 10,000 SF for which they provide no parking now. C. Keighran noted clear that the basement area can be used for storage by tenants on the site, not want to intensify the use of the existing floors, if it is not nonconforming it will not increase the parking demand so move that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area and that the area can be used as storage only for tenants on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -15- Comment on the motion: made good point that small office space is needed, could ask for a parking variance to provide it there if wanted to. CA Anderson noted that the current policy is to require an in lieu fee for parking not provided in this area. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to determine that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and that the basement area can be used for storage for tenants on the site. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 12.15 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9.1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the project description. C. Bojués noted that he lived within the noticing area and would not participate in this action. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. Member of the public asked why a commissioner who lived nearby could not participate, who would know the area better. CA Anderson noted that the voters had directed in the Political Reform Act that decision makers who might be affected by living within a given distance of an action by the body on which they serve, cannot vote. Design issues discussed were: design fairly good, disturbed by the reduction of the front porch, getting too small for a person to stand on; porch size is not consistent with what is in the neighborhood, concerned with the turret which also is tending toward a tall, monumental entry, needs to be made more subtle; the architectural style is all right, this project is acceptable but do not like the pattern of the windows, the 10 foot tall window in the stair well is to big, there are shutters on the front but not on the sides or rear; elements on either side are all right, could add dormer and articulation with materials as have on the front elevation; mass is broken up all right; reduce scale of window in the closet over the front entry, reduce the plate height and size of the closet. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public comment. C. Keighran noted that the entrance needs to blend with the houses in the area, be more subtle; the nice articulation with materials at the front should be added to the other elevations to improve the rest of the house; feel that these are minor changes which the designer can address so would move to put this item on the consent calendar. Motion was seconded by Chairman Luzuriaga. Motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote and was set for October 11, 2000, if all the information is submitted in time. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 a.m. 10.1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -16- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu designer, represented the project. The following commented from the floor on the project: Joanne Colombo Christ, 185 Argyres Street, Monterey, speaking for her parents at 1249 Vancouver; Clarence Cravalho 1265 Vancouver; John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling Drive; Lee Thompson, 1237 Vancouver; Martha Beshore, 1234 Vancouver. Issues of concern were: concern about exceptions to the code for a new house, especially special permit for height which impacts views and privacy of neighbors; new house twice the size of the one being demolished; all house no lot; owned parcels in 1960 and subdivided into four with father and brother, developed all with one story houses; live on flag lot, detached garage will be in his front yard, does not need to crowd property line, move garage toward Vancouver 5 to 10 feet and plant trees behind; 20 foot deep cistern is in the street in front of the proposed house, not sure can put driveway in location shown; cistern will affect access of equipment during construction; sewer and water service cross existing driveway, will straight proposed location work; do not need balcony on side of house affects two adjacent property owners directly; two story all right but not over 30 feet; should refer to design reviewer; scale of design is not in keeping with existing, overly tall, too narrow; need to have soils study if retaining walls are to be changed. Design issues identified in discussion with applicant were: this house has no porch, the two wings at the front are very dominant, the lot is too narrow for this house; unclear about what the overall height is from grade, first floor plate is too high results in a lot of mass; the fireplace chimney does not need to be 4 feet, the window size is fine. Sense a number of issues here, this item should be referred to a design reviewer, presently it is more of a two story box, all roof areas need to break at the second floor; because of arrangement of flag lot the garage at the rear of this project is in the front yard of the house behind, can it be relocated and changed to have less impact. C. Deal noted its good idea to move garage forward 5 to10 feet; reduce height, look at first floor plate, work on porch, balcony is two feet deep, not useable for long term; work with Public Works Department to address cistern properly; and then moved to continue the item to be see what the designer and public works come up with. Motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: CE Murtuza noted public works did address cistern in comments but will work with applicant. Concerned with garage; house above and English Tudor across street dwarfs mass of the proposed house; need to address the entrance and the issue of bulk at the front. With continuance, applicant would return for a second design review study. C. Deal amended his motion to take this item forward to regular action. C. Bojués, the second, agreed. Comment on the amendment: if applicant knew what to do could have done it on these plans; feel that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this design would prefer to refer this to a design reviewer. C. Deal amended his motion again to refer this item to a design reviewer. C. Bojués, the second, agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:15 a.m. 11.1322 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe described the project. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from discussion and action on this item since he lived within the noticing area. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -17- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. There were no comments from neighbors. Design issues identified by the commission: the eaves of the garage should be extended; there is no porch on this house, there should be; it has two large elements at the front and very big windows, don t see the precedence for the windows as shown with this style, some have shutters others not; the stairwell window is too big; roof structure at the front taken to the 9 foot plate is good with 8 foot plate above; what is hardy-shake roof, should not look like concrete; need to address window trim, stucco mold, keep shutters on right and left side, put boards on windows; concern that the second story is a box with a lot of mass, prefer to bring one side down to the first floor, want to see mass and bulk addressed at a human scale especially on the right elevation; the columns at the front door are not consistent with the rest of the timber/stick design. C. Vistica moved that this item be redesigned and brought back to the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Noted that the windows are all right since they are within proportion of the structure. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to the consent calendar, to be scheduled when the information submitted is complete and staff has checked. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:30 a.m. 12.1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED SINGLE-STORY, 5,602 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (BOB EVERINGHAM, EVERINGHAM ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RAMADA HOTEL VENTURE, LTD. ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the information on the project for the environmental scoping. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the Public Comment. Tim Haley, architect, represented the project. Commissioners noted that the following items should be addressed in the environmental review: the rip -rap along Easton Creek should be examined for its condition and maintenance; NPDES issues need to be addressed; the relocation of the row of trees along the shoreline need to be studied, prefer next to parking area not between pathway and view of bay, could even be relocated into parking lot; consider adding more seating area, very limited in this reach of access; environmental document should explain the problem of installing the bridge with this project; Provide a ballpark estimate of the cost of installing the bridge; evaluate what landscaping is appropriate on bay edge, look at what done elsewhere; should look at using native species, not lolly-pop trees, evaluate how much the trees are needed, could shrubs be used; provide species list and identify native or native like species which will do well in this environment, carry same vegetation through out. There were no further comments from the Commission. Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:45 a.m. 13.999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 3-STORY, 21,897 SF OFFICE BUILDING (JESSE MORGAN, APPLICANT; TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; HOWARD/MYRTLE STORAGE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Senior Planner Brooks presented the project information for the environmental scoping. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jesse Morgan, applicant, represented the project. Commissioners noted that the following items should be addressed in the environmental review: concerned about aesthetics, this structure does not reflect the history of the styles in this area should look to the train station, fire station and library, all public buildings which are true to historic style of immediate area, should look like it belongs in this older area, the proposed roof pieces do not fit or the dryvit with jewel tiles; concerned about parking, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Minutes -18- providing minimum required, current experience is that employers concentrate employees so minimum is not enough, do not want overflow into adjacent residential neighborhood, should be addressed; traffic is a concern, high density of employees for many current businesses results in more trips and would impact the nearby sch ool and residents, should examine the worst case; orientation of entrance of building discourages pedestrian access when it should be encouraged, have entry directly off the street, perhaps at corner to anchor building; need to address shadow on Myrtle, would more setback at second floor help reduce shadow; evaluate transition at rear, landscaping fingers could be used in parking lot to break up parking area; review location of trash enclosure, away from street into area next to tracks; impact of the on street parking of other businesses in the area and on California on the parking provided for this building should be evaluated; evaluate the face of the building on Myrtle, how can it be more compatible, would stepping back at second floor help; need to address relationship of driveway access and building usage with people backing up over railroad tracks; for land use need to address what role this site plays in the life of the city, should there be retail uses here at some time, it s a transportation corridor of increasing importance how does this use relate, how does the building relate to the life on the street, the entrance should be on the street to encourage people to walk from train station to work; site is an odd shape, left over, how can that be taken advantage of; why could housing not be placed on this site; how can landscape provide better scale and pedestrian affinity; parking is away from street, but so is entrance, should not design to give impression that the only way to get there is by car; ground floor can open to the street; investigate appropriate species for the trees, need ones that are vertical and taller, should be included in visual analysis and landscape plan; property is next to fiber optic cable in easement next to railroad, what issues does that raise for construction and landscaping, should be evaluated in environmental document. No further issues were identified to include in the environmental evaluation. This item conclude at 2:10 a.m. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe briefly reviewed actions taken at the September 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 2:20 a.m. MINUTES9.25