Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.11.13 1 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the November 13, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. 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 III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 27, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with a correction to page 9, at the end of paragraph 1, add AThe motion was seconded by C. Osterling@. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved with the following changes: Item 11 - 1443 Howard Avenue and Item 13 - 800 Airport Boulevard were both continued to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road, asked that the project at 535 Almer Road be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1360 BROADWAY - ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT (GUNADI KISMOHANDAKA, APPLICANT; JAMES AND STELLA WU, TRS AND VICTOR S. WU, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: is the applicant was expecting to ma ke any exterior improvements to the building, if so what; will the applicant be asking for a sign exception; will cleaning be brought from other business sites or dry cleaning agencies to be processed at this location; do they have any idea what they might do to the exterior. There were no further questions and the item was set for the November 27 action calendar providing the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 2 2. 1243 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CLASSROOM USE (TRAFFIC SCHOOL) (ROCKY COLOGNE, ROCKY COLOGNE=S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, APPLICANT; PHILLIP H. SHAMILIAN ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: the summary of the findings of the Parking District Parking Study did not address parking availability in the evening hours, please add; they expect to increase the number of employees from 1 to 5 in five years, is this correct; on which two evenings each week will they have classes; if there is to be such an increase in employees in 5, years will the number of classes at this site also increase, if so by how many; do not see the exceptional circumstances relating to the property for the parking variance, response to item A of the findings is not adequate; if class size is 11 and will have 5 employees in future will the size of the classes be limited, explain. This item was set for the action calendar on November 27, providing all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 3. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TANNING FACILITY (JOANNA CORKERY, APPLICANT; MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: how can one employee manage three tanning areas and a skin care area at once, explain; parking provided on site, cannot see detriment, would ask that this item be placed on the consent calendar for the November 27 meeting. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. 4. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 130-ROOM HOTEL (PIETRO PARTNERS, APPLICANT; BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: page 1 of the plans shows ten feet between the curb and property line, does this mean that the side walk in this area will be 10 feet wide; if there are any notes from the subcommittee meeting on this project could they be included in the next packet; provide detail on site drainage, has bio-swale filtration been included, if not how is drainage handled to address into the bay and possible pollution; want to compliment the applicant this is a good application and he has been responsive; do not see any substantial detrimental effects, is not possible to design within all the Bayfront Design Guidelines, so would ask that this item be placed on the consent calendar; would like applicant to take another look at the tree species selected to be sure that they are adaptable to that environment and will withstand the wind, if necessary now is the time to change; applicant listened to our suggestions, moved the building to the front of the site; subcommittee wanted landscaping that looks like it belongs on the bayfront doesn=t want it to feel like a park. Chairman Luzuriaga directed that this item be set on the consent calendar for the November 27 meeting providing that all the information requested can be provided. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 5. 1390 ROLLINS ROAD - ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES (BRANDON LAWRENCE, APPLICANT; ERIC LUNDQUIST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commission asked: does the California Building Code require a fire rated separation between the auto display area and the repair shop area; the applicant should be made aware of the city=s signage requirements. This item was set for the consent calendar at the November 27 meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department on time. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 3 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. 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED 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. Chairman Luzuriaga moved the application for 535 Almer Road, item 6, from the consent calendar to the regular action calendar at the request of an adjacent property owner. No other items remained on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM 7 TO 6 UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, ARCHITECT) A. AMENDMENT TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kamran Ehsanipour, 205 Park Road, Suite 207, Burlingame, architect for the project, was available for questions. Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road, noted that he is not opposed to the changes in the project, the number of units is reduced from seven to six, but has two concerns; the plans do not show a fence along the south property line adjacent to his property which was promised with the previous project, would like to see a condition added that the developer be required to build a six foot high good neighbor fence with an additional one foot of lattice along this property line; the other concern is with the Black Acacia tree located on property line, intention of the applicant is to have the tree removed, would like to at least see the acacia cut back to the property line because it overhangs his property is messy and affects roof, the tree removal permit was issued but has expired do not know if it will be renewed; would like a condition added that the tree be trimmed to the property line. Mr. Ehsanipour responded that the tree is right on the border, it may not be feasible to trim at this time, it might kill the tree, intends to remove the tree at a later date, but is willing to include required trimming as a condition of approval subject to an arborist=s review and recommendation regarding type of trimming. Commissioners asked City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 4 how close the tree is to the property line. The applicant responded that it is right on the border, the trunk probably crosses the property line. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that a fence be required along the south property line, six feet high with an additional one foot of lattice; tree is on the property line, cannot just trim it to the property line, would rather see it go back through the Parks and Recreation Department for a tree removal permit and have it removed. C. Deal moved to approve the amended negative declaration and condominium permit application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as sho wn on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 18, 2000, Sheets A-01, A-02, and A-1 through A-16, including building materials and exterior finishes; 2) that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist=s report and approved by the City=s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist=s report as approved by the City=s Senior Landscape Inspector; and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that a six foot high solid board fence with an additional one foot of lattice shall be required along the south property line; 5) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area and/or floor area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 27, October 14, and October 2, 2000 memos and the March 15 and March 25, 1999 memos, the Fire Marshal’s February 22, 1999 memo, and the Senior Landscape Inspector’s March 10, 1999 memos shall be met; 7) that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; 8) that storage units shall be installed as shown and no storage areas shall extend into the required parking spaces; 9) that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site except that tenant parking shall be allowed within designated guest parking spaces between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. as enforced by the homeowners association in the five guest parking spaces provided on-site; 10) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 11) that a security gate system installed across the driveway shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the garage by pushing a button inside their units; 12) that the furnaces and water heaters for each unit shall be located in the mechanical/laundry room as shown on sheets A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-10 and all such facilities shall be in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 13) that the trash enclosure shall be located at the front of the building as shown on sheet A-7 in a dimension large enough to accommodate recycling bins; 14) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the Board of Directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees for all appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 5 removing either one or both of the 49" oak and the 32" black acacia trees, that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued, and that if both trees are removed the Planning Commission shall review the revised landscape plans for the common open space; 17) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 18) that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 19) that all drainage on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 20) that the developer shall pay a proportional share based on his lot area for the installation of an 8" minimum ground water pump line on Almer Road to the storm drainage system on Almer Road and Bellevue Avenue (required to be installed by the developer at 530 El Camino Real). If the developer does not install the new line he will be required to pay for the development=s portion of the installation cost. The City Engineer determined that the development fee shall be $6,000.00 for the storm ground water line proposed on Almer Road as adjusted annually using the cost index of the Engineering News Record (fee based on a 4.5% share of the Engineer=s estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates). 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; 21) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 23) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 24) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City=s water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) that an arborist=s report showing how the street trees and the existing 32" diameter black acacia and 49" oak will be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented; 26) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 27) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Burlingame Municipal Code; 28) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 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 all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 33) that approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City =s noise requirement; 34) that the sump pump for the underground garage will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system and that the drainage grate for the driveway shall go to the storm drain system; 35) that all on-site drainage inlets or the sump pump basin for the underground garage shall provide a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the automobile parking area; 36) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 37) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 38) that this project shall not exceed 35'-0" (67'-52@) in height as measured from average top of curb (32'-52@) at the front of the property and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 39) that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 6 all utilities to this site shall be required to be installed underground; any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; and 40) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City, and recommend to City Council approval of the Tentative Condominium Map. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. There was no comment on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the negative declaration and condominium permit and recommend approval to City Council of the Tentative Condominium map and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 7. 832 FAIRFIELD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (TODD VARLAND AND AMY WELCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; SHARON WILSON, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed crit eria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the family room was counted as a bedroom. Staff noted that it was not counted as a bedroom because there is a stairway which is open to the room. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Todd Varland, 832 Fairfield, applicant, noted that at the last meeting, they were asked to address three items, the deck has been reduced in size and made more compatible with the style of the house, the downstairs shower has been removed and bathroom size reduced, they removed the bathroom on the first floor and relocated the laundry room there. Commission noted that the building code does not allow a garage to open up directly to a room which is used for sleeping purposes, there are three options, can eliminate the door from the garage to the family room, provide a corridor, or add a condition which requires that this room not be used for sleeping purposes. A member of the audience asked how much the height of the building will increase. The applicant noted that there will be no increase in height. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: regarding the floor area ratio variance, the basement is existing, cannot tell the applicant to eliminate it; proposal is similar to others on the block, have responded to all concerns raised by the commission, would like conditions added that if the house is ever demolished, the floor area ratio variance goes away, and that the family room cannot be used for sleeping purposes. C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 26, 2000, sheets A.1 - A.4, 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 City Engineer=s August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; 4) that the variance for floor area ratio is being granted by the City because of a pre-existing condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to correct or remove as part of remodel, however, this condition could have been corrected if the structure were demolished and replaced. Therefore, should the existing dwelling ever be demolished, the variance approved for floor area ratio shall automatically expire, and the owner may apply for a new variance or may improve the property so that it conforms to the Zoning Code requirements for floor area ratio. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 7 In this case, demolished means removal of greater than ten (10) percent or more in square footage of the exterior walls than was approved in this design review application; 5) that the family room shall never be used for sleeping purposes; and 6) 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. 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 7:57 p.m. 8. 1653 LASSEN WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (STEVEN LESLEY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MIKE AND LISA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that at the previous meeting, the commission had requested a brick chimney, was the intent brick facing or true reinforced brick; there are veneers that you cannot tell are not real brick such a real looking veneer; that would be acceptable, hate to require masonry when some brick veneers are acceptable; applicant can address what is proposed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley, 588 Mastick Avenue, San Bruno, architect for the project, noted that they propose to use a veneer of real brick, would be real brick but it is thin rather than full sized brick; noted that all concerns expressed by the commission had been addressed on the plans. Commission noted that direction was given to revise the dormers, this was done, but is it shown on all sheets of plans; the applicant clarified that the plans had been corrected through out. C. Vistica moved to approve the project, 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 October 25, 2000, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 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; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s September 5, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: noted that this ranch house is one of the styles of houses where it can be difficult to add a second story, the best approach is to tear the roof off and do it right, that is what was done in this case, applaud the effort. 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 8:07 p.m. 9. 1111 MARQUITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH V. CUELLAR, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEBRA SHAPIRO, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Joseph Cuellar, 3615 Gun Club Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico, project designer, was available for questions. Commissioners asked about the middle dormer on the second floor on the front elevation, the eaves are cropped on that dormer, should extend out equal to the other eaves, is the applicant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 8 willing to change this; noted that the project is much better than what was reviewed before; the chimney appears to be closer than 10 feet to the eaves, the building code may require that this be revised; trying to figure out the roof plan, make sure it is as shown on elevations, would be great if we could be assured that the roof plan is accurate; appears that all three dormers in front are not shown on the roof plan. The applicant noted that regarding the chimney, when you look at it in plan view it is actually 10 feet from the eaves, this could be made a condition; regarding the dormers and the consistency of the plans, one of the dormers is shown on the roof plan, the other two are eyebrow dormers that would not show on the roof plan. Public Comment: Robin Houge, 1321 California Drive, noted he is concerned with the east elevation, there are four windows proposed, concerned with privacy, thought the number of windows would be reduced from the previous proposal. Commission discussion: commissioners noted that the neighbor’s house is far away, privacy should not be an issue, but there are three windows proposed in the master bedroom on that wall, could one would be removed, side by windows is heavily landscaped. The applicant agreed that plans could be changed to show two windows in the bedroom, adjusted on the wall, there is a tall hedge along that side of the house, privacy should not be an issue. Commission noted that the applicant did a great job addressing the commission=s concerns, the project preserves the character of the existing house, would like a condition added requiring that one of the windows in the master bedroom on the east elevation be removed; and that the eaves of the dormer on the center front be extended to match the other eaves. C. Vistica 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 date stamped October 27, 2000, sheets A1-A4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the number of the windows in the master bedroom on the east elevation shall be reduced from three to two windows, and the location of the remaining two windows may be adjusted to compensate; 3) that the length of the eaves on the center dormer on the front elevation shall be extended to match the other eaves on the building; 4) 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; 5) that the City Engineer=s February 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and 6) 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. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: do we want to be specific on which window should be removed, should be the center one, the other two can be adjusted to compensate. 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 8:28 p.m. 10. 1204 PALM AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MATTHEW BOLAK, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GEORGE PLAVJIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Matthew Bolak, 917 Cypress Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, noted that previous application that came before the commission requested variances, commission wanted the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 9 variances removed, now the project complies with all regulations, responded to comments made, were able to reduce the size of the garage and meet the lot coverage requirement, did keep the three arched windows from the original proposal instead of reducing to one, this window pattern is typical for Colonial Revival and Spanish Eclectic style homes; all other issues were addressed. Commissioners asked: at the study meeting, asked to change the trim on the window to stucco mold and applicant noted that the poly vinyl is the same size as stucco mold, now seems to be shown bigger than that on plans; how large will the window trim be; if the trim were smaller it would look more like traditional stucco mold; the first floor is raised about 3 feet above grade, will be a climb to get to front porch, could the building be sunk by about a foot to make it easier to get to porch and to help it not appear so massive; traditional stucco mold is made of wood, would go on the wall before the stucco, stucco is applied so the surface is flush with window; problem is that when details get thick and chunky it tends to make the house look like a monster home. The applicant notes that the new sub-material can go down to a 2 1/4" width on the trim; commented that raised the building to comply with the declining height envelope requirement; the trim proposed is not something that will stick out, will be flush with the wall; profile will extend no more than 2 inch from wall. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission noted that the main concern is with the basement which is about 2'-10" above grade; would like to see it lowered down to 2 feet from existing grade to the surface of the first floor. C. Vistica noted applicant has revised the plans satisfactorily, with the added conditions that the first floor be lowered by a foot, that the stucco mold have a profile that extends no more than 2" from the face of the wall, and that the rake details at the eaves shall be substantially reduced and elevated, C. Vistica then 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 date stamped September 25, 2000, Sheets A1 through A10, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that the first floor shall be lowered so that the surface of the first floor is no more than two feet above existing adjacent grade, and that if the change to the height of the floor results in a requirement for a special permit for declining height envelope, the application shall be brought back to the Commission for action on the consent calendar; 3) that the window trim shall be no more than 2-1/4" wide, the stucco mold shall not extend more than 2" from the face of the building, and the eave rake detail shall be substantially reduced or removed; 4) 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; 5) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s June 8, 2000 memo and the City Engineer=s June 1, 2000 memo shall be met; and 6) 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. 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 8:50 p.m. The commission took a recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 11. 1443 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING FROM R-3 TO C-1 FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY (CHARLIE KAVANAGH, APPLICANT; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 27, 2000) At the applicant’s request commission continued this item to the meeting of November 27, 2000. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 10 12. 226 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - DETERMINATION ON REPLACEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE (MICHAEL HARVEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Michael Harvey, property owner at 226 California Drive, and Noemi Avram, architect, 60 E. Third Avenue, San Mateo, spoke on the determination. He noted that he owned a building at the other end of this block which was damaged in the 1989 Loma Preita earthquake. He was allowed to restore that structure without providing parking. This building has similar construction of masonry above columns and he should be able to replace it as well without providing parking. In terms of use, the past use of this site was retail sales of auto parts, he is proposing car sales, wants to keep his options open, but use will be auto related. There was glazing all around the building so it could have been used as a show room, but would have needed to replace the roof and repair the walls, so decided to remove the building. Can continue to use this lot for used car sales and the city would not gain the benefit of the three and a half million dollar construction. The Honda corporation is insisting that he standardize the look of the facility to match their corporate objective, so will do since had to replace the building anyway. He discussed the relationship of the use of this lot to his long term business plan, including changes proposed on Broadway which use of this lot for a car dealership will facilitate. He concluded that he would be willing to use this site for used car sales or he could build a building, it was OK either way. Commissioners asked: about documentation for the mezzanine area which was demolished, the use of the proposed structure, the use of the proposed office mezzanine area and the choice of the style of the replacement building. Harvey responded that the building went back to the 1920's and he doubted if there was record of a building permit for the mezzanine, want the use of the building to be flexible including auto showroom, parts sales, auto repair, with present design auto repair will be done elsewhere; the mezzanine will be used for business offices for the dealership; if city rejects the Honda design not much the corporation can do however, allocation of cars to dealers is based on the dealer=s ability to conform to the corporation=s requirements so would affect total dollar volume of car sales from the site; concerned that it is possible for an auto dealer to get over facilitized and end up in debt, so trying to consolidate Honda and Accura and he needs the city=s cooperation to do that, historically the city has benefited from the auto dealerships. Commission continued: did the city red tag the structure before demolition or inspect it and determine it was unsafe. Applicant responded he hired a structural engineer, better qualified than the city, who determined that the building was unsafe, it even had a broken truss, the roof needed to be replaced because it was sitting on brick masonry; architect noted that she had worked on the Honda design and toned it down, and Honda was willing to accept her changes. Applicant noted that he would have liked to consolidate all the properties on this block and make one large dealership, but the cost of land was too great. He noted he was going to have same problem with Accura, since the look of that building will also need to change. Commission asked how much parking would be required by the new building and where would the parking be located if not on-site. Staff noted that the building would require about 35 parking spaces on site and much of the available parking in zone 6 is in the residential area. Applicant noted that the dealers will put in a shuttle from BART and increase the use of public transit. Commission commented on the high visibility of this site which would influence the character of the auto row area and Burlingame Avenue. Applicant noted that the General Plan had established the auto row at this location and allowed auto related uses only, this is the entrance to auto row and the city has done a good job for 70 years, there is no reason to change now. Commission asked staff about the scope of determination. CA noted that commission could place limitations on the determination so, for example, parking would not be required to conform if an existing structure was to be retained. It was noted that the issue before the commission is the application of the nonconforming use provision of the code City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 11 to the current circumstances of this site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: use of this site is a dilemma, auto use is good, but other uses would work here too; if going to do auto use need to be careful what it looks like; can=t support applicant=s position on determination, based on civil engineer=s report in 2000 he chose to demolish the building, this removal was not a natural disaster which would allow the nonconforming parking use to continue. The uses have been abandoned; this site has not been used for any of the uses identified for 6 months therefore the uses have been abandoned so cannot make a finding for the nonconforming use to continue. If the structure had not been demolished, position on the nonconforming use would be different, but the character that was there is gone and can=t say that a nonconforming use continues on the site. Support the planning staff=s determination because cannot find why a nonconforming condition should still exist on this site. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to up hold the City Planner’s determination that the nonconforming parking use does not continue on this site because there are no reasons for the nonconforming status to continue as noted in commission=s discussion. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: the General Plan may identify auto use in this area, but at the time that designation was made it was thought that the automobile would go on forever, times are changing; commission has been working with two hotels on the bayfront, commission has given input to them which facilitated their review and they felt they had better projects, would be willing to work with this site too. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner=s determination. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 13. 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LEASE OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (TODD GREEN, 800 AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 27, 2000) The applicant requested a continuance to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item to the agenda for next meeting, November 27, 2000. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 14. 1419 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL GUMBINGER, GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND PAOLA FLYGARE, PROPERTY OWNERS) Senior Planner Brooks presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. John and Paola Flygare, applicants and property owners, represented the project. They noted their willingness to answer questions. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition and parking dimension variance, noting garage is short 3 feet and the rear elevation shows that it is possible to extend the parking area 3 feet to the rear, do not see the exceptional circumstances on the property to support the variance request; extension of the garage would break up the rear facade, which would not hurt; applicant is providing only the minimum parking for this now four bedroom house, and that parking is not compliant with code, others have been asked to do more; concerned that the second floor windows on west side as shown do not meet fire code emergency egress requirements this will affect the exterior City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 12 elevation, they should be adjusted before this item goes to action; there were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. In order to grant a variance must make findings relating to the physical hardship on the property; if not extend to the rear, going to the front is an alternative, see no exceptional hardship on the property, others with similar sites have been required to provide two car garage or to set aside FAR so that a two car garage could be built later; like this traditional design. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: modify the garage to meet current code requirements for depth and add windows on the west elevation that meet emergency egress requirements. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item, as corrected, on the consent calendar at the next meeting providing all the revisions have been made in time for staff plan check and report preparation. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 15. 1000 LARKSPUR DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (EDGAR M. GARCIA AND JANE F. CREAGER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Edgar Garcia, 1000 Larkspur, represented the project. He noted that he would like to add two bedrooms so each of his three children could have their own room, these were placed over the existing garage because it was the lowest part of the roof (the present roof has three ridge lines of different heights). The rooms are small and the addition small, the additional square footage on the first floor is to accommodate the new stairwell; the variance for uncovered parking is a condition that has existed since the house was built. Commission asked if the project would include traditional stucco mold around the windows. The applicant responded yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. C. Osterling moved that this item be placed on the consent calendar for the next meeting, the addition is being placed at the location of the lowest existing roof so it will have the least possible effect on the height of the house and the depth of the uncovered parking space is an existing condition which is not changed by the proposed addition to the house. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the calendar at the next meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS S Review of City Council regular meeting of November 6, 2000. CP Monroe summarized the actions related to the Planning Commission at the November 6,2000 meeting. C. Deal asked if staff had a list of some changes to the zoning code which the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee had discussed at their last meeting and also those that have been identified from recent Planning Commission actions. Staff noted that there was a list begun and that it was probably time to consider doing another omni-bus zoning code update, it has been two years. If C. Deal could pass on his list staff will put something together for commission review early in 2001. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 13 XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Luzuriaga at 10:45 p.m. MINUTES11.8