Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.12.11City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 1 Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 11, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the December 11, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Don Chang. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 27, 2000 meeting regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL USE IN AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANTS; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER; THE KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: would the applicant provide information on the number of volunteers who would come to the site, and their timing; will any of the children be bussed to or from the site; since later there will be more physically disabled children, will one disabled accessible parking space be enough; the layout of the parking lot with the possibility of backing onto Trousdale is a major problem, would the applicant look at two other alternatives (1) connecting the small lot with the loop driveway and (2) is there some way to have 90 degree parking with proper back up area to reduce the conflict between cars entering and exiting at the same time. If information is provided to staff in time, this item should be placed on the consent calendar for the January 8, 2001 meeting. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 -APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SINGLE- STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL WHICH EXCEEDS THE TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPING City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 2 AND COMPACT CAR PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE C-4 ZONE, AND TO VARY FROM THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT (BOB EVERINGHAM, EVERINGHAM ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME HOTEL CORP. LTD., PROPERTY OWNER; TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: would not like to see ‘lollypop’ trees on t his segment of bay frontage, can’t tell from what is proposed what their appearance will be, explain; would prefer a native shoreline look, shrubs might be better than trees; show a “windmill palm”, am unfamiliar with that tree, but do not want palms at this location; applicant does not seem to have addressed the concerns raised at the last meeting; should do so since there are extra parking spaces, it would be a good idea to reduce the number to what is required and come closer to the landscape guidelines, could add tree wells in the parking lot; add landscaping which looks as if it belongs on the bay edge; what happened to the bridge across Easton Creek, can it be conditioned for future installation; need to break up the sea of parking on this site with some landscaping. There were no further questions and the item was set for action on January 8, 2001, providing all the information can be submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the public or on the commission wished to take any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Deal noted that he would be abstaining on the vote for the projects at 1109 Bernal and 1637 Balboa because he had a business relationship with those applicants. Staff was asked to explain whether this was addition of another parapet sign on the hotel at 765 Airport Blvd.; CP Monroe noted that this was a relocation of a previously approved but never installed parapet sign. There were no other comments. 3A. 1821 RALSTON AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NOEL F. CROSS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CARTER AND AMY BRIK, PROPERTY OWNERS) 3B. 1109 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CATHERINE SHIU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) 3C. 1637 BALBOA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ELIAS J. NOVO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) 3D. 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO RETAIN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CONVERT ITS USE TO LIVING QUARTERS (ALLEN T. MENICUCCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 3E. 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORP., APPLICANT; 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD L.P., PROPERTY OWNER) C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion; 1821 Ralston Avenue, 1529 Albemarle Way, 765 Airport Blvd. passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The projects at 1109 Bernal Avenue and 1637 Balboa Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1610 FORESTVIEW AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANNSSON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEAN AND TAMI RALLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a floor area ratio (FAR) variance was required with the original submittal. Planner responded no. The FAR variance was required after revisions were made to the original project. Commissioner Dreiling noted that he had met with the applicant to discuss the project shortly after it was submitted for design review. Commission had no additional questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect, 1204 Middlefield Road, Suite E, Redwood City, provided a model of the proposed project, noted that the second floor addition is now centered on the house, the extended covered porch added to the FAR but was intended, intent to provide a break to the two story wall and help center the second floor. Commission noted a concern with the proposed number of skylights on the second floor, it will be a visual beacon to the neighbors; applicant noted that the skylight configuration was revised from a greenhouse style to a traditional individual skylight system, intent is to bring natural light to the first floor dining room and hallway, is it now very dark. Commission asked if there is somewhere to reduce the FAR by 39 SF; applicant noted that the trellis or a portion of the covered porch could be eliminated to reduce the FAR, in this case this square footage is being used to reduce the mass and bulk, have a hardship in that the second floor addition is required to be centered on the house and the front door is located at the rear of the house, la rge covered porch serves as an access corridor to the house since there is no interior hallway. Commission noted that on the left elevation, one of the columns has a different base, is there a reason for the extra width? Applicant commented that the intent is to give it more presence and was done for aesthetic reasons only. Further discussion: Commission noted that the second floor eave is 10' away from the edge of the chimney, the building department requires a minimum of 10' from eave to the center of the chimney, may have problems when submitting for a building permit, may have to shift the second floor addition further towards the front of the house, suggested adding a gas fireplace or moving the chimney to comply with the separation requirement instead of shifting the addition, applicant agreed; the revised project is a great improvement, style is more consistent, there must be a hardship on the property in order to grant a variance, sees no justification for requested variances, should adjust the project to eliminate the FAR variance, suggests modifying the trellis so that it does not count in FAR, trellis can be modified so that it is attached to the house and becomes an eave; Commission noted that the roof over the porch is not shown consistently in the model and plans, applicant noted that is was difficult to accurately depict the roof slope in the revised model; Commission commented that the porch brings the entry closer to the street, this project would work if the applicant could find some way to reduce the FAR by 39 SF to comply. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this design is a great improvement from previous submittal, the reason for FAR is to keep the mass and bulk of the building down, the location of the entry towards the rear is unusual, the applicant has addressed the second floor mass by extending the porch, the proposed porch is approximately 300 SF, with the 100 SF covered porch exemption the applicant is being charged for 200 SF of covered porch, the trellis and porch do not add to the mass and bulk and an enclosed area would, porch is an asset to the building, feels that this is a good project, 39 SF over the FAR is acceptable, can support the variance since it is not adding to the bulk; feels that the applicant can reduce the FAR by 39 SF and keep the integrity of the design, does not want to set a precedent for future applicants, do not see the hardship, front entry can be relocated with this extensive remodel, should revise the project to eliminate variances, cannot find extraordinary circumstances on the property for FAR variance, flat typical size; concerned with the skylights and how they will affect neighboring properties, some should be eliminated; trellis is a positive element, cannot support FAR variance, this lot is over 7000 SF and is allowed to have more FAR. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 4 C. Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the regular action calendar of the next Planning Commission meeting on January 8, 2001, if the information is submitted in time. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: concerned with the overuse of skylights in one area, this will become a beacon at night, suggest reducing the number of skylights, can also address the skylight in different ways; the reason for the continuance is to resolve the FAR variance issue, can support front setback variance for trellis. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Bojués and Deal dissenting) roll call vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 1600 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MAHMUT YUKSEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICHARD FOUST, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Richard Foust, architect, noted that the project was redesigned to address the Commission’s concerns, the height, scale and character of the building was revised, found it important to reduce the height of the building to address the Commission’s concerns, incorporated the design reviewer’s recommendations; Commission noted that this is a nice improvement, plans appear to be schematic drawings, not clear on the trim around the windows, plans show 2 x 6 re-sawed trim, suggest using wood stucco mold, applicant agreed to use stucco mold around the windows; some windows are proportionally larger than others, it is hard to know how the details will work because of the way the plans are presented, outriggers on front elevation are inconsistent, some are shown to extend 3'-6" and other 2'-6", should be consistent in size, outriggers are drawn as 6 x 12, is that the intent? Further discussion: concerned with 10' tall porch colonnade and 8' tall door, porch and entry is out of scale, belongs on a bigger building, 12' ceiling in living room, when this house is built it will appear large, house is trying to be too grandiose, need to de-emphasize porch, need to provide more information on the corbel detail, concerned in general about the details, need to clean up inconsistencies, need to provide a precision drawing to accurately represent the building, too many inaccuracies, elevations and dimensions need to be cleaned up, being asked to act on a project that is not correctly presented; architect noted that he is unfamiliar with the procedure in Burlingame, usually does not submit working drawings at this stage, Commission noted that working drawings are not required, but schematic drawings need to accurately show what is being proposed. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: The project has improved greatly, but the proposed project is not presented clearly on the plans; the porch, architectural details and plans need to be cleared up; do not think project should be sent back to design reviewer, but should consider a continuance to resolve inconsistencies and add details. C. Keighran moved to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 8, 2001, if the information is submitted in time, with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: building could be nice proportionally, design is dependent on the elements used, should avoid 1970's style flat board window trim, re-sawn window trim does not fit in, suggest wood stucco molding, plans should accurately show windows and trim, note on plans indicates 6" x 12" corbels to be used, but in some places they are drawn as 6" x 6", would prefer to see 6" x 6" corbel. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 6. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 5 DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Bojués noted that he lives within the 300' of the project and stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, was present to answer quest ions. Commissioner noted that there are 9' and 10' ceiling heights, not in keeping with the architectural character to have a high ceiling, did not address before because higher ceiling was not called out on the plans; applicant noted that intent is to have a 9' ceiling in the house with the exception of a 10' ceiling at the rear of the house in the family room and nook, there are a set of steps from the kitchen to the family room; commissioner noted the wall on the front elevation on the left hand side scales at 10' but the right hand side says 9', not clear on the designer’s intent, applicant noted that the intent is to have 9' plate height at the front of the house and 10' plate height at the rear, next time will indicate the plate heights on all elevations. James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue, submitted a letter on behalf of the neighbors at 1112 Vancouver Avenue Chairman read letter into the record, letter noted that they are satisfied with the current changes, want to have privacy, would like to see adequate planting to protect privacy; Mr. Quinn reminded the Commission that he previously submitted a letter regarding the height variance and design review, would like to underscore his concerns, house will have four feet of extra height, skylights are below the 30' maximum height, see no reason for added height, noted that at a previous meeting the architect said he would reduce the building height to comply, single story houses are predominant in the neighborhood, elements used will make the house stick out and not blend in with the neighborhood now, there is one two story house which is set into the grade and appears to be single story, noted that the neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Przybocki wanted to share their concerns with the project but were not able to attend. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this site has had a difficult time with the design review process, this is a nice looking house, only concern is that the plans need to be redrawn so that a 9' plate height is shown, plate height needs to be reduced by another foot or so to reduce bulk, noticed that the bulk of the building is increasing, special permit for height is in place to address architectural features, would suggest placing the project on the consent calendar if the plans are revised. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the next Planning Commission consent calendar on January 8, 2001, if the information as directed is submitted in time. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: Commission suggested that the applicant use tall planting to protect the neighbor’s privacy and that the plans show the plant materials proposed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués abstaining) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 7. 1328 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. City Planner Monroe discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Boesche, property owner, represented the project noting that the all of the Commission’s concerns have been addressed, more articulation has been added, reduced the number of bedrooms from five to four with the elimination of the family room at the rear of the house, only adding a second floor now, took 27 SF out of the house in order to build a two car garage if it is needed in the future, new windows match existing and neighborhood; Commission noted that round top windows are generally used for emphasis all City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 6 windows are round top here does the applicant like the round-top windows, applicant answered yes, one of the main reasons for purchasing the house was the existing round-top windows, used this style of window to be consistent with the existing round-top windows on the front elevation, increases the amount of natural light into the house, added round-top windows at the rear to address concern that the rear elevation was boxy, Commission suggested that the rear elevation might look stronger with rectangular windows, there is too much emphasis on round -top windows; project looks good, concerned with the pattern of windows, asked applicant if the new windows will match the existing stucco mold, applicant noted that wood stucco mold will be used throughout the house, of the existing aluminum sliders installed by the previous owner will be replaced and wood stucco mold used, eave details will also match existing. Further discussion: front facade looks better, in design side elevations fall apart, concerned with the window location, proportion of dormers and amount of stucco used, feels these issues still need to be worked out, additional work to facade needed, the south elevation is fine. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: overall this is a good project, front of house works really well, addressed most of the Commission’s concerns, mass and bulk has been addressed, agree that round-top windows are excessive, looks busy, applicant likes this style of window, cannot see denying this project based on the window style, project will not impact the neighbor, wondering if applicant is sure about the amount and use of round-top windows, windows may appear larger from the inside of the rooms once the project is framed, may consider raising the sill height to increase the privacy, divider between rectangular and round-top windows may look messy. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the applicant has addressed his concerns and is in support of the project. He also noted that it is the owner’s discretion to change the style of windows, if the owner decides to change the windows this project can come back to the consent calendar. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Commissioner noted that he cannot support this project, proportions are terrible, there is an excessive number of round-top windows and they look out of place, front elevation is nice but other elevations fall apart, side elevations will be seen from the street; suggested adding a condition that wood stucco mold and eave detail match the existing detail. The maker of the motion and second agreed with the suggestion. Chairman Luzuriaga 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 November 8, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that project shall include wood stucco mold and eave details to match the details on the existing house; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower floor (380 SF), 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; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 5, 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. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with one added condition and with option to return to the consent calendar if the applicant chooses to revise the style of some of the windows. The motion passed on a 5-2 roll call vote. (Cers. Bojués and Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. The Commission took a break and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. 8. 1405 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THREE (3) STORY, FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (FRANK GONSALVES, A.I.A., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROMAN AND GALINA KNOP, PROPERTY OWNERS) a) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES b) TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 7 Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Frank Gonsalves, architect, 490 El Camino Real #105, Belmont, presented the project. He noted that all of the suggestions and concerns were reviewed and addressed, eliminated two parking variances, is available to answer questions. Commissioner asked architect to clarify the entry near the street, the plans show a retaining wall at the edge of the sidewalk, is this area flat? Applicant responded that the grade in this area is flat and at the same level as the sidewalk; Commissioner asked if the applicant considered other parking alternatives to eliminate the parking variance for vehicle maneuvers (guest space), applicant noted that he discussed with staff the option of placing the guest parking space in the front setback area, turf block and decorative paving would be used access would be by backing in; Commissioner pointed out that there are inconsistencies between the plant list and landscaping shown on the plans, there are a couple plants missing, cannot tell if there are more without a full review of the plans, need to clarify; more people will be using public transportation in the future, need to add a better human entrance to the building from the street, there is a token archway proposed, need to add a trellis or something to indicate a front entrance, applicant agreed with the comments and would study it further, if the grade at the front of the lot works the way the applicant described, it could help to add a pedestrian access to the front of the building, applicant considered adding something to the front but did not want to encroach into the front setback, realizes that the code may allow something to improve the entry. Further discussion: concerned about the form of wrapping the first and second floor windows on the east, west, and south elevations, unclear about the trim detail proposed, applicant noted that a stucco reveal and wood frame windows are proposed, Commissioner asked if it is a stucco protrusion, applicant responded yes. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the entry on the front elevation needs to be lined up with the chimney, like the idea of using wood windows, one foot bays are not enough to reduce the flatness, provide no real depth or shadow; project is close to approval, west elevation needs to be worked on, concerned with the stucco protrusion around the first and second floor windows, not related to the architectural style used, need to revise; concerned with the density, there are too many projects on El Camino with too many units on small lots, would like to see lots combined on El Camino Real so that better projects are built, this is not the time or place to review that issue, project does not have a useable common open space. C. Vistica moved to continue this item to the next Planning Commission consent calendar on January 8, 2001, if the information is submitted in time, with the direction to address the west elevation, study the entry, align the entry with the chimney, revise the plans to show the correct grades at the front of the lot as described by the architect and address the buildings pedestrian entrance, and revise the trim around the two story windows on the east, west and south elevations. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: Commissioner suggested adding a decorative wrought iron railing on the second story windows. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Dreiling dissenting) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 9. 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS (PETER GUMINA, FRAME-O-RAMA, APPLICANT; 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER)) Reference staff report, 12.11.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed ordinance criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted an amendment to condition 3 adding the number of blade signs (2) and the fact that they were located on the primary frontage of the site. Commission noted that the sign size was actually 2'-6" x 7'-0" or 17.5 SF per face, staff noted City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 8 that the area of the faces was correct in the staff report, there was a typo in the narrow dimension. Commission had no additional questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kelly Bowman, represented Frame-O-Rama the business at 701 California Drive. To clarify the color she showed the actual blade sign, noting that she felt that a blade sign at this location would have the least visual impact and would upscale this building; she noted that they had reviewed and would accept the conditions in the staff report. Planning Commissioners asked why the sign was so large with most of it graphic, only about 20% lettering; applicant noted they are in the graphics business, discovered signs inside the windows are not visible during the day at this site. Sign seems to include a lot of fluff, big size is just for stopping power; applicant noted that the building is simple, the signs will enhance the appearance of the structure. These are the same signs the company is using at another location, did you consider designing signs just for this location. Applicant, this same sign will be used on 5 different sites and did not consider unique program for Burlingame site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: like the signs, the building itself is unfortunate, these projecting signs provide some life and human scale to the structure, for that reason did not find a problem with the third blade sign at the corner. C. Keighran noted that she did not want the third sign, removing it helps put the program in perspective and comes closer to compliance with the sign code requirements, can support this as long as there will be no additional signage on the Oak Grove side, this request is over the square footage because of the height, but this is a big building on a corner so move approval by resolution of the sign exception with the addition of conditions that there be no signage on the secondary frontages of this site, that the maximum height of the letters on these blade signs shall be 6 inches, and to include the amendment to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. The amended conditions included in the motion were as follows: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 4, 2000 (8 x 14"), and date stamped December 3, 2000 (8 x 11" color rendering); 2) that the maximum height of the lettering on each face of the sign shall be 6 inches at the location as shown on the plans submitted and approved; 3)that there shall be no signage added on the secondary frontage of this site without review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this sign permit; 4) that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 5) that each of the two blade signs on the primary frontage shall be attached to the building by a solid rod at the top and bottom of the blade to prevent flapping in the wind; 6) that the applicant shall be responsible for replacing the blade signs to the same or lesser dimensions approved with this sign exception when the blade signs become damaged, tattered or illegible; 7) that all banner signs and signs without a sign permit on this building shall be removed within 10 days of the date action is taken on this sign exception application; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Comment on the motion: Applicant could have put an illuminated tin can wall sign on this building, this is better; cannot support, blade sign is the right approach, but this signage program was not created with Burlingame requirements in mind, it was designed for some other place, could be made to comply with our code; agree that this program is preferable to an illuminated tin can wall sign, with two blades would conform to code required size except that this is a vertical sign which extends over 12' so only 40% of signage is allowed, sign code focuses on horizontal signs, a vertical sign brings the eye to the ground and the letters are small, so de-emphasizes the square footage of the sign; can support a blade sign if it stays within the code, concerned if this is granted other businesses in the area will ask for similar blade signs; building has been described as unique, the proposed color scheme is subtle and classic, support the blade signs because they are no dominating the face of the building; the letters on these signs are about 6 inches tall should add a condition limiting the maximum height in the future. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to amend the conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the sign exception for two blade signs at 701 California Drive. The motion passed on a 5 - 2 (Cers. Bojués and Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 10. 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR - REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2001 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 9 CP presented the 2001 Planning Commission Calendar. Commission reviewed the dates. C. Keighran moved approval of the Commission’s 2001 meeting calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Lurzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1704 SANCHEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VITAS VISKANTA, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Vitas Viskanta property owner and applicant, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted: plans need to have the labels on the north and east elevations corrected; design is dramatically better, second floor element is better placed, the siding should be lowered and/or a belly band added to improve the proportion and add interest; a siding change at the sill works well if the first floor is at ground level, as it goes down hill it changes the proportion and increases the appearance of bulk; what is the material which surrounds the center window on the north elevation, the 6 inches around the window should match the one at the rear; one idea is that you don’t need to have a strict line around the house, its OK to drop the line in some places since there is a lot of articulation in this design. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. C. Deal moved to put this time on the consent calendar for action with the direction that on the north elevation and other elevations as well the wood siding at the top be extended and the stucco demphasized. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar on January 8, 2001, with direction. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 12. 1460 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED SPACE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND JENNIFER WALSH, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, architect, represented the project. He noted a number of design features which had been included in the project, and noted that the nonconforming depth of the uncovered parking space was existing and the remodel did not affect the garage area. Commissioner asked what the metal roofing material was on the dormer. He noted copper. There were no further questions from the floor. C. Deal moved to place this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of January 8, 2001, with the added condition that the metal dormer roof be copper. He commended the architect for increasing the pitch on the roof on the house and incorporating the second floor living area into the new roof line, nice addition. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: regarding the parking, this plan uses the existing garage, it is at a given location which establishes the depth of the uncovered parking space, can still park a vehicle in the uncovered space, if the house were to be demolished would want to review this variance, so could condition to that effect be added. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 10 Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to place this item on the January 8, 2001, consent calendar with suggested conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 13. 732 LEXINGTON WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (SHARON AND DAVID ZOVOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, and Sharon and David Zovod, property owners represented the project. Intention was to add to the master bedroom and reconstruct the stairs to remove the winders. Commission asked about the flat roof line at the rear; applicant noted that there was a sloped roof at the front but all the roof lines at the rear were flat, so continued the existing condition with the addition. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués moved to place this item on the consent calendar for the January 8, 2001, meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. There was no comment on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to the consent calendar at the January 8, 2001, meeting. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 14. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CONTRACTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND YVETTE GOROSTIAGUE, PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bob Williams, architect, and Dean Fantham and Yvette Gorostiague, property owners, represented the project. They noted that from their initial studies of the clients space needs and condition of the house led to the conclusion that the appropriate move was to demolish and rebuild the house. Much of this lot is very steep and wanted to retain the flat usable rear yard, so went to two stories; rear of the lot is about 85 feet above curb. This will be the first two story house on this side of the street, but there are a number down the street in Millbrae. Second story allows greater side setbacks than the original house. Commissioners asked: there needs to be more information/detail on the landscape plan, should include selection of plant material which will grow larger; what is the size of the house, 4100 SF with 400 SF in garage. Applicant should install story poles so neighbors can see effects of addition. The following members of the audience then spoke: Bill Kahn 1837 Castenada; Dr. Bellinger,3 Rio Court; Larry Barich, 1821 Loyola; Samuel Honeo, 1812 Castenada; Bob Debenchenzi, 1809 Castenada. Do not want such a big house on this block, concerned about view obstruction, would like to see story poles installed; proposed house not fit existing quaint character; too many cars on street now, unable to sweep streets, these people now park on street, larger house will generate even more cars; this is a big lot and if approved would open door for bigger houses in this area. Applicant responded: the proposed house is about two time bigger not three times; it is no deeper on the ground floor, the houses above are 80 feet higher and will not be affected; the second story is set back 40 feet from the curb and side setbacks are 3 to 6 feet greater than existing; did not want to grade into the hill. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed: why does the house need to be removed; this is a long deep lot, can the house be reoriented; story poles should be installed; neighbors should bring photos of story poles taken from areas inside City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 11 their houses to the January 8 meeting; concerned about the appearance of the east elevation, this is a straight up two story wall, which will have a noticeable impact on the neighbors, need to reduce the vertical impact of this wall. C. Deal made a motion to put this item on the January 8, 2001, regular action calendar and to require that story poles be installed at least 5 days before January 8. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to set this item for the January 8, 2001, regular action calendar and to require story poles be installed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 4, 2000 CP Monroe commented briefly and indicated this review would be continued at the January 8, 2001 meeting. - Committee to Review Proposed Commercial Design Review Ordinance and Guidelines. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the Council’s request that the commission appoint two or three of its members to participate in a committee to revise the proposed commercial design review ordinance. After brief discussion Chairman Luzuriaga named Cers. Dreiling, Vistica and Luzuriaga to sit on the committee. CP Monroe noted that the first meeting would be in January 2001. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary pcmin12.11