Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.02.28 -1- Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 28, 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; Planner, Janice Jagelski; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso MINUTES The minutes of the February 14, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Perry Spitz asked that items 6; 1316 Broadway, and 7e; 1204 Broadway, be called off the consent calendar and heard. There were no other comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS 405 PRIMROSE ROAD #212, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (PAMELA CRONIN AND KATHLEEN ADDISON, APPLICANTS; HENRY HORN & SONS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the staff report. The Commissioners asked: there are two names on the application, will two practioners use this office. There were no further questions. The item was placed on the consent calendar , for the March 13, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. 600 AIRPORT BLVD, ZONED C-4, - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING LOT AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL, APPLICANT; STANFORD HOTELS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe summarized the staff report. Commissioners asked: how do the parking rates requested here compare to those at the other hotels which have controlled parking, would staff provide a table; what is the reason for restricting parking beside increasing revenue; what is the rational for charging a $1.00 per hour while the Hyatt charges 50 cents; would staff explain why a conditional use permit is required for hotels to charge for parking, hotels seem to feel that it is their right to charge. The item was set for public hearing and action at the March 13, 2000, meeting providing all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department and the City has heard from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission regarding this revised application in time to prepare the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -2- 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, - APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A SIGN ON A SECONDARY FRONTAGE ABOVE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY (RAYMOND E. JUNGWIRTH, APPLICANT; J. MICHAEL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: there are trees on this side of the property, on which property are they located, will they be removed when the sign is installed; Sheet A-1 shows sign B which is 5' x 6' as existing, it is not on the building, does the applicant intend to install it too; is sign A the one they are applying for, the application is not clear; a condition should be added to the action noting that if the sign is approved its placement cannot be used as a means to stop construction on the adjoining property; how do they plan to interiorly light this sign if it is only 3/4 of an inch thick, provide detail of how it would work; the applicant should clarify the hours of operation, the application says 5 p.m. to x, cannot read the form; what is the status of sign B; would the applicant provide a color palate for the sign for clarification. The item was placed on the action calendar, for the March 13, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. The study portion of the meeting ended at 7:20 p.m. 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 noted that Consent Calendar items 6, 1316 Broadway, and 7e, 1204 Broadway, have been called off the Consent Calendar and will be the first two items on the action calendar. C. Deal noted that because of a past business relationship with the applicant at 1357 Cabrillo, item 5, he would abstain from voting on that item. He noted that he had not done business with this applicant for several years but felt it prudent to abstain. 1316 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT; MATT AND ANNE COSENZA, OWNERS) C. Dreiling noted this is an excellent example of what commission is looking for in design review. 1357 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JIM & DEBBIE PETRUCCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) A.1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (INCREDIBLE EDIBLE, APPLICANT AND RALPH T. BEHLING TR, PROPERTY OWNER) B.1151 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (LE CROISSANT, APPLICANT AND JAE HO AND OK HEE KANG, PROPERTY OWNERS) C.1165 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (ROYAL DONUT SHOP, APPLICANT AND BENJAMIN C. BRUCE, PROPERTY OWNER) D.1201 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (VILLAGE HOST PIZZA, APPLICANT AND MORRIS AND LENCI FARKAS TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -3- F.1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (LOBOS TAQUERIA, APPLICANT AND KWOK L. WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) G.1308 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (SUBWAY SANDWICHES, APPLICANT, AND ERVIN EPSTEIN TRUST, ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) 410 AIRPORT BLVD. ZONED C-4, REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENTION OF PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING BOAT (CHUCK GONG, APPLICANT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (STATE LANDS COMMISSION), PROPERTY OWNER) C. Keighran moved approval 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. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0, with C. Deal abstaining on the vote on item 5, 1357 Cabrillo Avenue. The vote on item 5 was 6-0-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:25 p.m. REGULAR CALENDAR - 1316 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND AN INCREASE IN SEATING AREA IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (MARILYN OLCESE ET AL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) . CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA: PC Monroe reviewed the staff report, conditions of approval and the intent of the legislation which requires that conditional use permits or permit amendments be issued to each of the food establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and in the Broadway Commercial area. These permits fix the existing situations in each of these businesses so that the impacts caused by changes in these businesses on th e respective business districts can be monitored in the future by commission review and public notice. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Marilyn Olcese, property owner, spoke noting that they had asked for the change since the mezzanine area had been used for seating before, although the most recent tenant had not used it, they thought that it should be recognized. Commissioner asked if the bar location was shown properly on the plans, she noted that the current tenant plans to move the bar location. Speaking on the item were W.J. Spitz owner of 1215 Laguna; Perry Spitz, resident at 1215 Laguna, Thomas Koros, owner of 1236 Broadway. Do not need any more people in Broadway, should be no more seating; city has a 10 foot easement to provide access to parking at Paloma and Laguna, asked that it be made one way, it was, but it is not enforced by police; object to increasing the seating or the addition of more restaurants because the traffic in the area between El Camino and 101 is too heavy, it is impacted by people trying to find parking; in favor of increasing seating area, if Broadway is to complete with Burlingame Avenue need to have good quality restaurants; building walls will restrict Broadway=s growth, because it is a gateway between 101 and El Camino Real the area needs food establishments to give it an opportunity to grow. Have owned my property 35 years he has only owned his 4 years, so am more aware of the mess the area has become; he wants to increase his revenue, but people live nearby and they deserve consideration; couldn=t eat in all the existing food establishments in a month. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -4- Applicant responded: Burlingame has a limitation on restaurants, so the zoning will not allow any more; they are trying to establish that the mezzanine be included in seating area because it was always used that way, are not really adding seating. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that as mentioned there is already a limit on the number of food establishments on Broadway, this premise is not requesting an expansion but recognition of an area which has been used for seating before and was not most recently because the tenant did not have enough customers to use it; there is nothing that this commission can do about the one-way street; this proposal satisfies the requirements in the regulations and for these reasons move approval of the conditional use permit with the seating area of 1,956 SF by resolution with the condit ions in the following conditions in the staff report, as follows: 1) that this full service establishment, with 1,956 SF of on-site seating (1,450 SF on the first floor and 506 SF on the mezzanine), may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment; 2) that the 1,956 SF of on-site seating of the full service establishment shall be enlarged only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 4) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 6) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8) that this food establishment may be open seven days a week from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with a maximum of six employees on site at any one time; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements in effect at the time of the California Building and Fire Codes, and as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: believe that the seating area was there all the time, typical ratio of kitchen to seating area in a restaurant is 1/3 kitchen to 2/3 seating, this premise is well within that number; it is not an unreasonable expansion of seating area, need to deal with traffic and parking on Broadway as best we can. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for a full service food establishment with 1,956 SF of seating area at 1316 Broadway. The motion was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1204 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (JUBAN, APPLICANT AND ALICE DUCASSE TR, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report, suggested conditions of approval and the application of the new food establishments ordinance to this site which had a previous conditional use permit for take out service. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. W.J. Spitz owner of 1215 Laguna and Perry Spitz, resident at 1215 Laguna spoke. Have complained to the Police Department about the noise caused by the employees of this business dumping wine bottles in the trash after 11:00 p.m. and their triggering their car bugler alarms. Police will not respond unless the alarm has been going constantly for one half hour. The employees of this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -5- business loiter in the parking lot, they leave beer bottles behind his building; there are blocks of wood which divide the two parking areas, they are full of termites which spill into the easement; neither the business owner or city will do anything; also make early morning deliveries on Saturday, 6 a.m.. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Comment from the Commission: to CA when these things happen what role does a conditional use permit play in enforcement; CA Anderson noted that when the action is a violation of the conditions of approval the Commission can review the complaint and modify the conditions, this can be done progressively to document the violations. CA suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting so that the applicant can be present. Commissioner noted that one condition does address hours of operation however the hours in the staff report and those in Exhibit A are different, staff should clarify; need a condition for delivery in the morning, need to set a time; need clarification on the times, says dinner from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. but when do people actually leave the site, should be added, also when they arrive in the morning for lunch preparation. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to continue this item to the next agenda, March 13, 2000. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. No action was taken on the conditional use permit so the item is not appealable. This item was acted on at 8:00 p.m. 1434 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.22 FOR PROPERTY IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION. (LOU AND LAURA MATTEUCCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) City Engineer Erbacher presented staff report dated 2.28.00, with attachments. C. Deal acknowledged a business relationship with this applicant and abstained from review of this project. City Engineer presented the report, reviewed criteria and Engineering Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff whether future expansion of residence would be possible after this action, and if the variance was granted would the applicant still be required to obtain flood insurance. CA Anderson replied that the variance was requested by the applicant and is a procedure allowed by FEMA. CE Erbacher replied that flood insurance may still be required but that it could be higher based on an increased valuation of the house resulting from this construction. There were no further questions from staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and the public had no comments. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Vistica moved to approve the project, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that this approval is based on the plans prepared by J.D. & Associates dated August 16, 1999; and 2) that any future expansi on of this structure would require compliance with Chapter 18.22 of the Municipal Code. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: Commission asked how full disclosure of flood zone variance can be provided to any future property owner; C.P. Monroe answered that conditions of approval would be recorded against the property. CA Anderson added that a realtor could be required to disclose that first floor is 2" below 100-year flood elevation. C. Visitca moved to approve an amendment to the conditions to require full disclosure to future owners that first floor is 2" below 100-year flood elevation. The second, C. Osterling agreed to the amendment. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to approve the amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstained) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -6- Chairman Luzuriaga called for a brief break at 8:30 a.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:40 p.m. 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE. (NIMESH AMIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff where the 3 new trees, proposed since study, were located on the landscape plan and what species of tree was proposed to be planted? CP Monroe directed the commission to ask the applicant where new trees are proposed. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Vinu Shah, 1487 Floyd Avenue, Sunnyvale, project architect, referred to landscape plan, on Sheet A-6, noting location of three new trees. Commission asked why these small scale trees are 5-gallon size were proposed, they won=t screen house very well. Applicant stated that the garage had been lowered to one-story next to two-story residence in order to create a break in the scale of the new house, prefer not to have a big tree in this location, only needs to soften one story garage. Commissioner stated that the trees should frame the house in proportion to overall size of the house and provide screening from the street, applicant noted that items on a revised plan to address these concerns, this is not a straight-forward 2-story building, it has been broken into different masses to be more interesting from the street, they propose to use materials on walls and roof that are similar to existing houses in this neighborhood. Commissioner asked whether the applicant tried to put a hip roof on the north elevation where the roof lines split between the garage and house, applicant says he tried, but could not build. Commission noted that hip roofs are consistent in this neighborhood, and that the north elevation with eaves at two heights would look better with a hip roof. Commissioner asked if applicant is willing to resolve this design issue to use hip roof, applicant agreed. Commissioner then noted that pre-cut foam molding was not consistent in design and scale with other houses in this neighborhood, asked if a is willing to use window with standard stucco mold, applicant agreed. Commissioner asked if applicant would be willing to move the location of the trees, use larger species of trees from city tree list, and place them in back yard as well as front yard. Property owner, Rajen Patel, agreed to add larger trees, 24" box size, but doesn’t want to larger trees than existing in the neighborhood. Okay with roof change to hip roof; might see just a gutter on higher roof over garage roof; can work with foam and stucco on trims and arches. Commissioner noted their concern on scale of trim and that stucco trim makes scale appear larger, windows can now be ordered with integral molding that matches scale; owner agreed to look into this. Members of the public spoke: Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Catherine Smith, 1811 Davis Drive; noted she is happy to see the house smaller; it is now more compatible with neighborhood, still concerned that 560 SF basement is not included in the FAR calculation, applicant is still maxing out FAR, and therefore, because of the basement, the house is not entirely compatible with the existing houses in this neighborhood which do not have basements, a maximum size of basement of 250 SF as discussed previously by the commission is a start toward addressing this problem, note that if the laundry room is in the basement, the applicant will have to pump water up to the street level; has this problem been eliminated, don=t see laundry room anywhere; can=t go in garage because it would prevent cars from parking in garage, concerned that previously submitted 1-story home was larger than other houses in neighborhood; resubmitted petition signed by 100 Ray Park residents who believe that basement area over 100 SF should be counted in FAR, does this project with the basement meet the fire standards, where are the laundry facilities. Applicant responded there is no laundry facility because planned for it in the basement but felt that city would not permit, fearing a bathroom in the future. Commissioner noted that along with using pre-manufactured window with trim, that applicant should also use pre-manufactured stucco sill at bottom of window for a more traditional appearance. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -7- Commission comments: design much nicer; hip roof and stucco molding is a great improvement, good to address changes to landscaping trees, would like to clarify basement concerns, FAR requirement adopted to reduce bulk and mass of building as seen from the street, this basement is wholly underground and can=t be seen from street, the initial proposal had a basement which extended above ground and partially lifted up the first floor so it had an impact. The commission has discussed but not yet determined that 250 SF will be the maximum size of basements, have problem with laundry room in basement; basements are typically used as utility rooms. This house will conform with emergency egress and fire code standards when building plan check completed; it=s a good project; applicant should be limited to 2" waste pipe in basement for laundry purpose; will not accommodate toilet and no toilet should be permitted. Applicant has addressed bulk, mass, height issues; can=t see basement; basements are an innovative method of adding space, but don=t want it used as habitable bedroom. Want traditional design aspects of roof and windows and trim, as previously discussed, added. Would like applicant to consider larger tress that don=t disrupt concrete to be placed in front and rear yard; give shade and separation from other houses. C. Deal moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall include hip roof between the garage and house; 2) that the applicant will consult with the city to add three trees in front, two trees in rear, and plant 24" box trees; 3) that traditional stucco mold will be used for window trim; 4) that laundry facilities in the basement shall be allowed with maximum 2" waste line as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped February 18, 2000, sheets A-4 through A-6, including a hip roof between the garage and house, and that traditional stucco mold shall be used for window trim; the project includes a 563 SF basement (including the stairway) containing one room which shall not contain a closet, a bathroom, be used as a bedroom or have an exterior exit added; any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building including expansion of the basement shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to scheduling a foundation inspection the applicant shall provide a survey by a licensed civil engineer of which will establish to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the ceiling height in the basement area shall not exceed 8'-1" with the basement floor surface at elevation 92.4', and the finished first floor shall not exceed elevation 101.5', and that the elevation shall be confirmed by a licensed surveyor and accepted by the City Engineer before each required inspection by the Building Department; 3) that the applicant shall consult with the city arborist to add three 24" box size trees in the front yard and two 24" box size trees in the rear yard; 4) that la undry facilities shall be allowed in the basement with a maximum 2" waste line; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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; 6) that the City Engineer=s January 31, 2000, memo regarding roof drainage, underground drainage for the basement and driveway profile elevations, and the Chief Building Official=s January 31, 2000, memo regarding emergency egress from the basement shall be met; 7) that a grading permit shall not be issued by the Building Department until the following requirements have been met: that all grading shall be done during the dry season unless the City Engineer approves the proposed program, all city requirements for grading including silt and dust control shall be met, and that all NPDES requirements shall be met; and 8) 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 motion: can back-flow prevention device be required on water line pump to prevent sewage backup in basement, CE noted would be required at building permit stage. Would it be possible for C. Dreiling to sketch the hip roof for the applicant, C. Dreiling agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion. Commission voted 7-0 to approve. Appeal procedures were advised. This item was complete at 9:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -8- 466 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICANT TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (WAYNE CLAPPER, APPLICANT; PATRICIA FISHER, OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. Staff presented staff report. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Brian Clapper, son of applicant, Wayne Clapper, noted that the reasons for the changes were because of the cost of the previously approved design, and also measurements and construction method was different in the field than as drawn on the approved plan. Found they couldn=t build addition as previously approved. Commission asked whether applicant was a designer or architect. B. Clapper is project manager; his father, Wayne, is the designer and contractor. Commission asked whether addition would include trim to match existing? Applicant noted that it would match. Commission noted that some of the changes are an improvement over the previously approved plans, and that the changes make the addition more consistent in design with the existing house. Will there be detail at the bottom of the extended bay on the second story to match the existing house? Should use composite trim on 2" x 12' board; it makes trim appear more delicate. The railing on the back deck needs more attention to trim detail, too. Brad Hurtel, 467 Chatham, noted that he=s a neighbor and came to speak in support of the project. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission Comments: C. Dreiling moved to approve the project with the proposed changes and the conditions stated, by resolution: 1) that the cantilevered bay in the master bedroom include composition trim on bottom of 2 x 12 board; and 2) railing on back deck shall include more trim detail to be more consistent with design of house, as follows: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 15, 2000; 2) that the cantilevered bay in the master bedroom include composition trim on bottom of 2 x 12 board; and railing on back deck shall include more trim detail to be more consistent with design of house; 3) 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 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. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 9:20 p.m. 1541 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (KEITH BORRAL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 14, 2000 Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed 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. Keith Borrall, 1541 La Mesa, applicant, hopes that the story poles he erected helped neighbors visualize the outline of his proposed project. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -9- Winnie Jong 1537 La Mesa, daughter of property owners at this location, submitted four pictures A-D, to show view from living room and bedroom in direction of project and noted some obstruction of their view. Would like to ask Commission whether this is a substantial obstruction of their existing distant views? Pictures were circulated for review by Commission. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: this is a difficult. HACP permit process created to stop blockage of long distance views. Would like to ask the owner and neighbor to talk about this project. The project looks great, but it appears to block the long distance views from this neighbor=s property. The sunset clause in the original subdivision that constructed these houses finally elapsed which caused all kinds of new, tall additions that blocked views. The HACP permit was adopted to bring relief to these situations. Commission could approve the project if there was no objection from your neighbors. C. Luzuriaga re-opened the public hearing for the applicant to address these comments. Noemi Avram, architect, understands the background and respects the long distance views, but what is the angle of vision? Some pictures were taken from a secondary bedroom, not the master bedroom. Secondary bedrooms are not primary view areas. Commission asked whether other locations on site were considered for placement of the addition. Applicant said yes, but the proposed location is least obtrusive and this location is better than if the second story is moved to the back yard. There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Obstruction of view from house can dramatically change experience in house and personally devalue house. Have made aggressive efforts to minimize impacts on views and consider the proposed addition very large, which is the cause the impact. Can the existing main floor be modified to achieve the desired space? The addition in this configuration is not necessary. Can=t support project. Site has been visited, and determined that a certain amount of the view has been blocked. The design is good, but it does block the view. Would like to see further study on alternate locations. Owner and applicant need to talk with neighbors to negotiate till no one complains. C. Deal motioned to deny without prejudice because the addition is blocking long distance views. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on motion: need to talk with neighbors and reconsider design. Lots of space in house, can this accommodate needs? Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0- 0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 9:45 p.m. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT. (LOUIS ARATA, APPLICANT AND ANN PAVAO KRAEMER AND WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 14, 2000 Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Engineer and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Department of Public Works comments and noted an additional letter from Kevin and Diana Hicks, 1020 Balboa Avenue, was submitted for consideration. CP Monroe noted that the site plan identifies the foot print of a house because findings require evidence that the site can support development. This footprint not included as part of the lot-split application. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -10- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Anne Kramer, owner 1033 Balboa Avenue, stated that she hopes the lot split will be good for the neighborhood. Lana Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa Avenue, is concerned that the trees and roots of the trees be protected. If a 6' diameter trunk requires 24' radius for protection, then the redwood tree in front would require 12 - 16 feet setback for protection. No healthy trees should be touched. Sanchez Creek flow has not been studied since >89. Would like the current flood level examined. S. Andrew, 1024 Cortez Avenue, neighbor behind this lot, has trees with canopies that extend onto this site and does not want them damaged. Flood levels should be reviewed since El Camino always floods now. Bill Schneider, 1033 Balboa Avenue, resident, notes that the redwood tree seems to be a big concern. The oak trees would be well protected under the proposed plan. There are always pros/cons with projects, but they have a legal right to divide the land if the requirements have been fulfilled. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: Everyone is concerned about the trees. Have reviewed the McClenahan study and the conditions address all concerns. C. Osterling motioned to recommend approval of this project to City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on motion: Would oak tree # 3 require trimming if a two-story home were proposed on this site? It appears that a substantial portion of its canopy would require removal. Most homes in this area have detached garages. Don=t want to lock in a design with approval of this subdivision. Would hate to see damage to trees; conditions require that an arborist be on site to observe root protection during drilling of piers. Approval of subdivision does not imply approval of a project. Support the subdivision because it legally satisfies the requirements. Redwood trees have wide shallow root systems; they are especially sensitive to driveways, parking and paving. Pervious paving, and how to landscape around trees is critical. If development ruins a tree that was intended to be save, it=s an embarrassment. Must review landscaping. Can condition No. 5 be modified; it allows unsafe trees to be removed. If tree can be nursed back to health, it should not be removed. Also, need to review paving and irrigation around the trees. Designate this lot to require that any development shall be reviewed for design, including site design. C. Osterling moved to approve amendments to conditions of approval along with Conditions 1- 7 of staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 10:10 p.m. 1245 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH TO PROVIDE AN ENTRANCE PORTICO AND DISABLED ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS. (PAUL POPE, PRESIDENT, TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, and 3 conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -11- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ken Newman, 1401 Carmelita Avenue, represented the church membership. He presented a colored rendering of what the addition would look like from El Camino Real. The changes are needed to accommodate disabled members of the congregation; they have been working on this proposal for a long time, the members have reviewed it and agreed, they think that it is a beautiful structure and do not want to do anything to change its appearance; told the architect not to do anything to increase the mass or bulk of the structure; church members have discussed this since the last commission meeting, feel that it is not uncommon to put a flat roof on a small portion of a building with this Spanish style; request reconsider comments from last meeting where you asked for a pitched roof; discovered that a landscape plan would cost too much money to prepare, there are two orange trees in the area, one would be removed along with the periwinkles under it for the addition, there are about a half dozen flowering plants now next to the building which would be relocated to the base of the new structure, most of the structure would be built on already paved area; intend to use the main portico for entrance, this door would be an additional emergency exit; landscape maintenance would be the same as it is now. Commissioner noted that the flat roof with the pyramidal skylight does not seem to be in character with the existing building, could it be tied better into the building. Goal was not to add any mass or bulk to the existing building; Commissioner noted would like addition to look like it belongs on the building, you should be allowed to make improvements to the restrooms, told us enough about the landscaping, a plan is not necessary; several examples of good ways to add to this style of building such as Lucy Stern Center in Palo Alto, Allied Arts in Menlo Park, main post office in Palo Alto and the Morris house in Palo Alto, know this is a small addition but would personally prefer a more traditional approach; applicant noted that arch matches that of existing building, would it be preferable if added a parapet with Spanish tile or just a parapet for height; typically such additions to this style building do not have tile but it could. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commission: it is good that the church is adding disabled accessible bathrooms, agree that this is one of the best buildings in the city and nothing should be done that is not consistent with the style, the precedent is a parapet with tile cap, there is also precedent for a sloping shed which is softer; agree, support improvement to the bathrooms, there is an issue if the skylight at the entrance should be pursued; commission is not opposed to an addition but this is a prominent architectural piece in the city and do not what to see it tarnished; suggest that applicant resubmit with change to entry. C. Bojués moved to continue this time to the action calendar at the meeting of March 13, 2000, if the submittal can be made to the staff in time. Motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken, there is no appeal. This item was completed at 10:25 p.m. 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ON A PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR A NEW WALL SIGN. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LP, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria for a sign exception, and comments. In the report four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the proposed sign would cover the window, be set to one side of it, or placed on the roof; CP Monroe noted that roof signs were illegal, the applicant might respond to the location relative to the window. There were no further questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Peterson, Ad Art Electronic Sign Corporation, represented the applicant, this sign request should have been included in the original application; the sign will be to the left of the window, a mirror of the west elevation; the Red Roof, Embassy Suites and DoubleTree all have wall signage on three elevations; this elevation faces Airport Blvd., there is a monument sign on this frontage but a utility box was placed in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -12- the right of way so that it blocks view of it; this sign will be setback 100 feet from Airport Blvd. Commissioner noted the location to the left of the window does not mirror the side facing 101, concerned that being placed to the left of the window will look awkward, the window should be removed; what does the window serve, it was not a part of the original application. CA Anderson noted could condition the application to reflect what is shown. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués stated he would move for approval because the proportion of the letters fit, the proposed sign is in line with the signage of other hotels in the area, with the condition that the sign on the east side be centered on the building facade, the window sealed or relocated so that the sign would not be over the window, by resolution with the conditions as amended in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: do not feel that it is that critical that the sign be centered, like to see a window at the end of an interior corridor, the light is needed; the signage is centered on the other three sides of the hotel, if it is not here it will look like an after thought, they have the latitude to cover up the window; perhaps a different sign should be installed, one not like the others so it would not look odd; off set is fine, same style letters all sides cannot be seen at once, would like to amend motion to allow the sign to be placed to the left of the window, second to motion agreed because the sign is not that big and at the front where others cannot be seen, same color as others; maker of the motion noted that if the rest of the commission felt that it would be all right to set this sign off center he would agree to amending the motion, the second had already agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve the sign exception to allow the new wall sign to be placed off center so that the window on that facade could be retained, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the wall sign (Sign E) on the east side of the building shall be installed as shown on the p lans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 18, 2000, (site plan, building elevations, and sign elevations) except that the sign may be placed off center on the existing facade to allow retention of the window at this location; 2) that the maximum height of the Sign A shall be 56'-0", the maximum height of Sign B shall be 61'-0", and the maximum height of Sign E shall be 55'-6"; 3) that the copy of Signs A, B & E shall read AHilton,@ and the maximum height of the uppercase AH@ shall be 3'-0" and the lowercase Al@ shall be 3'-3 3/4", and the maximum height of the remaining lowercase letters shall be no greater than 3'-0"; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 10:40 p.m. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO ADD AN OVERLAY ZONE ON THE PROPERTIES FRONTING ROLLINS ROAD BETWEEN TOYON DRIVE AND LARKSPUR DRIVE Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report and the requirement for consistency between the General Plan land use designation and the zoning. CEQA requirements were noted. Commissioners asked about the proposed zoning overlay noting that rather than setting a fixed maximum height could the height be, for example, 21 feet to the top of the second floor plate and a maximum of 9 feet to the peak of the roof structure; feel that more than 500 SF left over allowing the number of units to round up on a site, base calculation is too little, should be 1000 SF; the proposed 50 SF of common open space in a courtyard would replace the private open space in a condominium; yes, staff noted there still would be open space in the rear yard setback; concerns commission expressed for the zoning to address were to minimize the bulk facing the R-1 zone, not to have three story buildings looming over 101, to encourage lot combination and encourage setbacks where lots were combined to bring development into the center of the lot, to encourage courtyards, 50 square feet per unit on some small lots may be too little, the courtyard may become a light well. There were no further comments from the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 -13- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ron Perner, 1849 Bayshore Highway spoke. He noted that he feels that the overlay zone is unnecessary and inappropriate at this location; he would encourage the city to study all the locations where this type of transition takes place and come up with a solution which addresses all of them; present zoning is not an accident, George Mann, earlier planner was very tough on zoning; the problem here is that the zoning is not enforced and property owners abuse their properties, park in tandem, do not collect trash; can=t write new regulations if you do not have the police to enforce the ones you have. In C-1 zone allow with a conditional use permit all types of residential uses, this allows commission review so can tell people what to do. On Broadway and Burlingame Avenues zoning written differently so multiple family could not be built. Proposing a lesser height for this multiple family use than is allowed for the single family use behind it. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: overlay zone has been useful in other transition areas, this could be used in other areas so should the title be so specific; might consider setting a minimum dimension such as 25' width in any direction for the courtyard so it will not be a light well; like idea of maximum height to top of second story plate and then height to roof peak so total is 30 feet, same a single family behind; a courtyard design will not work on a single lot, generally about 5500 SF; do we need to add to the purpose section: to encourage lot combination (use courtyard as an incentive to combine lots with minimum 25' dimension); round up should be 1000 SF not 500 SF. Commission consensus was to continue the time to the next meeting, March 13, 2000. Asked that this item be the first item on the next action agenda for those who waited so patiently tonight. Item ended at 11:05 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions at the last regular council meeting. - DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING FOR REVIEW OF PROJECT AT 301 AIRPORT BLVD. Commission determined that they wished to study the recent revisions to the office project at 301 Airport Blvd. prior to public hearing. They set the item for study on the March 27, 2000, agenda. Because they would not have a full commission seated in April they set the special meeting for action on the project for Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES2.28