Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.03.27 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 27, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 27, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the March 13, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. STUDY ITEMS 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JEFFREY M. OWENS, APPLICANT; JEFFREY M. AND MONICA L. OWENS, PROPERTY OWNERS; DUC M, TRAN, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: design reviewers recommendation on the variance may be misleading to applicant, thought that direction to design reviewers was that they should comment on variances which relate to the architectural character such as special permits for height, issue here is not design related, this variance needs to be based only on the exceptional circumstances on the property, applicant should provide property related justifications for this variance; is this lot small when compared to other lots in the city; what is the hardship on the property to justify the variance; would like to have a landscape plan; what are the city requirements for curb cuts, can you have one that is 30 feet wide; when drove by noticed a commercial sized dumpster in front of the site and a lot of equipment in the side and rear yards, is there a commercial operation on this site; the FAR calculation for this site is reported inconsistently in the staff report (page 1) and on the plans, clarify; first and second floor plate heights should be added to the plans; a note on the window types should be added to the plans. There were no further questions and the item was set for the April 10, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for that agenda. 1617 MONTE CORVINO, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK FOR A TWO - STORY ADDITION (LAUREN AND RICARDO ORTIZ, APPLICANTS; LAUREN AND RICARDO ORTIZ, PROPERTY OWNERS; RICHARD B. MORRALL, DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: the garage is not being relocated by very much, was it determined that a special permit was not required; did not provide information on average setbacks on the side of the street, looks as if the existing house is closer to the street now than the plans show, applicant should provide information on the setbacks on the side of the street and reconfirm their own setback in the context of that information; why should the garage be moved forward, other alternatives are possible, explain; did the applicant consider stacking space at the rear of the structure instead of moving garage forward; the resolution of the new portion of the roof into the existing roof is not represented correctly, a large cricket will be needed between the two; need more information on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -2- plans, more labeling to clarify first and second floor what is existing and what is new, also the same on the elevations; don=t think that the window on the second floor in the bedroom is large enough to meet emergency egress requirements, should be fixed now so that application does not need to be amended to enlarge the window later. There were no further questions and the item was set for the April 10, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for that agenda. 2100 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO RECONFIGURE THREE PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS TO CREATE TWO BUILDABLE SITES (DENISE LAUGESEN, APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC. PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER). Chairman Luzuriaga noted that he would step down from action on this and the next items since the property is located next door to his residence. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant so he too would step down on this item. Both commissioners left the dais. Vice-Chairman Vistica took over as chairman. CE Erbacher presented the staff report on the lot combination, noting that the action of merging lots within the confines of the lots as requested is generally an administrative permit. However, it appears on the commission agenda because of the planning reviews required. Commissioner asked if there would be any change to the exterior limits of the lots with this action, would the lot line adjustment affect the location of the existing property line on the left side. The item was set for the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2000, providing all the information is submitted in time for that agenda. 2100 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THIS THREE-PARCEL SITE TO RE-EMERGE THE PARCEL LINES, AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH DETACHED GARAGES; SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHTS OVER 30'-0" FOR BOTH NEW HOUSES; AND A VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY FRONT SETBACK FOR THE NEW HOUSE PROPOSED ON LOT B (DENISE LAUGESEN , APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC. PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) Cers. Luzuriaga and Deal remained off the podium for this discussion. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: applicant should elaborate the hardship on the property for the variance for the second story setback since this is a new house, can=t it be designed to code; should have an arborist=s report on the large pine tree, its condition and how to protect it. There were no further questions and the item was set for the April 10, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for that agenda. Cers. Luzuriaga and Deal returned to the dais. Chairman Luzuriaga continued as chair. 1421 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (CATHY AND JOHN FUNGHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN FUNGHI, CIVIL ENGINEER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: have a lot of issues regarding mass and layer cake appearance of this new house, needs more articulation on exterior, also a better rendering so have more idea of what the finished structure would look like; concerned about the impact of this structure on the neighbor to the rear, has s/he been contacted by the applicant; concerned with the size and the special permit for height, purpose of special permit is to accommodate certain architectural styles, here provision appears to be used in order to provide a full basement, would like to see site sections from street to rear property line with finished floor lines included; would like explanation of why applicant thinks that this proposal conforms to the parking pattern now on the street, appears others drive up to garages, in this case goes down into a dark spot; would like to see a landscaping plan for the project; need more detail on the elevations, especially window detail that will express the depth and mass of walls; need a more City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -3- realistic representation of what the house will look like when finished; need a tree protection plan by a certified arborist for the oak tree on the left side of the lot, other trees not a concern; what is the hardship on the property or justification for the special permit; this a large lot 71 feet by 120 feet, why can project not match neighbors with a detached garage; applicants who build a new house have to put in a 20' wide two car garage, why should this garage not be 20 feet wide; was the below grade garage counted in the FAR of the house; error on the plans, the second floor dimension shows the plate at 10 feet but it scales at 9 feet (sheet A1.7), check height computation; how does applicant expect to get a car into the third parking space; lot of bulk in the house, could be reduced by lowering the second floor plate line; staff should double check FAR it is very close to maximum; objective of design review is to reduce impact of garage to street, what will have here is a large shadow when viewed from the street, a big impact. There were no further questions and the item was set for the April 10, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for that agenda. 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SHOP/HOBBY ROOM. (WILLIAM E. POLLETT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PLANS DRAWN BY JG LEW) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: the architectural style of the garage needs to be addressed, it is nondescript, needs to reflect the architecture of the house; concerned about the size, city increased allowed size from 500 SF to 600 SF and the change appears to be a license for people to request even bigger garages than when the maximum was 500 SF; garage doors are 9 feet wide, can reduce the square footage; what do the windows at the rear of the structure look into; existing house on site is wonderful design, embellish garage to match; 28 foot width is too much, could be narrowed and still meet function; what is the plate height; what utilities will be provided in the garage, how will the interior be finished. There were no further questions and the item was set for the April 10, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for that agenda. 500 AIRPORT BLVD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO 35 SF WALL SIGNS ABOVE THE FOURTH FLOOR WITH ONE PROPOSED ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AND ONE ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE. (JEFFERSON HOWERY, ARROW SIGN, ANNE YARDLEY SERENA, APPLICANT; ANGELO ORPHAN, PROPERTY OWNER; PLAN FROM ARROW SIGN) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: would applicant provide a colored photo of the sign; provide more information on illumination of sign including wattage/lumens, compare illuminat ion to other signs approved in the area; provide realistic example of color sample of material or PMS color sample; provide a scaled elevation of the building including the sign to scale on the building face; provide a comparison of this sign and the recently approved Acrossroads@ sign for letter height. This item was completed at 7:50 p.m. 301 AIRPORT BLVD, ZONED C-4; - APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND DETERMINATION THAT THE REVISED, REVISED PROJECT FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF A 488,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN FOUR FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS ON A 16-ACRE SITE AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT; GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER; ARCHON, ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: in the past the school district provided admission preference to students whose parents work in Burlingame, is this still in effect; note condition 13 refers to bicycle lanes, clarify the bicycle access to site via the Broadway Interchange at Rector/ Peninsula; previously asked for project to include community amenities mentioned a day care center, no longer included, would the applicant explain what happened. Project has come a long way in addressing the wind effects and apparent height, but the solution needed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -4- now is to tie the project more closely to the community, need more safe bicycle access, place to park bicycles on site, not just try to fix roadway traffic, need means to reduce trip generation such as shuttle connection s to every train at transit centers during peak hours, site amenities which would keep people on site during the day and out of cars, place to recreate and for pedestrians to use, provide stations to recharge electric vehicles; traffic report addresses queuing at North Humboldt and Peninsula notes increase in p.m. peak hour trips, says won=t impact queuing but will automatic signal adjustment affect congestion at other parts of intersection, personal experience does not match study observations, need clearer explanation in layman=s terms about how the increased volume will affect how cars get through all legs of intersection; what will the traffic/ parking impacts of the project be on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway if amenities are not provided on site for employees to use, where will they go at lunch time, to do errands; how will the impact on traffic at southbound Broadway off ramp be alleviated, a sk San Mateo to explain how Bay Meadows was able to reconstruct the interchange with 101, how was it financed; concerned about the impact of re - routing the trucks on the adjacent neighborhood in San Mateo, what will the effects be; will people backed up at Peninsula/Humboldt make a turn sooner on Idaho Street. This project has the potential to be an exemplary project for Burlingame. It is easily within the means of this project to incorporate current proven Planning ideas that will make this a good project for Burlingame and surrounding communities. Questions continued: do not feel that the project has come a long way, still a 1950 plan with an office oriented to cars in a sea of parking; the site has opportunities which could be foundation for positive not negative effect on Burlingame; EIR process was used to evaluate small pieces individually which individually do not look so bad but design does not look at whole picture; if cannot use interchange to get to Burlingame will use interchanges in other cities, ripple effect; would like to see justification for why one project should be allowed to affect so many Burlingame residents; concerned about finding number 6 which shifts air emission reduction solutions to proven methods; community will have missed an opportunity. CA Anderson noted that the findings regarding significant and unavoidable effects and the statement of overriding considerations are drafts which CEQA requires to be prepared; the commission is responsible for drafting their own findings and statement based on the reasons they choose for action. CP noted that the conditions of approval were provided at study in this case because they represent the required mitigation monitoring plan for the EIR, they should be reviewed by the commission to insure that they properly address the understood mitigations required to address the effects of the project. Questions continued: one solution to traffic is extension of the Free Bee shuttle to this location, could it have an all day schedule, could its frequency be increased during the peak hour and lunch, to encourage people out of their cars; earlier asked for site amenities to keep people on site, gradually they have all been designed out; would like a summary sheet of actions taken and to be taken prepared to give to the public at the action meeting, make clear what the commission=s action options are and what the commission is able to do, could handout include key issues or significant effects which affect public, like end result of EIR summary commission requested (Table 1) that could be made available to public at next meeting; did City of San Mateo and Boardsailing Association get EIR addendum, yes. Commission discussed setting the public hearing for this item: Chairman Luzuriaga noted that he felt that this decision required a full commission for action, would not have a full commission until the special meeting date of May 3, 2000. C. Bojués moved to set the public hearing for a special Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 3, 2000. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to set the public hearing for May 3, 2000. The motion passed on a 7-0 affirmative voice vote. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -5- FROM THE FLOOR Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, commented on study item 6 asking that the illumination of this proposed sign be compared to that at the Sheraton; she knows a number of people who live in Burlingables and have their living rooms lit by the red glow of the Sheraton sign night and day. Dan Levin, Glenborough Inc., 4000 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo; would like some clarification on what commission meant about community amenities for 301 Airport Blvd., what does the commission feel would get people out of their cars or keep them on site. CA Anderson indicated commission could make simple responses, not engage in discussion. Amenities could include day care so people not have to leave to pick up or transfer children, ways to exercise at mid- day such as a par course, picnic area to eat out in an area sheltered from the wind; places to walk on site, to buy meals, do laundry, some retail facilities, grocery/deli/restaurant, bicycle path from different points within Burlingame and San Mateo, way to get access over the freeway (bicycle overpass), mixed use so people can live near where they work; need to encourage people to stay there and attract others who work in the area to stay there; to provide a frequent Afree bee@ bus link to downtown and Broadway so not need to use cars for errands or lunch. There is nothing in the project to encourage people to live near it, in the 21st Century people will live in the same area where they work or there will be strong connections between where they live and work. Shirley Likko, Woodlake, San Mateo; understood that they stopped some of the development at Bay Meadows because the project would have such an impact on traffic, is this so; can ask San Mateo, have both cities met with CalTrans. John Webb, 720 Paloma; are there any mitigations in the project to insure fixing the existing shoreline with new development; who will maintain the shoreline improvements; will this project address improvements to the shoreline behind the showboat, or is fixing this segment a part of an overall plan. Tom Shea, 2204 Easton Avenue; will I be allowed to speak on item 14. Yes that is an action item and there will be a public hearing at that time. Janet Gerke, property owner at 808 N. Idaho and Woodlake, San Mateo; there are two schools off Poplar, one serves special education children, nephew recently hit by a car infront of his school in a residential area of San Mateo, concerned about impact of additional traffic in this area. From the Floor concluded at 8:40 p.m. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Luzuriaga introduced the consent calendar and asked if anyone in the audience would like to call any item off the calendar. There were no requests from the audience. He then asked if any commissioner would like to call an item off. Commissioners noted that the project at 1404 Alvarado is a nice piece of work, is compatible with the residence and was done with good intentions. C. Vistica asked that 1436 BALBOA AVENUE be removed so that the commission could look at the possibility of adding a condition to provide a landscape buffer along the driveway where there is a large blank wall between this project and the neighbor to the south. Chairman Luzuriaga removed 1436 Balboa Avenue from the consent calendar. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -6- 1411 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, - REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING. (JOHN WALTER AND C. MCCOY, APPLICANTS AND OWNERS, MICHAEL CHACON, ARCHITECT) 1404 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION INTO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BILL VAN HUESEN, ARCHITECT; JOHN AND DIANE PETERSDORF, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1617 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI, ARCHITECT; KARL AND DEBORA BAKHTIARI, OWNERS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA: A. 1170 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (PRESTON=S CANDIES AND ICE CREAM, APPLICANT AND ALICE DUCASSE TR, PROPERTY OWNER) B. 1236 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (BURRITO BROADWAY/BROADWAY FOOD CENTER, APPLICANT AND THEODORE KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER) C. 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (BEHAN=S IRISH PUB, APPLICANT AND TERESA HART, PROPERTY OWNER) D. 1431 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (BROADWAY DELI., APPLICANT AND ALICE DUCASSE TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) and 1158 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND AN INCREASE IN SEATING AREA FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (CAFE CAPUCHINO, APPLICANT AND DAVID H. AND ANNE H. HINCKLE, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7 -0. Appeal procedures were advised. Consent item concluded at 8:45 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1436 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEPHEN E. AND KATHARINE B. ROGERS, APPLICANTS; STEPHEN E. AND KATHARINE B. ROGERS, OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -7- Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. CP reviewed the staff report. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Steve Rogers, 1436 Balboa Avenue, noted that his family grew and the reasons for the addition are addressed in the letter submitted; he is available for questions. Commissioners asked: note that the driveway is 12' wide, there is enough space for a planter between this side of the house and the neighbor, would the applicant be willing to consider; would like to see taller landscaping planted in the ground, something that would provide a narrow hedge, doesn=t have to be solid, something to soften the edge, recommend that the applicant be careful with blocking views from driveway. The applicant noted that there is a 6' high fence at property line and planting along this side of the house, will add landscaping, but want to make sure there is still adequate room for the driveway. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, including a requirement for additional landscaping with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 17, 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 any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that a landscape screen shall be planted in the ground along the edge of the driveway at property line to add a visual buffer and softening along the property line between this project and the property to the south; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 8:53 p.m. 1313 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (CATHRINE MOREY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NEIL GABBAY, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. Planner Brooks presented the staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration, including an amendment to condition 1, to include the items noted in the aplicant=s letter handed out at the meeting, i.e., roofing with clay mission tiles, tinting the skylight at the front of the structure, and revision of Sheet A-3 to provide for shoring for the retaining wall at property line . Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Neil Gabbay and Mark Russo, architects stated they were available for questions. Commissioners noted that the design is good, but uncomfortable with bunker type look with the driveway on the side, the exposed garage looks like what we do with apartments and condominiums; large retaining wall proposed at property line, next to a 7' wide easement with large trees, neighbor south of easement also has retaining wall, will have 7' easement with trees and retaining walls on each side, how will trees survive. The applicant noted that the garage level is less than a foot below the top of curb roots deeper, and the trees to the south are more than 7' from where retaining wall is proposed, existing trees on this site are on right side of property. Commissioners asked: there were comments made in the applicant=s letter that garage is attached for security reasons, design guidebook has suggestion for that; the house is made wide with the cantilever over garage, can the house be made narrower. Mark Russo, project architect, noted that by putting the garage below were able to maintain back yard, lot rises 10' toward the back, there is a 30" high retaining wall at the sidewalk now, the proposed planter marks the entry to the lower area and there is greenery cascading down to the retaining wall at the sidewalk; could do more landscaping or propose a gate at the driveway. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -8- Tom Shea, 2204 Easton Drive and John Cullase, 2208 Easton Drive commented on the project; noted that his home faces existing garage on the site, there is an existing tree next to the garage, when garage is torn down would like to see this tree protected from damage; the proposed roof is higher than normal, roofs in neighborhood are mostly shake and brown color, would like to see roof material that conforms to the neighborhood; deck is proposed on second floor of new house, need the existing tree for privacy. Mr. Cullase presented a letter from Jay Veach, 2214 Easton Drive, concerns expressed regarding maintaining the existing large tree for privacy. The applicant responded and noted that the tree next to the garage is a juniper clump, it is not to be removed, once the garage is removed, the tree will grow better. There were no further public comments, Chair Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: did excellent job designing the house, have problem with trees which border the property, there will be a cut for the retaining wall 2 - 3 feet from trees; not happy creating tunnel with cantilevered area over, there is nothing like it in the neighborhood; would like to see something that is compatible; concerned with trees, would like them mapped, what are the age of the utilities in the easement determines how recently root systems were disturbed and will make a difference regarding the root structure of trees in easement; need arborist =s report that shows trees can be protected, not concerned with cantilever part of design, given owner=s requirements for attached garage think it is a creative solution. Further commission discussion: concerned with height allowable is 30', special permit allows 36', this proposes to go to the maximum, could it be brought down to less than the maximum, or should it be surveyed as it is built to make sure it stays at proposed height; could we see story poles to address neighbor=s concerns with views; proposed cantilever takes away from the architecture at the front, looks like a dark tunnel, for consistency with the neighborhood would prefer a detached garage; shadow created by cantilever, conflict with design, wants to have a front yard garage without looking like it, but has same impacts; can make house narrower to allow rear yard garage. C. Dreiling moved to deny the project without prejudice with direction as noted in discussion. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: highest point of building is only 28' above existing grade, don=t see house as too tall, because of the slope of the lot, can=t put good second floor in the normal space; would like to see landscape plan to see what will occur in the front and what is being done to maintain privacy from neighbors, and to see impacts on existing trees. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 9:30 p.m. The commission took a 15 minute break and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 301 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW 720 SF DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN MALLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, with its attachments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Maller, 301 Chapin Lane, applicant, noted that could not revise plans fully, changes addressed in letter, theme of the project does not change, just dimens ions. There were no questions for the applicant. There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted: looking through the special permits requested, the size of the structure, 675 SF proposed versus the 600 SF allowed is appropriate for a 3-car garage and this is an unusually large property; the amount of storage is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -9- appropriate to the three car garage, the 30' width is necessary for a 3-car garage; concern with 17' height, drawings show collar tie going across structure, this reduces useable space for storage, could reduce height with different design, but like the proposed 7/12 pitch, like house, works better with house. C. Deal then 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 and date stamped February 3, 2000, Sheets A-1 through A-2, as amended by the project description included in the letter of response date stamped March 16, 2000, sheets 1-3 ; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, memo dated February 7, 2000 , that the conditions of the City Engineer=s memo dated February 7, 2000, and that the conditions of the Senior Landscape Inspector, dated March 6, 2000, shall be met; 3) that the size of the water and waste lines from the garage shall be limited to 0'-2"; and, 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: applicant did good job matching the garage with the house, often times ask for architectural character, this time got it off the bat, clearly understand needs of design review and reflect in project. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 9:55 p.m. 735 - 741 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2, APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOCATION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AND LAUNDRY AREA. (SAM BARRETTA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The designer, Mark Robertson, 135 Arroyo Court, San Mateo was available for questions and Sal Barretta, the applicant and property owner was also present. The applicant noted that this is an unusual application requiring 5 off-street parking spaces, the last plan tried to apply the R-1 rules to the garage, code does not limit length of garage for R-2 property, increased to 31' width to accommodate so all cars can come in the side; regarding plate height, most structures in neighborhood have finished floors 24" above grade, this project will be dwarfed by its two-story neighboring structures. Sal Barretta, 231 Villa Terrace, San Mateo, property owner, noted that regarding the plate height, need an 84" (7') tall garage door opening, so can reduce to 9' plate height and accommodate 84" tall door opening; the applicant noted a willingness to accept suggestions from Planning Commission. There were no other public comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the remaining concern with the project is the door size and plate height, if it were an 84" (7') door height would look better, and could reduce plate height with smaller door, then it works; could keep the peak of the roof at 15' and reduce plate height. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, modified to have a maximum garage door opening of 7' (84") and a plate height of 9' and a roof ridge of 15' with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2000, Sheets 1-3, and that the 806 SF detached garage shall only provide parking, storage areas (144 SF) for the tenants, and an 84 SF laundry facility with two washers and two dryers for the three residential units on the lot and the plans submitted for building permit shall be modified to have a maximum opening for vehicle doors of 84" a maximum plate height of 9' and a maximum roof ridge of 15', these dimensions shall be inspected and confirmed in the field at the time of final framing and any required corrections made before a final inspection is scheduled; 2) that no portion of the accessory structure shall be used for accessory living, sleeping purposes, a workshop, home occupation, or storage for a business on or off-site; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include a toilet or shower without an amendment to this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -10- conditional use permit; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 10:05 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; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RON PERNER, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ken Neuman, representing Trinity Lutheran Church, noted that he had met with the architect and passed on the information from the last meeting requested by the Planning Commission, they looked at similar structures in Palo Alto, held meetings at the church; are concerned about the mass and bulk of any addition, whatever is done should be in keeping with what is there, propose to use high quality materials, architect has chosen to keep original design and has provided a photo overlay showing the proposed addition. Commissioners noted that at the last meeting felt they had a good dialogue with applicant, exchanged ideas, surprised by the response, no changes have been made; asked if applicant had found precedent for this style in tour, responded none had same circumstance; asked to clarify if skylight is still included in proposal. The applicant noted that the architect feels strongly that anything other than a flat roof will make the addition stand out immensely and feels it is the wrong thing to do; the applicant doesn’t see anything wrong with the proposal, is not an architect, the architect=s charge was to keep is simple, church members not want to do anything that would make the addition stand out; will do landscaping to soften the structure; architect feels skylight needs to be there, is a positive feature, will be flat, but decided light in the entry is needed. There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: uncomfortable with the scheme, this is a case where 100% compatibility with existing structure is critical, this is a great building, should be done right, and it is easy to make it right; the proposed details draw attention to addition more than would be done with a simple parapet; could deal with architectural issue by increasing the proportion of space at top of the arch, why can=t the architect attend meetings, so can listen to and understand comments; can equate roof to a hat, this proposal is like putting a book on top of your head; parapet would tie into architecture, proposal is out of context with everything else, want it to look like part of original building. C. Osterling moved to deny the project without prejudice with the direction given in the discussion. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: suggest that the architect be present next time so that he can comment; need dialogue with architect, know applicant wants to expedite, but this is a great building, shouldn’t make a compromise; it is the responsibility of the architect to deliver an approvable design; such a gracious building, want the addition to look like it is a part of the building. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -11- Action on this item was completed at 10:25 p.m. 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE , ZONED C-3 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NEW ; JIM CHIN, SIGN-A-RAMA, APPLICANT AND CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the project is in a C-3 zone district and asked staff what are the objective of the C-3 sign provisions, why limit to 25 SF. CP Monroe noted that this zone was meant to accommodate multi-tenant medical office buildings and financial institutions, would just need sign giving building basic identification with a directory inside the building, there is nothing in the code that prohibits a large, single tenant office building, but the issue of signage was to limit it to an identification sign. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jim Chin, 128 Park Boulevard, Millbrae, the applicant was available to answer questions. The commission noted that the code was laid out with the intention of minimizing signage, and asked how did we get from 25 SF allowed to the 448 SF proposed; what is the function of the California Teachers Association, why does their sign need to be seen from El Camino Real. The applicant responded that CTA hired an ad agency to determine how signage should be placed, and noted that CTA has 320,000 members who may come to site for functions and seminars and need to find the site. Commissioner discussion: if this site is a destination, then simple directional sign should suffice; recommend that designer look at something closer to the code, not appropriate to call attention to the building from El Camino Real; this is supposed to look like a medical office park, is reverse illumination appropriate; lighting is not the issue, intent of the sign ordinance for the zone, is a transitional area to residential, avoid building becoming a billboard, want signage restrained, tenants just want to be found, not advertise use; CTA is a professional organization, signage should be professional and understated, like sign number 8 on plans, low, not illuminated 5' letters, not in keeping with the organization and the neighborhood; would like to see an application more in line with the code, up to applicant to determine best placement of sign. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to deny the application without prejudice, with the direction given, since there is no justification to go outside the sign code. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: would like to note that there is a sign now on the building, it is clear what the building is, the building entry is clear, the sign should be at the entry; the existing sign is small but is easy to spot; can come close to complying and identify the building; very important to follow the intent of the zoning and respect the surrounding neighborhood, should have limited signage sufficient to identify the building. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 10:45 p.m. 600 AND 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A 15-STORY, 135 ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PARKING AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. (PAUL SALISBURY, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -12- Reference staff report, 3.27.00, with attachments. Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-two conditions were suggested for the 600 Airport Blvd., application and five conditions were suggested for consideration on the 620 Airport portion of the application. CP Monroe noted that this is unusual application, acting on two properties, when construction is completed on hotel addition, conditional use permit will expire on 620 Airport site. Commissioners asked how long construction will take. CP Monroe noted that one of the concerns is that the applicant is now asking for a grading/foundation permit, since all the structural work has not yet been approved, we do not know the time line, concerned with where customers, staff will park during construction period; there is a pending application for paid parking for the existing hotel site. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, Blunk DeMattei Associates, applicant noted that staff was careful that the parking use will only run with the construction of the hotel, he anticipates that construction the construction period will be about 18 months to two years. Commissioners asked for clarification, 200 parking spaces will be lost, are providing 324 on temporary site, what are the extra spaces for, could they be used for construction worker parking. The applicant noted that they just looked at the areas that were impacted by construction, extra spaces could be used for construction worker parking; noted that the paid parking at the existing hotel would be put held in abeyance until construction is completed. There were no additional comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that when parking lot is demolished, the pavement would have to be removed and recycled, and that additional parking spaces over those needed to replace required hotel parking would be made available to construction workers. C. Vistica moved to approve the project/application, by resolutions (2), with the following amended conditions: 600 Airport Boulevard 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 2, 1998, Sheet DA.1 through DA.14, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 2) that temporary parking during construction shall be provided on the adjacent property at 620 Airport Boulevard as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2000, Sheet SK-1; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s January 5, 1998, February 9, 1998 and November 30, 1998 memos, the City Engineer=s January 14, 1998, March 13, 1998 and November 24, 1998 memos and the Chief Building Official=s November 30, 1998 memo shall be met; 4) that the temporary parking lot paving and access at 620 Airport Boulevard shall be removed once the occupancy permit for the hotel addition at 600 Airport Boulevard has been issued by the Building Department; 5) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 6) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the average top of curb (-3'-8.5" elevation) shall be 144'-0" to top of parapet and mechanical equipment shall not exceed 5% of the roof area; 7) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes except that the hotel manager may live on the site; 8) that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city, this would include all valet parking arrangements; 9) that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees= trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 10) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a q ualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 11) that the traffic allocation for a 135- room addition to an existing 404-room hotel (114.6 rooms/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project and if the hotel use is ever replaced by another use; 12) that the applicant shall be required to obtain necessary City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -13- permits and to meet the requirements of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Lands Commission, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 13) that the proposed structure shall be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 14) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 15) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections and, in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities shall be inspected and repaired, and the site shall be repaired; 16) that finished floors for the new structure shall be at least 10' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater to minimize future flooding in the area; 17) that the hotel addition shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 10 feet (+10.0' MSL), or 1.6 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break; 18) that the project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 19) that all runoff created during construction, future discharge and storm drain collection from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 20) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction ; 21) that the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 22) Payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Anza area shall be required to mitigate cumulative traffic and circulation impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 23) that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which shall include connections to CalTrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; 24) the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 25) that if the hotel proposes to charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot, an amendment to the conditional use permit shall be required, and the conditional use permit shall include conditions of approval which provide that employees can park for free, that the hotel shall contribute to the City=s freebee shuttle service, and that the rates charged for short-term parking shall be limited and the charge geared to penalize those non-hotel guests/visitors who would abuse the availability of parking; 26) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction as stated in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035); 27) that notwithstanding the Burlingame Municipal Code requirements, no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 28) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 29) that the project applicant would pay a fee to the City per square foot of developed space to offset costs of treating the additional wastewater and its proportional share should the sewer pump station serving this area require resizing; 30) that should any cultural, archeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated, and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented; 31) that Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; 32) that any pavement removed during construction of the existing hotel and removal of the temporary parking lot shall be recycled; and 33) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. 620 Airport Boulevard 1) that temporary parking during construction shall be provided for the adjacent hotel at 600 Airport Boulevard as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2000, Sheet SK-1; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s March 13, 2000 memo and the City Engineer=s March 13, 2000 memo shall be met; 3) that the temporary parking lot at 620 Airport Boulevard shall not be removed until an occupancy permit has been issued by the Building Department for the hotel improvements at 600 Airport Boulevard and until the new parking area at the hotel site has been paved, striped and approved by the City Engineer for use; once the parking on 620 Airport City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -14- Boulevard is no longer required for the hotel use as determined by the City Engineer, this conditional use permit shall lapse; any other use of this property at 620 Airport Boulevard shall be required to be submitted to the City and approved as required by the code in existence at that time the building permit for the hotel addition at 600 Airport Boulevard has been finaled; 4) that there shall be no access from the temporary parking lot at 620 Airport Boulevard to Airport Boulevard, all access shall be through the existing parking lot at 600 Airport Boulevard except as required by the Fire Marshal for emergency access only; 5) that any pavement removed during construction of the existing hotel and removal of the temporary parking lot shall be recycled; 6) that parking on the temporary lot shall be made available to construction workers; and 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 11:02 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting on March 20, 2000. - DISCUSSION OF FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. CP Monroe referred to staff report and summarized the four items which city council members felt should be added to the Commission minutes to make them more useful for the council. These suggestions included: (1) identify each comment with initials of speaker; (2) collect comments which support the request and comments which oppose the request in the body of the minutes for each item; (3) on the agenda and in the item title in the minutes identify by name and title each member of the applicant team; (4) continue to put the time of completion at the end of each item. Commission discussion: Chairman Luzuriaga opened the discussion by apologizing to the commission because he was called by a Council member about the minutes and did not understand that the effect of the request to identify e ach speaker would result in viewing the conclusions of the commission being seen as comments by an individual rather than the consensus of the whole commission; on reflection he noted that he would not support any change to the minutes except noting the time at which each item concludes. Commission discussion followed: why does the Council wish to have this additional information; CP Monroe noted that Council member indicated these changes would help them know who to go to directly with follow up questions; also noted that minutes would get longer, take more time to prepare; determining and sorting which statements are pro- and which con- will take time, concerned about the result of taking comments out of the context in which they were made; CA Anderson noted that the commission should give their recommendation to council in the form of a motion; the Council=s authority on this matter is based on their ability to approve the Commission=s rules of procedure. Continued Commission discussion: would be helpful to have a better understanding of what items the Council needs to have clarified, can they listen to the tape of any meeting, yes; feel it is important for the commission=s action to be viewed as a representation of the whole commission, a team effort; staff has enough to do, not need to spend more time on the minutes. There is a difference between information that it is Anice to know@ and that which is essential to make a decision and this needs to be weighed in terms of how much time and money needs to be expended to add to minutes, these requests fall into the Anice to know@ category and do not justify the time and expense; if move from topical minutes to more detailed statement minutes it will take the commissioners more time to review accuracy of their precise statements, so it will be more labor intensive for the commission as well as staff; Council asked their recorder to shorten their minutes and not identify all speakers at the same meeting where they requested more detail in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 page -15- commission minutes. Discussed whether commission should have member attend council meetings. CA Anderson noted that requirements for content in the minutes can be placed in the Commission=s rules of procedure if the commission wishes; one solution used in Los Gatos is not to record discussion and then to record by individual those statements made after the motion which supply the findings for the action. CA Anderson noted that once every couple of months staff receives a request from someone about how a decision was arrived at, staff will direct them to the tape or staff will listen to the tape. Discussion continued: purpose of change to design review procedure is to make it more friendly, allow applicants to talk to government and discuss issues, commission=s only communication with the council is by written word, if range of discussion is not noted then Council will not know what went into arriving at the motion, if council is curious about the positions of the commissioners they can call the chairman or any commissioner, each will remember the factors which went into making the decision. Concerned about members of the council seeing members of the commission being aligned on one side or the other; tapes can provide detail; concerned that the council does no t understand the amount of time it will take to provide this information. CA Anderson noted that to staff the importance of the minutes is to identify the findings or reasons for which the decision was made in the event that the decision is challenged later. Further discussion: on the issue of adding information to the items as they appear on the agenda and are repeated in the minutes, CA Anderson pointed out that sometimes this information in the titles can provide the council with context, also useful if someone calls them about an appeal or a citizen comments. Commissions continued discussion on whether the commission should also consider ending meetings at 10:30 p.m., this could be done by putting the action items first, study items not reviewed would roll over to the next meeting; commissioners noted that a problem would be that deferred items could snowball and could result in problems of long delay; CP Monroe noted that this could also result in a problem with the permit streamlining act. The commission discussed the new procedure for reviewing design review items in an interactive study and how that might affect the timing of the meeting, will need to evaluate after commission has some experience; does the commission need to require landsca pe plans for all residential applications and how would the commission see to enforcement if we did require such plans; since landscaping is almost as important as architecture to the completed project how do we get people to think of it at the start; st aff suggested that the commission could review our present submittal requirements at another meeting and decide if the commission would want to amend them. Asked if the commission has any authority over the soccer lights and their impact; CA Anderson noted that the lights are not within the charge of the Planning Commission as defined in the Municipal Code. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to recommend to city council that the commission add the titles of all the involved parties given on the application (applicant, property owner, architect, designer, contractor) to the item=s title on the agenda and title in the minutes and that staff continue to put the time each item is completed in the minutes; and, that in the interest of saving both staff and commissioner=s time in preparing and reviewing minutes and to focus on the commission acting as a unit not individually, the minutes should not identify each comment by speaker and, because of the problem of taking items out of context and thus obscuring the intent and meaning of the Commission=s action, the content of each item should not be collected in categories of items which support the request and items which oppose the request. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice v ote on the recommendation to the Council on the content of the minutes. The motion passed on a 7-0 affirmative voice vote. This item began at 11:05 p.m. concluded at 12:02 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 12:02 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES3.27