Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.05.08 Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 8, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the May 8, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners Dreiling and Luzuriaga Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Syed Murtuza MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 24, 2000 were approved as submitted. Commissioner Bojués noted a change on page 5 of the minutes of the meeting of May 3, 2000, noting that the Aphased roll outs@ approach is a Amarketing@ not an Aadvertising tool@. The minutes of the Special Meeting of May 3, 2000 were then approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe suggested that since the Commission was introducing a new design review process this evening the order of the agenda should be changed so that the action items (consent and regular action) would follow the regular study item, then the preliminary design review items would be taken at the end of the meeting. She also noted that the two resolutions, 999 Howard and 301 Airport, were affirming actions by the commission and not subject to public hearing this evening since the public hearings were held at previous commission meetings. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments STUDY ITEMS 840 COWAN ROAD, 1815 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED O-M - APPLICATION TO AMEND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL FACILITY WITH RENTAL TRANSACTIONS, FLEET MAINTENANCE AND FLEET AND CUSTOMER PARKING AT 1815 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND VEHICLE STORAGE AND EMPLOYEE PARKING AT 840 COWAN ROAD. (DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC, APPLICANT AND LORRAINE ARNAUDO AND JOANNE PROLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: do not like the idea of meeting the car rental performance standard for lot size with two separated lots, but realize that this is an existing non-conforming situation, just would not like it seen as a precedent because I don=t believe that it was the intention of the ordinance; appears that the 840 Cowan site is providing car storage for the airport rental operation where the contracts are signed at the airport and the burden of the use is born by Burlingame, will 1815 Bayshore do all the maintenance for the airport fleet as well; applicant should explain that they will rent 198 cars a month but have 15 customers a day, how do you arrive at 198 rentals on that basis; cars should not be stored on site at the Cowan Road lot in the area needed for the car carriers City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -2- to load and unload, with this area set aside how many cars can be stored on this site; a condition for hydrocarbon filters in drains for rainwater runoff in the parking lots should be attached to each of these sites. There were no further questions and this item was set for public hearing on May 22, 2000, providing that all the information is provided to staff in a timely manner. Item ended at 7:08 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. 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE - ZONED C-3 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR NEW SIGNS (APPLICATION CONTINUED FROM APRIL 24, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING). (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER, JIM CHIN, SIGN-A-RAMA, APPLICANT) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar by resolution based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. REGULAR CALENDAR 999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A THREE-STORY STORAGE FACILITY WITH A BASEMENT AND ROOFTOP PARKING (JOHN HANSEN, HOWARD MYRTLE STORAGE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (PROJECT CONTINUED FROM APRIL 24, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) Reference staff report, 5.8.00, with attachments. CP Monroe and CA Anderson presented the staff report, noting that the action was affirmation of the Commission=s action on April 24, 2000, and no public hearing was required. CA Anderson noted that C. Deal was not present at the hearing on this item and unless he had listened to the tapes he should excuse himself. C. Deal noted that he was unable to attend the meeting because he became a Grandfather than night, and he would abstain from this action. C. Bojués moved to approve the resolution as written. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the resolution. The motion passed on a 4 -0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Dreiling and Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Item ended at 7:15 p.m. 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 - BURLINGAME AVENUE SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NEW SIGNS (SHIRLEY KING TRUST, OWNER; ELIZABETH KOH, VALERIO ARCHITECTURE STUDIO, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 5.8.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff if the business had any window signs in its current sign application, staff responded no; would the applicant be able to put anything they wanted in the larger of the two window signs, staff responded yes, we have no control over content; there is a discrepancy in the plans in one place the blade sign is shown as being internally lit and in another as being externally lit, staff noted that the applicant should address this. There were no further questions of staff. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Wyman, who will build the signs represented the applicant. He noted the blade sign will be internally lit with translucent letters set in an opaque background; purpose of signage City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -3- program is to change restaurant from a fast food image to a world food cafe, this will be done by changing the signage to back lit, behind solid letters except for the words world cafe and the globe which are too small to use neon tubing back lighting safely so will be interiorly lit; the copy on the menu sign will be digitally printed, not taped to window but set in a frame, the second window sign would be more graphic showing a picture of a food item with some copy. Commissioners discussed whether the world cafe and globe could be back lit; asked if the back lighting would be bright or a glow; applicant noted could not put neon elements as close as required for the world cafe and globe and the light would be a glow on the wall behind the letters. Why, if want to get away from wrapps as fast food, is wrapps being put on the awning valence; applicant responded that the new name does not convey what type of food is sold. Commissioner noted that most businesses’ names do not convey all that is sold on the premise, if remove awning sign can reduce square footage and number of signs. Applicant noted that while wall sign was bigger than existing then did reduce blade sign some, could reduce letters on valence from 8" to 5 2 but don=t think can make up the 13 SF difference between proposal and what is allowed. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: went up and down Burlingame Avenue at night and looked at signs if put type of food on awning valence, feel that it would be an unfair advantage, Gap does not list items it sells on their awning; this signage is really large compared to others on the Avenue, direction of signage is less as proposed by J. Crew; prefer this sign if back lit with soft glow; rotating special sign on the window increases advertising and also provides an unfair advantage no one else has; this is a small store frontage and it is asking for 10.53 SF more than the 50 SF already allowed and twice as many signs as allowed; can drop specials window sign and awning valance sign, keep menu sign since Burlingame Avenue is a pedestrian area; the number of signs makes all of them less effective. C. Bojués moved, by resolution, to approve this sign application with three amendments to the conditions that the awning valence sign be removed, that the 2' x 3' poster display sign in the window be removed, and that the back lighting on the wall be a soft glow as follows: 1) that the signage shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 19, 2000 (building elevations and sign elevations) and as described in the sign permit application dated April 19, 2000 and as also described in the sign permit except that Sign B, the valance sign, shall be removed and Sign E, the 2' x 3' window sign (replaceable graphic in frame), shall be removed; 2) that back lighting for the wall sign shall be limited to a soft glow; 3) that all existing signage is removed before any new signage is installed; 4) that no additional signage shall be installed on the primary frontage of this building without approval of a sign exception by the Planning Commission; 5) 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. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the sign exception with proposed amendments which would reduce the amount of signage and number of signs on site. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Item ended at 7:45 p.m. 810 EDGEHILL DRIVE - ZONED C-R - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, PARKING VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING FRONTING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (RICHARD PENNINGTON, DESIGNER AND JOHN AL JONES PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 5.8.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Jones, 810 Edgehill Drive, represented the project. There were no questions from the commission and no one commented from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -4- C. Deal noted that on the face of it this is an application with a lot of variances, but most are attributed to existing conditions on this lot, existing garage at the rear, no access to it from Edgehill without substantial change to the existing house, applicant has changed the facade of the building on California from metal to stucco and changed the roof from metal to asphalt shingle so it looks more like it fits on California Drive, does not have much choice about the parking variance on California (backing on to the street), no space to pull onto property to enter the garage since the lot is only 40 feet wide, the exception for uncovered parking at the front is only deficient by inches, the plate height exception for the new structure is the result of it being treated as a residential accessory structure when it is a commercial building, this proposal reduces lot coverage for the residential use with the smaller garage and the commercial building does not count in lot coverage in the CR zone; based on this he moved for approval of the project by resolution noting that the exceptions are driven by the placement of the existing house therefor the conditions should be amended that if the house is demolished in the future or substantially remodeled the project should be returned to the Planning commission for review and with the following conditions in the staff report as amended: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 1, 2000, Sheet 1, which includes a 289 SF garage to provide one covered parking space and a laundry area for the single- family residential unit on Edgehill Drive, and a 402 SF ground floor retail space on California Drive; 2) that the garage/commercial building on California Drive shall have a stucco exterior with an asphalt shingle roof; the metal entrance door to the commercial space and garage door shall be painted with nonreflective paint; the applicant shall maintain this painted surface so that it never becomes reflective; 3) that the exceptions to the zoning code granted with this application shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission if in the future the single family residential structure on this lot is demolished or substantially remodeled (up to 50% of that structure=s value); 4) that the City Engineer=s March 22, 2000, memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the restriction that substantial change to or demolition of the residential unit on this site would require a review of the exceptions granted. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:55 p.m. RESOLUTION FOR ACTION ON A PROPOSED 438,000 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 301 AIRPORT CA Anderson noted that C. Osterling cannot participate in this vote unless he has reviewed the record, including the tape, of the May 3, 2000, meeting; but he may participate in any discussion this evening. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from participation in this item. CA Anderson noted that this action this evening is not subject to a public hearing since the hearing was held and closed at the May 3, 2000, meeting. The action this evening is on the resolution which affirms the direction given following the public hearing; commission should make any changes they wish to the resolution. C. Deal noted that he feels the resolution is well thought out, captures the intent of the commission and moved approval of the resolution as presented. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the resolution. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining, Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 8:00 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -5- 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (BOB CUNNINGHAM, OWNER; RAY VIOTTI, JR. APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. CA Anderson noted that tonight the Commission cannot approve a project, the purpose of the design review study meeting is to exchange information with the applicant provide some direction and the Commission must act to refer the project to a designer review consultant for further review to the consent calendar; these actions are not appealable. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Robert Cunningham, property owner, and Ray Viotti, architect, noted that they would respond to any questions the commission might have. Commissioners discussed: that the applicant provide justification for the front setback variance, explain the hardship; applicant noted that the minimum front setback requirement is 15' and that the existing house has the largest front setback on the block at 27' which affects the average, need additional room to maneuver a vehicle around the house and into the detached garage; Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with the architect noting that the front facade is fairly good, more articulation should be added to the side and rear walls in order to give the house character, exceptions to declining height envelope and building height if justified by design may help with articulation, there is too much building, the proposed two story stucco house is nondescript, there is no statement of style options, there are many good examples in the neighborhood and area, the neighborhood is made up of many different styles don=t emulate stucco box style, need to break up the vertical mass along the right side; window style should be more consistent; need to add street trees to help screen the new house, work bench encro aches into 20' required parking space length, garage eaves cannot be built as shown, applicant should check with the building department; the window in the stairway is too large and not consistent with the rest of the house; plans show that the proposed front setback is 15' but applicant is requesting a front setback variance for 16'-2", please clarify, see no reason to grant a front setback variance for a new house. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: there is no justification for a variance, this is a new house on a flat lot, no hardship on the property; needs articulation, code includes ways to encourage traditional architecture. C. Deal moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the dir ection that: windows need to be consistent on all building elevations; add articulation to side and rear walls and carry details of the front facade drawings to rest of house; avoid the stucco box style, there are many examples of good architecture in this neighborhood, may have to look beyond the immediate block; direct the design review consultant to the mass and bulk section of the design guidelines. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR NEW ENTRY STAIRS AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (LAWRENCE CHEN, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SAMUEL H. AND ELAINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission asked which side is considered to be the front, staff noted that the Skyview Drive frontage is the narrowest portion of the lot and therefore considered to be the front. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Lawrence Chen, applicant and designer, noted that he would respond to any questions the commission might have. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with the applicant noting that the detailing of this project on this corner lot is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood, cantilevered decks on the second floor are not compatible and with glass panels do not look like they belong in this neighborhood, suggest removing cantilevers and integrating the decks into the building, concerned with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -6- the glass railing which gives a commercial look to the house; stairway encroachment into the side setback is a tight arrangement and creates an uncomfortable situation at the entrance, see no justification for a side setback variance; concerned with neighborhood consistency, see no justification for porch, should be like other porches in the neighborhood, porch is large, out of character and doesn’t relate to other houses, needs to be scaled down, entrance does not need to be the focal point of design, suggest building the new porch in the same place; chimney is too massive; garage should be 20' wide since most of the house is being demolished. The applicant noted that the deck cantilever stops at the roof eave at lower floor, wanted to minimize the impact of a two story wall; applicant noted that only the stairs leading to the porch encroach into the side setback, prefers direct entry over side entry; trying to match new houses across the street on Skyline Blvd in Hillsborough and Burlingame Hills, owner prefers stucco siding. Samuel Wong, property owner, spoke in favor of the project noting that the ir family is glad to be living in a nice neighborhood, likes views provided by this house, house was built in 1936 and previous owners did not maintain the house, has a family of five in an existing three bedroom house, wants to upgrade look of house, spok e with the neighbors and they did not seem to have a problem with the proposed project, considered the possible obstruction of views but found none. Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive, spoke in opposition, noted that it is difficult to speak against neighbor, addition would be a detriment to the neighborhood, reviewed plans in Planning Department. Feel style is inconsistent in terms of size and architecture with other houses on block; site is surrounded by three streets and slopes downward to Skyline Blvd., when view from Kip Lane existing house looks like 12 stories, if add a second story house will appear very massive from Kip Lane, all houses in neighborhood have same roof lines, with the exception of one split level home at cul-de-sac, should match existing roof lines. This house looks like those in Hillsborough and Burlingame Hills. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that: minimize mass and bulk of house so that it is consistent with the neighborhood, window and eave detail should match other houses in neighborhood; garage should be made to conform with the required dimensions for a two-car garage because there is major work being done to the house;, remove the cantilever on the second floor decks;, consider other options for the deck railing instead of using clear glass; see no justification for a variance for stairway encroachment into the side setback, suggest building the new entire porch in the same place as the existing orienting to the side, porch needs to be scaled down and should be consistent with other porches in the neighborhood; scale down chimney, place story poles at time of public hearing noticing for action so view impact can be properly evaluated. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 131 LOMA VISTA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (VINCENT AND DOREEN CAUCHI, OWNERS; KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, 484 Milton Avenue, Millbrae, architect and applicant, represented the project. He noted that there was a second story designed for this house five years ago, project was 400 SF larger and was not built, owners want the style of the house to be Mediterranean, see this style in other Burlingame neighborhoods, appreciates the direction of the design guidelines, there is no consistent style among the houses on Loma Vista Drive, have petition from neighbors in support of this project which will be submitted later; project complies with all zoning code regulations, house will be different, anything in this neighborhood will be different, existing house is nondescript. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -7- Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with the applicant and asked why windows at the rear are different; applicant noted that it takes time to delineate window details and that the windows on all building elevations would be consistent with the style of windows shown on the front elevation; Commission noted that the 6' wide chimney is very prominent and should be reduced to 3' wide; appreciate the fact that the porch is not prominent, house flows nicely at front;, like terraces without the typical two story porch; color will be very important, suggest owner consider a color and find an example, provide that address to the Commission for review; two story roof over living room contains a gable end at the back which is very awkward, is there a better way to resolve this; need to add landscaping to screen addition, concerned with roof over round structure on the second floor, may not appear as shown on plans; applicant noted that he did not want to create a turret, could be rounder in framing, think segmented roof will work better with clay tiles; suggest using a narrower trim around the windows, use stucco mold; elevations should reflect what is being built. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: revise building elevations to show a consistent window style on all building elevations, reduce size of chimney;, resolve gable end at rear of second story round structure use segmented roof, use stucco mold around windows; provide example of exterior color to be used; provide landscape plan showing larger landscaping which would help to soften the edges of the house; revise plans to reflect what is being built. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5 -0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:08 p.m. 2504 HAYWARD DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (STEVE AND LISA WILLET, OWNERS; BRUCE MCLEOD, LIVING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Bruce McLoud, designer and Steve Willet, the owner, represented the project noting that they expanded the use within the existing design, not much room at the rear because of the existing pool. Commissioners asked: the out rigger struts are an element which does not match the neighborhood; the existing elevation with the water table and wood siding works well, why not continue it, it maintains the existing character; following the setback along the angled property line makes an awkward form with an odd cut to the roof and affects the interior rooms, does not fit the rest of the house; the way the roof is configured for the second entry it looks as if it is a whole other house, it should be integrated into the design; there is a lot to be worked out here to integrate the new into the existing house; there cannot be a door directly from the guestroom/recreation area into the garage, check with the Building Department. Property owner noted that because of the shape of the lot they would loose a lot of the square footage of the house if they added to it any place else. Commissioners commented it may be necessary to reduce the square footage, also could jog in walls without requiring a side setback variance since this lot is 85 feet wide, landscaping can hide a lot but still addition needs to be in keeping with the existing structure. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved that this project be sent to the design reviewer with the direction that: the outrigger struts be removed and the addition reflect the existing elevation with water table and wood siding, that the applicant prepare a landscape plan with larger plants designed to soften the look of the addition; that the angled wall parallel to the side properly line setback be redesigned to jog so that rooms have a rectangular shape so that the exterior wall corresponds to the other side of the house. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -8- Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this to the design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 1316 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (GINA BLUS AND MARK O=LEARY, OWNERS; JAMES STAVOY, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. James Stavoy, architect, represented the project. He presented a rendered graphic of the site indicating that the objective of the relocation of the garage to attach to the house was to create a bigger, more useable rear yard, the new house next door has this kind of rear yard; tried to maintain the existing character of the house by reflecting the roof shapes in the garage addition. Commission commented on the fact that this was a good job, suggested that the triangular window at the rear of the garage be removed since it does not match any windows in the house, approach on placement of the garage was good - but concerned about the future since this one car garage will limit the number of bedrooms in this house to four, do not want the fact that can only have a one car garage used in the future as a justification for a covered parking variance; a couple of windows should be added to the side of the garage so the house looks more people oriented; nice design and a good job; discussed the plate height of the garage and determined that it was all right to leave it as shown. There were no other questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: remove the triangular window at the rear of the garage; add some windows on the side of the garage; place a condition on the action that warns future owners that the placement of one covered parking space on this lot limits future expansion of this house and cannot be used as a justification for a covered parking space variance. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 300 CHANNING ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE (FREDERICK AND LIESL HEIL MORRELL OWNERS; FREDERICK MORRELL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Fred Morrell, designer, represented the project. He noted that they looked at several possible locations for the second story addition before they decided to place it over the garage, felt that this location was away from the public view and afforded the property owner a nice view of the mountains. Commission discussion included skylights, the overhang/cantilever of the second story over the garage below; addition does not blend with the rest of the house; overhang is out of proportion with the house, 1 2 feet is more typical when blending with corbels; house needs more large landscaping to blend hard edges; new windows need to be compatible with existing windows; plans do not reflect how the house will look (cad program does not do design justice) will it look top heavy; windows seem large and out of proportion could be similar double hung; cannot figure out how the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -9- interior stair case will work; commission is not concerned with interior, need more detail on all exterior sides; because there is so much detail on plans prefer full sized drawings for future submittals; continue shutters on second floor as have now on first, they are a nice detail; first floor gable end with wood siding and projections;, should be repeated on second floor so that the house looks like it belongs to the street; feel that this is the right place to add on to this house but the plans need a lot of development. There were no further comments from the floor or the public. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Vistica moved to send this project to the design reviewer with the direction that: the skylights be tinted; the plans be redrafted to address window detail, the detail at the edge of the eave, the entry, reduction of the cantilever/overhang of the garage, matching the new windows with the original paned, look at the porch and what its role is in the design (provide detail), clarify interior stair, provide more detail for all sides of the structure; the applicant should also provide a landscape plan showing substantial plants, should add shutters to all windows. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 1256 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH, AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION ON A CORNER LOT (JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; RICHARD AND ANA MORALES TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and so would step down from this item and the next item for the same reason. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked what part of the second story addition encroached into the second story side setback on this corner lot, staff noted just the balcony area. There were no further questions of staff. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Anna and Richard Morales, the property owners and applicant, represented the project. They noted that the balcony was put on the side of the house so that it would not look like a box on a box, there is only one place in the house for the interior stair which makes the room adjoining the balcony very small (9 feet wide) the balcony will make the room useable. Commission noted that balcony adds articulation to the structure, this is a reasonable addition with good proportions and windows, only concern is that the variance be conditioned so that it does not continue if the house is ever replaced. There were no comments from the floor, and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to place this project on the consent calendar for action because the design was appropriate and the balcony adds articulation to the side of the structure but that there should be a condition added that the variance for the second story on this side of the building should not continue if the structure on this lot should ever be replaced. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place the item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. 2331 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JEAN SILVEIRA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD AND ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) C. Deal noted that he would abstain from review of this project since he had a business relationship with the applicant. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioner asked why this item was being reviewed if FAR is not an issue, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -10- staff commented that the 43 SF was being relocated to the second floor and was therefore a second story addition. There were no other questions of staff. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Bob Bussey, the father of the applicant, represented the project since his daughter was out of town. He noted that this was an old, poorly maintained house which they were trying to make liveable, they needed to relocate the 43 SF in order to move a stairway, they do not intend to change the front elevation of the house, but are redefining the living area within the house. Commissioner noted that this was a fine project and blended well with the house. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to place this item on the consent calendar for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion which passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m. 1016 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHANG H. LEE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; CHONG HO AND YOUNG H. LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Chang Lee, architect, commented that he would represent the project and would respond to any questions the commission might have. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with the architect clarifying issues regarding the windows, corner trim, slope of the roof, soffit detail, lack of elevations on the site plan, fact that aluminum windows as shown are out of character with the neighborhood, the barge rafters look awkward in this design, looks as if the entire roof will need to be removed so there a more options in its design, and dormers might work better to blend the second story addition into the house, wood trim on chimney should also be taken off, there is a lack of articulation on the structure, particularly on the rear elevation which is flat and tall. It was noted that the height and bulk of this structure as shown on the proposed plans was not a problem. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that: the windows be changed to match those typical in the neighborhood; that the wooden corner trim be removed from the house and chimney; that the soffit detail and barge rafters be evaluated and changed to match the type of details on other houses in the area; that the roof be redesigned to a style which blends the second story addition into the house better using dormers for example; that the designer needs to work on the flat walls to break up the vertical mass adding articulation on the sides but especially on the rear elevation. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed on a voice vote 5 -0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS -REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 1, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed these minutes at the Special Commission meeting on May 3, 2000. -ROTATION OF OFFICERS CP Monroe reported to the Commission that there would be no election of officers at tonight=s meeting because the current officers of the commission were elected in November 1999 which is within 6 months of the May election date. Under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure the current officers; Chairman Luzuriaga, Vice City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 page -11- Chairman Vistica, Secretary Keighran, will continue to serve a full term to the first meeting in May 2001, when the officers will rotate. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES5.8