Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.05.22 Minutes -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 22, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the May 22, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: Planners; Maureen Brooks, Janice Jagelski; City Attorney, Larry Anderson MINUTES The minutes of the May 8, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 1701 BROADWAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND WITHIN 15'-0" OF THE EXTERNAL CORNER OF THE LOT (JENNIFER MARTIN, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; JD& ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) City staff briefly presented the staff report. The commission asked: what is the height of the original picket fence at this location; can the applicant explain the need to vary the proposed fence heights in the front and side of the site (Cortez side would be 6'-0"; Broadway side would be 7'-0"). Commission requested that the City Engineer explain DPW=s concern regarding visibility around this corner, to address a previous situation where a fence located at the corner of Vancouver and Carmelita was required to be relocated, and whether there is any precedence or consistency between these applications. Commission asked the applicant to address their need to have a fence exception and to provide a visibility diagram demonstrating how the increased fence heights would mitigate their concerns. There were no further questions and this item was set for public hearing on June 12, 2000, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. 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. C. Deal asked that it be noted for the record; he will be abstaining from vote on 1256 Capuchino Avenue and 2331 Poppy Drive due to business relationships with the applicants. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -2- 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) and 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) 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. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in each of the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran . Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote for 1316 Cortez Avenue. The vote on 1256 Capuchino Avenue and 2331 Poppy Drive was 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 1636 CORONADO WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (VADIM AND ZOYA GERTSVOLF, OWNERS; ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Planner Brooks briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Rolando Noriega, 5560 Chesboro Avenue, San Jose, was available to answer questions. Commissioner comments: noted that the overall design is okay but there is a discrepancy between the front and the side elevations, the vertical wall is shown as 7' high on the side elevation and 3 2' high on the front elevation, which height is correct; is the roof line shown incorrectly on the front elevation; it would help that the roof plan of the floor below were shown on the second floor plan to demonstrate how it fits over the first floor; the chimneys are not shown on the site and roof plans; there is a portion of the roof which will be difficult to get to when new roof is installed, how will that be resolved; looks like there needs to be more windows on the right side elevation, a little bit more articulation in scale is needed on that side of the building rather than a large blank wall; will the upper windows on the front elevation qualify as egress windows when the correct roof line is shown; could drop or raise the plate line in certain locations to provide variety; important to correct discrepancies; think that the rear elevation has similar concerns, its a bit of a big vertical wall, maybe if windows were more organized, or if window on octagonal portion were the same as the others; clarify that new windows will mimic existing downstairs windows; would like to see a landscape plan which shows larger scale shrubs and trees to provide screening for neighbors on the sides and rear. Further commission comments: the applicant is treating the interior as a given, may be necessary to make changes to Bedroom No. 4, the closets and TV are on the outside wall generating blank walls; wall in family room has light on only one side, window in alcove could be beneficial to interior, move tub to inside wall in bathroom; the reason for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -3- changes is to minimize mass and bulk, taking it straight up is the worst solution; on the front elevation of the existing residence, the second floor above the garage cantilevers with corbels, could use same treatment on addition, could make it look less massive; windows should be consistent with existing especially on rear and left side elevation, want to see landscape plan for screening; like to reinforce the need for articulation of windows. There were no additional comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Keighran moved to refer this item to the design reviewer with the direction given. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dreiling. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (KEITH AND BETH TAYLOR, OWNERS; ACHILLES RODIGHIERO, DESIGNER) Planning staff briefly presented the staff report. The commission had no questions of staff regarding the staff report. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant and designer, Achilles Rodighiero, and the property owner, Keith Taylor, introduced the project and stated that they were interested in designing the second story to carry out the same detail and design as the original 1930's house. Commission asked the applicant whether the recessed pattern around the window openings would be carried through on the addition. Applicant stated that the engineering and design would not permit duplication of this type of recessed detail. He could add an iron balcony or grate below the second story window to add interest. Commission noted that he has seen this style of recessed detail included with modern adobe style houses; noted that there are plenty of ways to design and build recessed features and that structural arguments are not applicable; this structure requires a transition in forms within the building and the Design Review Guide provides specific drawings of how to add full second stories to an existing house. This type of proposed addition goes straight up, is massive and not charming, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. The second story needs to be engaged with the first story by turning the roof axis and integrating second story into first story, using a consistent pattern of windows. Project needs additional landscaping showing how rear, right and left elevations will be landscaped; need larger scale plants - specimens that will grow taller - included in planting scheme and use larger scale specimens when installing landscape plan. Commission noted: lot and house are narrow - house is only 25'-0" wide, and that going straight up is not a bad concern, need to add articulation on sides, correct the window pattern; alleviate the feeling of creating an elongated, narrow box. None of the original character of the windows and details has been carried through to the second story addition. Need to maintain more of the original design. This design stage is an opportunity to explore and change designs on paper - it=s too late to change when project is under construction. Consider furnishing the rooms on paper and rehearse where things to be put and where you would walk; this will influence exterior design. Applicant noted: they had a floor plan of the master bedroom, but felt the size of the allowable addition limited their opportunities. They would be happy to add a cantilever to the front with additional treatments. Didn=t hear anything negative about the rear and side elevations. Commission noted that the problems of this design cannot be solved by tacking decoration on the exterior. There is nothing in the design book which requires an addition to rise straight up from house. Steve Warden, 734 Acacia Drive, expressed his support of the addition and remodel project. Has watched numerous other owners of this property propose additions with no success. Has no objection to the requested height exception. There were no additional comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -4- C. Vistica motioned to refer this project to a Design Review Consultant with the comments and recommendations for consideration at the design review level. C. Keighran seconded the motion. There was no further discussion on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. 164 PEPPER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY HOUSE (WALTER AND ANGELIKA HAEFEKER, OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) Planning staff briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Randy Grange, project architect, introduced himself. Commission congratulated him on excellent design which achieves the intent of the design review guidelines for second story additions. However, Commission noted that 5' x 4' chimney was enormous and out of scale. Can double chimneys be used instead of one massive chimney? Can location of one chimney be moved? Applicant noted that owner does not want direct vent/gas chimney. Proposed locations for fire places work well with floor plans. Commission asked whether owners could revise floor plan; this house would look better with two skinny chimneys rather than one giant chimney. Roof is good, dormers are well articulated. Addition will be beautiful. Pay attention to roof gutter and edge detail around all sides of house. There were no further questions from the commission and no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriage moved to place the project on the consent agenda for June 12, 2000, with the direction to study further the chimney size; the item will be set for June 12, 2000, provided all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. C. Dreiling seconded motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission=s action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. and the Commission took a 5 minute recess. 1313 DE SOTO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROOF PITCH ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT HEARING ON MARCH 27, 2000. (CATHERINE MOREY, OWNER; NEIL GABBAY, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) Planner Brooks briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Neil Gabbay, architect and applicant, was available to respond to questions and comments. Commissioner comments: think this is a very nice project, the design is good, the proposed 34' height enhances the architectural style of the building, wonderful job on the exterior proportions, no issue with the roof pitch on the garage since it matches the house and is adjacent to an easement; noticed that plans call for vinyl windows, concerned about articulation, vinyl windows tend to be flat; applicant did excellent job, wood windows would be much nicer, articulation is much better; asked about the proposed color; traditionally this style uses a light stucco color with dark trim. The applicant responded that vinyl windows are proposed, has worked with the client from scratch, originally wanted attached garage, was able to convince her to have detached garage; client wants vinyl windows, noted that if you look at the floor plan, have created depth to the windows by indentations in the wall, there are some vinyl windows that don=t look flat, will make sure there is articulation, will not be painted pink, will use a wider mullion on windows. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -5- Jay Vietch, 2214 Easton Drive, noted that he has reviewed the plans, they are beautiful, there is a large tree on the left side of the property, concerned that the tree will not be removed. The applicant noted that the tree is located in the adjacent easement and is not on this property, the tree will not be impacted. There were no further comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Bojués moved to place this item on the consent calendar for action, with the added condition that the adjacent tree shall be protected during construction. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, which passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (TERRI S. LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE, OWNERS; RAY BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER) Planner Brooks briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, BC & D, 228 Lorton Avenue, applicant, noted that the client and applicant talked to neighbors and have implemented the changes requested by Commission and neighbors; stepped back second floor, added brows, wanted to make it look more like a bungalow. Commissioners asked what building permits have been issued at this site. Staff noted that there are permits issued for foundation repair, to replace a water heater and for a kitchen remodel. Commission comments: had given direction and talked about relocating the entrance to the side, that was not done; appears that the kitchen remodel is driving the need for a front entry; as for articulation, was a porte cochere considered, there is a big blankness on that side of the house; the triangular window is back on the second floor front elevation; had talked about the 18' wide driveway and were given direction to put in additional landscaping, that has not been done; currently the house has wood siding and stucco is now proposed, stucco wall looks plain, wood clapboard or shingles would look better; project getting there but still have concerns because of the way the house is situated on the site, uncomfortable with the entry as it stands, still pushing mass towards the front; concerned with the alignment at entry with door offset; overall not concerned with mass, but would be more successful if had some two- story elements at back, eliminate the layer cake look of a box on top of a box; need fine-tuning on the second floor wall at master bedroom, has a blank look, could put a band across with two small windows; will the skylights be tinted, yes. The applicant noted that he has eliminated the additional projection on the front, now no variance is required; kitchen remodel is 85% complete; need the driveway width, if front entry eliminated, would enter through dining room; if widened at front would make approach into driveway more difficult; willing to consider a porte cochere, will discuss with owner; the triangular window on the second floor was put back in to provide relief to wall, also stepped side in and added brow, made many efforts to reduce height, bulk; haven=t nailed down the landscaping yet but will put some in, existing house is stucco with siding and trim nailed over stucco. Further commission comments: don=t understand difficulty with porch, have problems with the details but don=t object to concept; should have post sitting on piers to support, not concerned with offset of door; recommend a full sleeping alcove, if it were to have a bay would have windows, can be a good sleeping alcove with windows; triangular window is in conflict with bungalow style; would like to bring some elements all the way to the ground; have questions about driveway, could park 11 cars there, do you really want that much pavement, could do patio, garden in side yard, with planting areas and trees, could use double strips for driveway; concerned with blank space on second floor; need more articulation, explore entrance on side; problem is it is a backward project, doing kitchen first, could do better project, driveway access not good reason for front entry, don=t see bungalow elements, will still City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -6- look like 1950's house; outriggers on front gable, bay needs something, agree driveway too big, massive, need to soften; notice that 10' clearance for chimney should be to eave not building unless fireplace is gas, if gas can get ride of cap on top, need more bungalow details; for bungalow porch could put columns in front, may need variance, okay if it doesn=t project too far. Robert Louth, 1520 Carol Avenue and Gary Bestwick, 1512 Carol Avenue, spoke regarding the project; live next door, supportive of project now, incorporated ideas suggested, agree if did see more bracketing it would help, would like to see project go ahead; were concerned with porch variance and roof line, from our perspective would rather see front porch modified than side entry, that would cause impact; house now is not vintage of others, with modification proposed it will fit in; need for landscaping on right side, would be improvement, hope to get project moving, it is an eyesore now. There were no more comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Keighran moved that the project be sent to the design reviewer with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: regarding landscaping, need more direction, important to see a developed landscape plan with heavy trellis, narrow the driveway to a 12' width; regarding the entrance issue, keep porch on front but make it a Abungalow@ porch, since neighbors like it in front, okay, but would hate to see too much mass added there because it is close to sidewalk; would be massing problem if closed in but porches are semi-public, not opposed to porch close to street, lot of possibilities to go bungalow. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion which passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 1111 MARQUITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (DEBRA SHAPIRO, PROPERTY OWNER; JOSEPH V. CUELLAR, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) Planning staff briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant and designer, Joseph V. Cuellar, introduced himself. Commission noted that the relationship between the shed roof and vertical addition needed to change because it was not drawn correctly; new roof should be drawn lower than depicted. Second story window looks odd next to vertical wall. Turret will not work with design; it is too thin. Computer drawing hard to read because line weight for siding same as weight for edges of house. There are too few windows and the windows are too small. Need to adjust size, number and placement of windows. Northern elevation has second story addition with gable over two small windows; this looks odd - need better detail to match character of house. Not much of original roof left after addition; can old roof be removed and pitch of roof changed to better integrate into addition? 6" wide eaves are not proportional; looks too short. Careful, however, to provide minimum required eave to eave separation of 4'-0" between house and garage. Applicant asked whether he could add a stucco wall or covered walkway to connect house and garage. (Staff note: no enclosed connection permitted since garage does not have minimum side and rear setbacks, cannot connect house to garage as this would create a non-conforming situation). Commission reviewed landscape plan and noted three 24" box trees in rear. Would like to see more and larger shrubbery on the landscape plan. Applicant stated that there is substantial existing vegetation in rear yard that is not shown on plans, but provides ample screening of site. Commission further reviewed elevations. Rear elevation odd with two windows of different sizes on second story. Applicant noted that they originally had more windows, but after first review by design review consultant, removed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -7- several windows. Commission noted that design needs balance to both provide windows to improve design and floor plan, but must also be considerate of neighbors. Need more accurate plans to present proposed design; correct inconsistencies. Need to resolve awkwardness of new roof placement over old roof. Applicant noted that he was concerned with drainage pattern on roof, and that did not want to create new valleys. Commission noted that existing house has richness in details. Look to original design for detail and include similar detail in addition using the corbel detail, knee bracing at peak of roof. Elaborate these details with addition. Rear yard is well screened; continue landscape up left side of house. Applicant noted that in the pictures he submitted, that only the peak of the roof behind him is visible. Existing screening adequate and addition sensitively located. Commission referred to design of original house with human scale and cute character expressed with the existing front porch and roof line. Proposed addition has too many vertical elements and loses the character of existing house. Master bedroom is 27'-0" long - which is very large. This large room creates large exterior. Addition should not be this big and chunky. James Pennuto and Claudia Steenberg, 1116 Summer Avenue, expressed their concern regarding their privacy in their rear yard. Yard is an extension of their living area. The proposed addition will add 6'- 0" of height to the building and be 25'-0" tall and the rear balcony will look into their yard. They like their serene one-story house and there are no other two-story houses in this neighborhood. The applicant/owner never spoke with them regarding the addition. The existing house is nice and shouldn’t be touched. City should make protocol for neighbors to first discuss additions with neighbors before approving additions. They have noise of airport to contend with. If the project is constructed, it needs screening. Plans do not show existing poplar, birch and fruit trees in neighbor=s yard. Also concerned about the asbestos and lead contamination from any demolition and new construction. House was built in 1925 and no doubt includes contamination from asbestos and lead paint. May have to request an analysis be done before any demolition or construction can be approved. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the Planning Commission cannot prevent an owner from adding a second story if it meets the zoning standards. They can only ask for mitigation. Is the neighbor’s objection to the second story or the second story balcony? Claudia Steenberg answered that their concern is the second story addition. C.A. Anderson noted that the commission has spent 40 minutes on this item the focus here is design content there will be a public hearing on this project. Robin Houge, 1321 California Drive stated that he has same feelings as previous speaker; doesn’t like the second story and thinks a one-story addition would be better. Second story addition is out of character. One-story addition would provide better privacy and morning/afternoon sun for neighbors. Elmer Bensen, 1317 California Drive, stated his concern with his rear yard privacy. He is within 120'-0" of project site and does not want two-story houses in the area. Wants his privacy. Sylvan Giraud - representing mother at 1117 Marquita, said his mother has no problem with addition. She likes her neighbors. No complaints. Deborah Shapiro, owner, 1111 Marquita, stated that she had no idea that neighbors had these concerns. Spoke with neighbor to the rear. She also did not wish to minimize her rear yard with the addition. Did not mean to offend neighbors. Will work with neighbors to design a better addition. Don’t want to see into neighbor’s houses. Joseph Giraud, son of neighbor at 1117 Marquita, stated that providing the applicant comes up with an acceptable design, they have no problem with a second story addition and the property rights which allow this. Since there were no further comments from the floor Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -8- C. Deal made a motion to forward the project with the comments and conditions to a Design Review Consultant and to require the applicant to correspond with neighbors to address concerns of privacy. It is extremely difficult to guarantee privacy. Landscaping helps provide privacy. Small balconies such as the proposed one generally are not used too often. C. Bojues seconded motion. Discussion on motion: C. Vistica inquired about the noticing procedures for preliminary design review study items. Staff responded that neighbors within 300' of subject property are sent notices 10 days in advance of each hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. 1528 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JEFFREY L. AND DOLLY R. BAUER, PROPERTY OWNERS AND MARY DUNLAP, DUNLAP DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Planner Brooks briefly presented the staff report. Commissioners noted that a standard two-car garage is 21' x 21', if applicant wanted a new two-car garage at a later time, would have to apply for a floor area ratio variance. C. Keighran noted that she will abstain from discussion because she lives near the project. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jeff Bauer, 1520 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, noted that the numbers in the staff report are different than the numbers the designer shows on the plans, and noted that a wider door could be added to the existing garage so two cars can park in it. Planner Brooks noted that staff does its own calculations for floor area based on code definitions, we may include some areas that the designer does not, what is in the staff report is accurate as measured to code requirements. Commission comments: this project has problems with mass, bulk and scale, has all the components of a monster house, still looking at a house that goes straight up, has some articulation but highly impacts the neighborhood, it is not consistent with the design guidelines, interior space was made to fill out the second floor box; generates large volume, hard to take full second floor up, feels very massive, wide heavy proportions, no typical relief that is customarily seen in Spanish Revival style; things on top should be smaller than mass on bottom, no relief from high massive walls, needs to reflect smaller scale of existing house; not concerned with privacy but with mass and bulk, and how the side of the house is articulated, needs attention; there is a lot of motion at front, maybe too much, the rest is a rectangle, plain, box-looking structure; could be more positive-negative space, reducing mass; Further commission comments: front elevation moves a lot, doesn’t happen on other sides; on left elevation, there is still a large chunk at the back that is boxy; tile roof to match existing is good; very poor design, inside dictates what is on outside, very little roof left, since tearing whole roof off, have opportunity to change pitches, 3/12 pitch is more in line with Spanish style; spot elevations for DHE seem to be guessed at, find out where information came from; second floor very chaotic window placement, arches everywhere, too many; need to integrate first floor into second floor, this has a Amuffin-top@ look; like to see landscape plans to provide screening; in terms of arched windows, handful are neat, but too many not good, essence of Spanish Revival style is variation in size of windows; arched windows only appear on front, could be on other sides, more subtle approach in front; look at design submitted for 1313 De Soto Avenue, similar style, hip roof used to soften, more subtle look. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to send this project to the design reviewer with the direction given. C. Bojués seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion which passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10.25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -9- REGULAR ACTION ITEM 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) Reference staff report, 5.22.00, with attachments. Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. There are 6 conditions to consider on the 1815 Bayshore Highway portion of the application and 10 conditions suggested for consideration on the 840 Cowan Road parcel of the application. Commission asked if there have been any recent complaints regarding on -street unloading of cars on Cowan Road. Planner Brooks noted that no complaints have been received since the amended conditional use permit was approved in 1997. Commission noted that the code calls for a 0.7 acre site, in this case it is on two sites, that is a nonconforming condition and should not be used as a precedent if a new project were considered, the 0.7 acres would have to be on one site. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mike McCracken, applicant stated he is available for questions, and noted that Susan Speaker, Troy Wathen and Vincent Ticzon, representing Dollar Rent-A-Car, were also available for questions. He noted that this is a change of use to a lesser use, San Francisco Airport is consolidating all rental car operations at the airport, in this case it threw a monkey wrench into Dollar=s plans for a tour facility at this site, plans have been shelved, will do car rental but not tour facility; would like the condition changed regarding unloading of carriers, ask that parking not be prohibited in loading area because unloading only occurs 40% of the time, it would be a waste if not allowed to park there at other times; Dollar strictly enforces and gives advanced notice to clear loading lanes, if complaints received, could take more restrictive measures. Commissioners asked where do the 50 cars go when unloading occurs. Vince Ticzon, area manager, noted that when trucks are expected, they make sure that cars can be parked at the airport location, depends on day of week, sometimes lot is not full. Commissioners noted concern with the airport, they say contracts shall be written at airport, Burlingame is storing and maintaining the cars, they take the tax dollars while we do the dirty work, how will this work in the future. The applicant noted that Dollar will develop a new maintenance and storage facility in Oakland, much of the work will go there. The commission noted that they would like to put a time limit on the conditional use permit, would like to look at it again in 5 years so that there is a vehicle to look at the situation if things have changed. Susan Speaker, Director of Properties for Dollar Rent-A-Car, noted that the leases on these two sites will expire in January, 2005 and noted the review could be at that time. Commissioners asked what kind of work is done at the maintenance shop, can we define what maintenance can be done in the conditions of approval; asked if there will be any construction or modification to the existing building; if storage at the Cowan site were reduced from 300 to 250 cars, would the other cars be stored at the airport. The applicant noted that they perform servicing of the vehicles, preparation of new vehicles and light maintenance, they would be agreeable to condition limiting to that level of service; there is no modification or intensification of use proposed in the existing building; if limited to 250 cars in Burlingame, would make do, shift to airport or Oakland site, besides the new Oakland facility, Dollar is looking for other sites for parking, could be alleviated in a matter of months, they do have notice when car carriers come in, will be able to accommodate. There were no further public comments and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: this is an existing use, it is not Dollar=s fault that the airport is grabbing all the contracts. C. Deal moved to approve the project by resolution, with the following amended conditions: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -10- 1815 Bayshore Highway 1) that the rental car facility use on this property shall remain in effect only as long as the rental car facility uses at 840 Cowan Road is also in operation; if any portion of the rental car use on either of these parcels is discontinued, then the conditional use permit for the entire operation shall be revoked; 2) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, 2005; 3) that the rental car facility shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 17, 2000, Sheet SD1, Site and Floor Plan; 4) that the uses on this site shall consist of car rental, administrative offices, a repair garage for the car rental facility, employee and customer parking and rental fleet vehicle storage as designated on the site plan for 1815 Bayshore Highway, Sheet SD1, date stamped April 17, 2000; 5) that the maintenance facility shall be limited to light service and maintenance to the rental fleet and preparation of new vehicles; 6) that there shall not be less than 10% landscaping of this property as shown on the site plan, Sheet SD1 date stamped April 17, 2000; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s February 22, 2000 and May 1, 2000 memos shall be met; and 8) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 840 Cowan Road 1) that the rental car facility use on this property shall remain in effect only as long as the rental car facility uses 1815 Bayshore Highway is also in operation; if any portion of the rental car use on either of these parcels is discontinued, then the conditional use permit for the entire operation shall be revoked; 2) that the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, 2005; 3) that the rental car facility shall operate as shown on the plans for 840 Cowan Road submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 17, 2000, Sheet SD-1, Site Plan; 4) that the uses on this site shall consist of a employee parking and rental fleet vehicle storage and car carrier loading and unloading as designated on the site plan for 840 Cowan Road, Sheet SD-1, date stamped April 17, 2000, if complaints are received regarding unloading of car carriers on the street, or rental vehicles parked on the street, the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 5) that on-street loading or unloading of car carriers shall not be allowed; 6) that no cars shall be rented, washed, serviced or repaired on this site nor shall customers be dropped off or picked up from this site; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s February 22, 2000 and May 1, 2000 memos shall be met; 8) that all runoff in the parking lot shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working condition shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review; 9) that the vehicle storage area shall operate between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily; 10) that 10% landscaping shall be maintained on this property including a 25' landscaped and bermed area parallel to the street of sufficient height to screen the view of parked cars from pedestrians and vehicles passing by on the street, the remaining required landscaped area may be placed at the rear of the property; an opaque fence no higher than 8' shall be placed along the rear of the 25' deep front landscaped area parallel to the street and along the remaining sides of the 2.5 acre site; all landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic system and shall be maintained by the tenant; and 11) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: realize the applicant=s predicament, but looking at the burden on Burlingame, could this be done on a sliding scale with full allotment of parking now, reduce over time, now we have the burden but little revenue; could go back after two years, cut back from 300 to 150 cars, would give sufficient time for alternative means; feel it is getting complicated, if Dollar was behind the change maybe, but they are not, best to give them 5 years, concerned that it would be hard to enforce, this would give them time to plan; Commissioner asked how much revenue is lost; the relocation of this car rental operation to the airport cost the city $250,000 annually in lost revenue; the airport is already remodeling the rental car facility, Burlingame gets stuck but it is not Dollar=s fault, good that they are relinquishing some properties, it is a step in the right direction. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Minutes -11- Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7 -0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:37 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 15, 2000 Planner Brooks reviewed the minutes of the Council meeting of May 15th. SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 125-ROOM, 4-STORY HOTEL AT 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Planner Brooks noted that a scoping meeting will be held on May 23, 2000 to receive any comments from responsible agencies and interested persons regarding what issues should be addressed in the environmental review for this hotel project, and asked the Commission if there were any special issues that they would like addressed. Commissioners asked that the environmental review look at the view of the project from the Burlingame Hills as well as adjacent to site; look at the relationship between the bayfront and the building itself, they should be integrated together; and noted that they would like to see mitigation that the landscaping has something to do with the bayfront environment, would rather see more natural landscaping on that edge. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary mnutes5.22