Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.01.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 14, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the January 14, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, , Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza C. Bojués arrived 7:06 p.m. III. MINUTES Chair Vistica noted that there were three sets of minutes included in the packet: November 28, 2001 Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, December 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, and December 19, 2001 Planning Commission Special Meeting. He asked if Commission or staff wished to make any corrections. It was noted that on the December 10 minutes item 7 on page 6, Vice Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote, Chairman Vistica had abstained on the item. The correction was noted and the three sets of minutes were approved as mailed with the correction to the December 10, 2001 minutes. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 401 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE K – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (DOJI LLAMAS, APPLICANT; MAURICE COHN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: the applicant should clarify the week end useage since the application indicates none but the commercial application form handed out tonight indicates 7 am to 7 pm week end useage; what were the number of people on site with the previous real estate use and engineering firm; will this company have large group meetings , will they be held regularly, when will the meetings be and how do they anticipate accommodating the parking; seems to be a substantial increase in real estate use in this area, there is a clear parking deficient shown by the city’s parking study, should the commission be considering charging an in lieu fee for parking not provided; would like to see a condition that requires this use permit to have a required review for compliance with its conditions in two years. There were no other comments. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 2 This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. 330 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 512 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (WILLIAM GILMARTIN, APPLICANT; PRIMROSE PLAZA PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is there a parking deficiency in the Parking Study zone where this business is proposing to locate; when will this real estate business’s weekly meeting be, how many people will attend, what time of day will it be scheduled. There were no further questions. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Jerry Wentwort a neighbor asked that 229 Dwight Road be removed for a clarification. Chariman Vistica set 229 Dwight Road as the first item on the regular action calendar. 3b. 1448 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (HOLA! MEXICAN RESTAURANT AND CANTINA, APPLICANT; JAMES P. AND RUTH MODISETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran moved approval of the remaining consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3a. 229 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH AND TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MANISCALCO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICK ESCOBAR, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Rick Escobar, property owner, noted that he was available to answer questions. He would like to make garage larger. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 3 Gerry Wentworth, 516 Burlingame Avenue, noted that there is a large recreational vehicle (RV) parked in the driveway and asked if the new garage is being built to accommodate the RV? The property owner noted that he inherited the large 35’ long RV, is currently trying to get rid of the RV and buy a smaller trailer, RV is way too big to fit into the proposed garage, garage will be built according to the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application based on the facts in the staff report and presented at the meeting, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 30, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A2.2, A3.1, A3.3, and date stamped January 4, 2002, sheets A2.3 and A3.2, 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 basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's August 6, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 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. Brownrigg. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 4. 840 NEWHALL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WIDTH FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JERRY DEAL, JD AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND GERMAIN ALFARO, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Robert and Germaine Alfaro, property owners, represented the project, noting that their designer had called to say he was sick and could not attend. They noted that they had made some changes to the plans, moved the house back 8 feet to 36 feet where 38 feet is required, hope that is acceptable. Commissioner noted had reviewed the landscape plan, the proposed plant material is too small a scale to fit the house, need a bigger tree to screen the first and second story, both proposed trees in the front should be replaced with a larger species; the same problem exists in the rear yard. Commissioner noted don’t see a hardship on this flat, evenly shaped property, to justify a front setback variance. Applicant noted they wished to keep as large a back yard as possible. Commissioner noted that the house has a nice design, could get more back yard by reducing the size of the garage, the immediate houses all have a bigger front setback than proposed; applicant noted could remove the bay window at the front and meet the 38 foot front setback. Commissioner clarified the number of bedrooms, with recent revision, reduced the number from 6 to 5 because took 5 feet from the front and that made the living room too small, so added to the living room area that was in bedroom next to the living room. Commissioner noted that some of that space could also be used to increase the prominence of the front porch. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 4 Commission discussion: agree that there is no hardship on this lot to justify a variance, and there is a solution on the site; all the houses on this street have a deep setback, the house is large, they are proposing three large trees in the front yard to screen the structure; easy to move this back on the lot and keep the nice design, do not want to set a precedent for others on the block, its only 18 inches. C. Bojués moved that the design review for this site be approved along with the special permit for the garage with the area exceeding that needed for parking to be used only for storage and that the variance for the front setback not be approved because there is no hardship on the property for the reasons noted in the discussion and the staff report by resolution conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Commission discussion: CA noted that the motion would mean that the Commission will not have seen the corrected plans; following discussion of procedure the maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion to deny the project without prejudice. The second agreed. The motion to deny without prejudice was made by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2001, sheets 1 – 5, sheet G-1 and sheet L- 1 date stamped November 28, 2001 with a 36'-6" front setback, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that three large trees, species as approved by the City Arborist, shall be placed in the front yard so they shall screen the first and second story of the house as viewed from the street and neighbors; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s October 29, 2001, memos 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. Discussion on the motion: needs to reduce by 18 inches, would prefer that the space come out of the house rather than out of the rear yard by shifting the house back; it is up to the applicant to decide; a condition should be added that the applicant provide three large trees in the front yard to screen the new house. The maker and second of the amended motion agreed. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7 – 0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Ann Herrington, property owner represented the project noting that she had expected her architect to be here this evening but he had not arrived. Said she was familiar with the project and would answer questions. Commissioners asked: are there climbing vines on the existing trellis; yes, mature and intend to keep and enhance them. Revised plans show the second floor cantilevered over both the right and left side, why; trying to meet the neighbors concerns and the design reviewer was trying to reduce the “boxy” look of the house also added two windows and wooden trim. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 5 Extending the second floor results in increased lot coverage without adding to the first floor. Applicant submitted a letter in support from her neighbor at 1556 Cypress. Speaking on the project were Dian Condon-Wergler, 1536 Cypress; Preston Young, 1528 Cypress. Only problem have with the project is parking, plans show arbor over driveway as well as cantilever, leads one to believe that the driveway will never be used, recently the owner installed gates across the driveway in front of the trellis, can no longer park 2 cars in the driveway; in seven years I have lived in the neighborhood this owner has not parked in garage, now gates block future use of the driveway for parking; opposed to project because cantilever extends the envelope of the house and represents growth even though it is within the city code. Live on the north side of the project, favored the original design except for the windows along the side property line, now there is an 18 inch cantilever bringing windows closer and a 20 foot wall which will affect light and the space for his house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: applicant has made the changes that the Planning Commission requested, the garage proposed meets the on site parking requirements for the three bedroom house; can not monitor who parks on the street and who in the garage; like to see the driveway used for parking, but the city does not have the power to see it done, suggest that the gates be removed because they limit the use of the driveway for parking unless they can be opened by remote control. Is the gate needed to meet fencing requirements for pool in the rear yard? No. If the gate were relocated to the back corner, could park in the driveway; the project is still a bit boxy, have a problem with the declining height envelope, the wall is awfully close to the side property line and there does not appear to be any hardship with the property; if cantilever pulled back addition would not affect lot coverage. From front, even with 18 inch cantilever, house looks boxy, not sure this is compatible with the neighborhood. With gate removed the pool can still be protected, the second floor walls should be inset not cantilevered, cannot support the height proposed, recommend go back to drawing board. Need to check the side setback on the second floor for variance on side with declining height exception. CA noted that if the design is salvageable item should be continued; if significant change is required can deny without prejudice and applicant can return with new design. Further discussion: the boxy design is OK, it is the kind of vocabulary for this style, work with the design reviewer improved it from original, concerned with the side setback impact on the design, not sure I can approve for that reason; have difficulty with the side setback and the declining height exception, looks like a variance and a special permit; what is the height of the cantilever over the driveway, will it obstruct use; design has boxy look but part of the existing house, concerned with cantilever into setback. C. Keighran moved to send the item back to the design reviewer with the direction given, noting that the gate (not sown on the plans) should be taken out of the driveway. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués Comment on the motion: gate does not need to be removed if it can be made automatic; would maker consider modification to motion and deny the project without prejudice or give the applicant the opportunity to return to the design reviewer, at their choice. Maker of the motion and second agreed to the amendment. Further comment on the motion: concerned about the design as it is, a box on a box, it is out of character with the neighborhood, to bulky, feel if it came back without the cantilever still could not support. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion on the project to deny without prejudice or allow the applicant to return to a design review to follow up on the direction given, and that the gate across the driveway be removed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 6 6. 1340 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE (PAM POWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VIRGINIA CULBERTSON AND JACQUES CROMIER, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Pam Powell, architect, 3108 Sheldon Drive, Richmond, represented the project. She noted she would answer questions. There were no questions from the commission or comments from the floor. The pubic hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the applicant had made nice changes as requested and moved to approve the project by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2001, sheets T1 and A2 through A4, 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 basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist's September 17, 2001, memos and the Building Official's September 12, 2001, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that an arborist report shall be prepared demonstrating how to protect the existing trees at the front of the site and in the rear during construction and that the report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit; and that the two Japanese maples noted on the plans on the left side of the rear yard shall be replaced with aristocrat pears or some other species of similar scale when mature as approved by the City Arborist and placed to provide screening for the neighbor; 6) that the bedroom at the rear over the garage shall never be converted into a second dwelling unit; and 7) 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. Keighran Comment on the motion: agree that a lot of improvements have been made to this project, however, the room over the garage is still not integrated into the house and looks like a second unit, concerned about how future owners will use this area, am not in favor of this becoming a rental unit; there is no landscape plan for this project, Sheet A-3 shows a redwood tree under the eaves of the house, same on the east side, plans do not represent what is there in the field, trees need to be protected during construction. Would like to add a condition that an arborist report be prepared to protect the existing trees at the front of the site and in the rear during construction and that the two Japanese maples noted on the plans on the left side of the rear yard be replaced with aristocrat pears or some other species of similar scale when mature to provide screening for the neighbor, am concerned because of the overall size of the addition; concerned about the mass of the building especially the west elevation , could pull the addition back from the side property line, the problem is the declining height intrusion on the west side, not as concerned with the area over the garage. Share concern about the declining height exception on the left side. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 7 Chairman Vistica asked if the maker of the motion and second would agree to add the condition about the landscaping. They agreed. Discussion on the motion continued: still concerned about the use of the room over the garage as a second unit, can we add a condition that it will never be used as a second unit? Could understand concern if it were not accessible from inside the house or detached way back in the rear yard, can’t see a way to eliminate without revising the entire floor plan; could eliminate the 4 inch waste line which would make a toilet and shower possible; closest toilet is in the master bedroom, otherwise must go downstairs; can the second sink be converted into a shower, yes. Chairman Vistica asked if the maker of the motion and the second would agree to add a condition that would state that the bedroom at the rear over the garage would never be converted into a second dwelling unit. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the twice amended motion (for landscaping and clarify rear bedroom would not be used as a second unit) to approve the application. The motion passed 5 -2 (Cers. Keele and Osterling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. 1443 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-3/C-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF FREESTANDING SIGN (CHARLES L. KAVANAGH, APPLICANT; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Charlie Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering, 470 Chatham Road, and member of the church, represented the United Methodist Church, with Brian Zimmerman, President of the Church’s Board of Trustees, and Nemphis Edwards, Senior Pastor. Noted that they had been working on this sign permit since July of 2000, including considering a rezoning, ultimately the city revised the sign code, establishing standards for institutional uses in residential zones; the height limit in these new standards is 6 feet, but with cars parked along the curb, it will take a 7’-10” sign to be seen by passing cars, so are asking for a variance for height, it will not impact the views from residential uses since there are none nearby. Commissioner asked what market this sign is targeted toward, pedestrian or automobile. Applicant noted both, lot of cars exiting Safeway will see it and pedestrians walk by, but primary orientation is toward the Safeway lot. Commissioners noted that the head of a pedestrian is a bit taller than a parked car, the changeable copy portion of the sign was placed rather low on the proposed 7’- 10” face, and the Safeway driveway across the street is in bound only, even at proposed height will be hard to see, would you consider putting the sign down the block (toward Primrose) by the classroom building where cars exiting Safeway will be able to see it easily; applicant noted considered moving toward El Camino but there were traffic and auto safety issues; Could the sign go on Howard toward Primrose, applicant noted know there is some landscaping there where could put it but do not know what would be disturbed. Commissioner noted have a very visible church sign at the front of the church to add this seems like over exposure on that frontage when there is no sign on the classroom side. Commissioner noted that the problem with the sign at the front is the height variance needed, the sign is in effect an advertisement and there is no compelling need for the variance. Commissioner noted that if the sign were attached to the building it could be as high as 12 feet off the ground without a variance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 8 Applicant noted that the members of the church had this same discussion two years ago and selected this site, the location of the sign should be left to the church, church is having a problem keeping up membership, they need to decide what will be most effective for them, key is that the sign is lighted and visible at night since the other signs are not; members will discuss the things you mentioned but they need the Commission to act tonight. Applicant continued want the maximum benefit from the sign, not just for the sake of the sign but to get the message out about the church’s programs, if stay within the rules do not get an effective sign and the church cannot meet their agenda; do not want to come back an badger the Commission. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: if willing to reduce sign to 6 feet don’t need to come back; staff noted that that was correct. C. Bojués moved by resolution to deny the request for a variance for sign height, could get the reader board at the same height as the 7 foot sign if the name of the church were placed below the reader portion of the sign and there are other alternative for placing the sign for good visibility at 6 feet, either down the street or on the façade of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: do not want to see a variance, how the sign is configured is up to the congregation; would grant a variance if there were no other place to put the sign, but since there is will support the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the height variance for the sign. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Keele dissenting) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO EXCEED THE BAYFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING AND PAID SELF-PARKING FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (JONATHAN WINSLOW, WINSHIP PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; AIRPORT BOULEVARD HOTEL LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments including the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff: what area was counted as the front of the lot, Planner indicated the area on the plans; trees being proposed for removal are large and evergreen, being replaced with smaller scale and deciduous, applicant needs to address; asked CE what the parking lot illumination requirements were, he noted city uses public health and safety standards, applicant seems to be providing a lot more illumination than necessary in parking lot, worried about “glow” off site. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jonathan Winslow, representing the applicant Winship Properties spoke about the project along with April Philips, the landscape architect for the project. Reviewed the developer’s credentials, the issues addressed from the last meeting, noted was still trying to work out parking with the Parks and Recreation Director and baseball league, willing to work with them; noted they are sensitive to the parking lot lighting issue and will not install more light than police and fire departments require. Commissioner noted would like to add a condition that would require the property owner/operator to allow recreation users the use, without charge, of the 13 parking spaces on site which City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 9 exceed the hotel’s parking requirement, do not want these spaces designated and do not want to make the hotel nonconforming in parking; developer noted he would be happy to use 13 spaces as a base number to work from. Commissioner also noted the benefit of the new sidewalk being proposed, would like developer to keep an open mind about another gate between the porte cochere and the corner; applicant noted that they are willing to add a gate, but do not want recreational users to walk across the entry driveway or directly onto the playing fields. Commissioners comments continued: CalTrans is proposing to put a pedestrian/bicycle over crossing over 101 which would terminate on the west side of your driveway, would you add a cross walk across your entry driveway; CE indicated that it would be 3 to 4 years before this project is realized, the cross walk at the hotel entry looks as if it will be on CalTrans right-of-way, they will also need to add a pedestrian actuated signal; want to be sure that there is a safe pedestrian connection in the future. Encourage less lighting in parking lot, energy conservation, could remove some light standards; note signs will be discussed at a later time. Landscaper noted that site is difficult, soils poor, windy, high salt content; eucalyptus create a strong, high north south edge and the building a similar east west directed edge; increased the mass of the trees by hedge rowing their planting, deciduous but also a lot of color visible from the freeway; glowing umbrella trees won’t be very bight, only a couple of glowing benches to make it look high tech. Arborist noted that there may be a problem with a sidewalk so close to mature eucalyptus, may need to surface with a different material. Don’t think Italian Cyprus will do well, will use vines that flower on frames, will keep it simple with a strong pattern. There were no further comments from the applicant or the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that this was a very good job, the hotel remodel would be an asset to Burlingame, commissioners questions were addressed in detail in the staff report, negative declaration and at the meeting so moved approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the conditional use permits for the remodel and addition to the hotel at 1177 Airport Blvd. for the reasons stated in the staff report and at the study and public hearings, by resolution, adding that along with the two amendments to conditions 21 and 32 suggested by staff two additional conditions be added, that the applicant allocate at least 13 on site parking spaces free of charge for the use of those participating in sporting events at Bayside Park and that, to keep off-site glow to a minimum, the illumination of the parking lot be limited to that required for public health and safety, as reviewed by the Public Works Department and modified if necessary before a building permit is issued, 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 January 4, 2002, sheets PA-001, PA-100, A-200 through A-202, A-300 through A-303, E-001 through E-008, L-1 and L-2, and Lighting Plan; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s, Fire Marshal’s and Recycling Specialist’s memos dated July 9, 2001, and the City Arborist’s memo dated February 27, 2001, shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, setbacks, or height of the building and any changes to the land uses on the site shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term airport parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 5) that the controlled access parking shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 4, 2002, sheet PA-100, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 7) that the applicant shall allocate, but not specifically designate within the parking lot, at least 13 on site parking spaces free of charge for the use of those participating in sporting events at Bayside Park;8) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no delivery trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 9) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 10 all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the overall height of the new mechanical rooftop enclosure shall be 111'-6" and that any increase in the building height shall require an amendment to this use permit; 11) 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; 12) 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 qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 13) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide a regular airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to CalTrain and BART to accommodate employees at shift changes; 14) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into storm water; 15) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 16) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters inserted into storm water inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1); 17) that there shall be no grading performed within BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) jurisdiction; 18) that before any development shall be allowed, conditional use permits for controlled access to parking and paid self-parking, and to vary from the requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the front setback (9% proposed, 80% minimum required), view obstruction (61.8% proposed, 60% maximum allowed), and building height (111’-6” proposed, 50’ maximum allowed) shall be required; 19) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed with flexibility to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 20) that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement; 21) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge and site erosion control from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22) that this project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 23) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. The developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 24) that the eucalyptus trees along the east side property line shall be protected during construction and any root cutting within 15’ of the tree trunks and any pruning shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 1998 Editions, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 26) that the addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms and in enclosed public areas shall not exceed 45 dBA (CNEL); 27) that to keep visual interference from off-site glow to a minimum, the illumination of the parking lot shall be limited to that required for public health and safety, as reviewed and modified by the City Engineer, Fire and Police Departments before a building permit is issued; 28) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; 29) that the metal screen enclosing the stairways located on the east and west ends of the building and the metal screen enclosing the rooftop mechanical equipment shall be painted with a non-reflective paint color and that this non-reflective City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 11 coating shall be maintained; 30) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented; 31) that a pedestrian access shall be provided from the hotel building to the adjacent Bayside Park and from the hotel entrance to the site entrance at the intersection of Bayshore and Airport Boulevard by a five-foot wide sidewalk along the side property line adjacent to Bayside Park. Guest access to Bayside Park shall also be provided from this walk with a gate through the fence separating the park and the hotel opposite the porte cochere; and 32) that striping or other clear delineation shall be provided for a pedestrian crossing at the porte cochere across the entrance driveway to the pedestrian sidewalk at the gate into the park on the side property line. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: support, commend work done and the spirit of cooperation between the hotel and park users, commend effort to improve one of the buildings in the city. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with four amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 2000 DAVIS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM AND SUSAN BOWEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff to explain difference between minor modification and variance process. CP Monroe noted that a minor modification is a variance, minor exceptions to the code can be processed with an administrative process however when these are additional exceptions or design review required they are treated as a variance and go through the full review process. Commission developed this process about a decade ago. Staff also noted that a letter dated January 14, 2002, was received by Ken Ogawa, 1916 Davis Drive, addressing his concerns with the lot coverage variance and an existing plum tree at the rear of the lot. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Tom and Susan Bowen, property owners, were present to answer questions. The Commission noted that while on a site visit, noticed that the existing windows had divided lights but were not shown on the plans; owners noted that divided light windows would be used on the second floor addition; Commission noted that existing and proposed windows should be shown accurately on the building elevations. Commission noted that the lot coverage variance for 36 SF could be eliminated, for example, by moving the living room wall (facing the interior yard) back by approximately 18”; owner noted that the additional lot coverage is coming from the new covered porch at the front of the house which will help to visually set back the second floor addition, living room extension is under an existing coverage porch which is to be removed, could remove front porch, shape of existing house is difficult to work with. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Commission discussion: feel that the design could find a way to reduce the footprint to eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance, lot coverage variance application shows no justification for the variance requested; footprint is not being changed, porch adds interest to the front of the house, nicely designed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 12 project, there are poorly designed additions on this block, this project will improve the character of the block and enhances the design of the community; there is already hardscape under the proposed porch location, not happy with squeezing the limit. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item as proposed on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: like the design of the house and porch, but feel that the lot coverage variance can be eliminated, there are ways to slightly modify the design to eliminate the variance. CA Anderson noted that the variance is tied with the land unless a condition is added that it is tied to this design. Commissioner asked if there is a 100 SF exemption for covered porches, exemption only applies to floor area ratio; see no hardship for lot coverage. C. Osterling amended the motion to place this item as proposed on the consent calendar noting not all windows would match and have divided lights and with a condition that the variance is only tied to this design. The second of the motion agreed. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item as revised on the January 28, 2002, consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keele and Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:23 p.m. 10. 17 CHANNING ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ATANACIO RODRIGUEZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Lincoln Lue, architect, and Atanacio Rodriguez, property owner, noted that the existing house is a small bungalow and is located at the rear of the lot, proposed second floor addition is set back 20’ from the rear property line, property owner is currently living under tight conditions and would like to expand. The Commission asked what type of window trim will be used, would like to see a detail of the window trim provided for the next meeting; concerned with partial use of wood horizontal siding in random locations, would prefer all stucco or all horizontal siding, should be consistent; applicant noted that the property owner has budget constraints, would prefer to do all stucco and that is why stucco is proposed on the front elevation, kept existing siding at rear of house; concerned about consistency of window patterns, some are divided light, others are not, window pattern should be consistent throughout the house, existing sliding glass door at the rear of the house is plain, should consider changing to divided light; should provide window detail and information on size; encourage the use of traditional wood stucco mold, applicant noted that some houses in the neighborhood have wood trim similar to what is proposed, feels would stucco mold is too thin. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that overall the proposed design is nice and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Provide detail of proposed window trim, would like to see traditional wood stucco mold used; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 13 • Provide window detail and information on sizes; • Window pattern and type should be consistent throughout the house, should consider changing the existing sliding glass door at the rear of the house to divided light; and • Proposed siding should be consistent, should use all horizontal wood or stucco siding. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. 11. 19 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (THOMPSON STUDIO ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VICTORIA SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) (64NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked why is this single-story addition subject to design review? Staff noted that the proposed plate height on the first floor exceeds 9’-0” and therefore is subject to design review (10’-6” plate height proposed at bay window on south elevation and 11’-6” proposed on west elevation). There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. David Thompson, architect, and Victoria Smith, property owner, were present to answer questions. Architect noted that the plate height for the dormer shed in the dining room exceeds 9’ above finished floor. Commissioner noted a concern with the roof line of existing attached garage at the front of the house and asked if any changes could be made to the roofline of the garage to make it compatible with the roof of the house; architect agreed that the existing garage is not compatible and needs to be looked at, but noted that it is not in the owner’s budget to address that issue now, it is not part of the current proposal, garage may be nonconforming now and remodeling it may require variances, shape of the garage roof is a problem, by the time the roof is removed and rebuilt it could cost $20,000-$30,000; Commissioner noted that redesigning the garage should be incorporated into the project now, don’t know if it will be addressed later, garage construction is inexpensive, with a little effort garage can be designed well; property owner noted that the garage is not attractive, proposed project has a budget constraint, her first priority is to get the house to a more livable condition, intends to address the design of the garage in the future, floor plan is poorly laid out, needs interior remodeling; like the design of the addition, fits the criteria of design review, understands budget constraint; the garage is an existing condition and it is not being altered, feels that the garage is not part of the design review. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Commission discussion: staff report notes that the existing garage meets the parking requirement for this house and the garage is not being changed at this time, beyond purview of design review, encourages applicant to considered redesigning the garage in the future but should not require changes to the garage as part of this project, proposed addition is compatible with the house and neighborhood and complies w ith zoning regulations; supposed to have design integrity throughout the house, confident that the garage will be redesigned in the future, unfortunately it is not part of this project. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item as proposed on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 14 Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Keighran dissenting). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 12. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of the staff report by Laurie and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, dated January 10, 2002, which expresses concerns they have with the proposed project. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the applicant, 216 Park Road, and Gary Diebel, architect and property owner, were present. Mr. Hudak noted that this is the architect’s personal residence, slope on the lot 20’ from front to back is an exceptional circumstance for the height variance, would like to open up the existing porch at the front of the house, proposed floor area ratio is under the maximum allowed by 500 SF, adequate on-site parking is provided, detached garage will remain at the rear of the lot, this lot is raised substantially above top of curb level, side setback variance is justified, existing house was built in the 1920’s with a 3’-0” side setback, there was an existing front porch but it was enclosed, the applicant is now restoring the porch to it’s original design which is located in the side setback, restored porch will reduce the existing living area, proposed addition at the rear of the house complies with the required side setback, neighbors not in opposition to the side setback variance; in regard to the proposed height, the Commission recently reviewed a similar project at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, this project had a similar problem with measurement of height, first floor is approximately 20’ above average top of curb, lot rises approximately 30’, if house was measured from ambient ground level it would comply with height regulations, as measured from average top of curb as the code requires, proposed house exceeds the maximum height limit by more than 10’; there are two other 2-story houses in this neighborhood at 1360 and 1361 Bernal Avenue and therefore the proposed 2-story house will not be out of place, can’t see second floor addition from street level, will not block views from the uphill side; would like to address two letters of opposition received from neighbors to the left and right of the subject property, on the right side 3 of the 4 windows are stairway windows, fourth window is in a laundry room which is between the washer and dryer, there is a planter box proposed under the laundry window, plants in the box will help screen the view into the neighbor’s yard. Further comment: Mr. Hudak addressed concern about reducing the light and air into neighbor’s properties, second story is set back 10’ and will not be disruptive, the existing large tree at the rear of the property probably creates more shade than the proposed addition would; architect has designed the second floor so that it cannot be any less intrusive into the neighbor’s yards, the existing tree at the rear yard of 1365 Bernal Avenue will screen their yard, new second floor is set back and will create a physical separation. Commissioner noted that he did not receive a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, staff noted that it will be in the staff report for the action hearing; like the porch on the front elevation, can something be done above the arched windows, need to decrease the mass in that area, south elevation is nice, east elevation is a flat plane and needs more articulation, applicant noted that there are vines growing on that side of the house, vines grow over the first story parapet; north elevation is barren, would suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to screen the bare wall, a tree that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal; concerned with the first floor addition at the rear of the house reducing the size of the rear yard, applicant notes that there two patio areas at the rear, building is set back City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 15 15’ from the rear property line, rear yard is shaded by the large pine tree; concerned about height and in general the mass of the addition, suggest placing story poles to help visualize the addition from the street, and relative to the neighbors, think the house will be tall, but would like to see the story poles before making any conclusions, applicant noted that if measured from adjacent grade, the house would measure 26’-3” in height. Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue, Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue, and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, spoke concerned with the proposed height, there was a similar application before the City Council at this site in 1993, variance was required to exceed 36’ in height, at that time City Council indicated that it could approve the project if the height were lowered to 35’-9”, current proposal is increasing the height from 35’-2’ to 41’ adding 6’ to the existing height, this is not a flat lot, will affect sunlight on the low side of Bernal Avenue, second story addition includes a 689 SF master bedroom, feel that this area can be adjusted, his house is lower than the foundation of the subject property; objection is to height, this site is higher than theirs, existing mature landscaping provides privacy, house was built in the 1920’s, landscape has matured and created privacy in their yard, will loose privacy with this addition, will block sunlight in the afternoon, backyard is now damp, additional shade from addition would increase the problem of keeping the rear yard dry, will loose some view of the sky and will see only second story, sees no justification for variance, does not oppose the first floor addition, invite the Commission to 1365 Bernal to view impact from house; property is similar to subject property, entire yard is landscaped, will loose privacy and sunlight, applicant referred to four windows on my side but one window is actually 3 windows, house is only 1600 SF, use of the rear yard as living area, concerned with compatibility with a neighborhood of small houses with people who enjoy using their rear yards, there is a large Monterey Pine tree in the rear yard, sun comes in from right side of the lot, addition will block sunlight into the rear yard. Mr. Hudak noted that the property owner is sensitive to privacy, in the design he pulled the second floor back as far as he could, the only way to address the neighbor’s concern is to eliminate the second floor; Commission asked what the proposed plate heights are, applicant noted that the first floor plate height is 8’- 5” and the second floor is 7’-6”. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is a nice design, with a second story addition set back from the street the steep slope on the lot is an exceptional circumstance for the height variance, 7’-6” plate height on the second floor is below normal, cannot deny the property owner the right to have a second story, this site is not in the hillside area so there is no review for view blockage, if windows are eliminated will have a flat stucco wall; still concerned with bulk, story poles would be helpful, property owner knew that height would be a problem when he purchased the house , concerned that the house will dominate the street, would like to see average heights of adjacent buildings. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following information has been provided: • Provide landscape plan; suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to screen the bare wall, something that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal; • Provide story poles to help visualize the addition, suggest using orange netting when installing story poles so mass is more obvious, should be installed no later than the Friday prior to the Planning Commission action meeting; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 16 • Provide building heights and finished floor elevations of the adjacent houses (two houses to the left and right of the subject house); This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: this is a well-handled design given the site, view is blocked by what is there now, due to the small lot sizes in Burlingame the Commission cannot guarantee privacy nor does zoning address privacy, feel that the impact will be minimal. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 7, 2002. CP Monroe review briefly the planning items covered at the Council meeting. - Review of Special Planning Commission Study Meeting on Housing Element of December 19, 2001, and City Council Review. There were no comments on this item. - Discussion of Amendments to Zoning Regulations to C-1 Subarea A, Tenant Size, Definitions and Timing on Permit Expiration. Commission and CP Monroe discussed draft of proposed zoning changes. After some discussion the commission suggested that this item be brought back to the commission at study for additional review. CP Monroe said she would try to get this item with the comments noted on the next commission agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES1.14