Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.12.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 9, 2002 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the December 9, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners Keele, Brownrigg and Auran (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 25, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that 512-516 Primrose Road was not on this agenda and would not be discussed at tonight’s meeting. This item will be scheduled for the January 13, 2003, meeting; notice for this meeting will be mailed to property owners and posted in the vicinity of the site and the agenda will be posted on the Planning Department’s website the Thursday before the meeting. CP Monroe also noted that item #3, 2669 Martinez Drive is continued to the next meeting and would not be heard this evening; it will be renoticed for the meeting of January 13, 2003. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 0. 380 LANG ROAD – ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION ON PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR SIGNAGE (DANIELA PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELIZABETH HAMMACK, OWNER) (22 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked for the following items to be addressed: · Would the direction given by the City Council result in a sign which would conform under the master signage squa re footage allowance for the 101 frontage; · Are there other businesses in the area with the same frontage problem; and · How were the scuba shop and glass signs approved. CP Monroe explained that the applicant did not choose to follow the direction given b y City Council, they did not tell staff the sign size of the revised request; a revised proposal was never submitted. It was also noted that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 2 scuba and glass signs are both non-conforming signs, they were refaced signs that were approved before the sign code was recently revised. This item was set for the regular action calendar when there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:15 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. 1a. 1384 HILLSIDE CIRCLE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIM AND NANCY LOCKE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, AIA, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 2990 ARGUELLO DRIVE – ZONED R-1 –APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVE AND LORI TAPIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1c. 15 RAY COURT – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROB AND LEANNE UHICH, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 4 -0-3 (Cers. Keele, Brownrigg and Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. C. Auran arrived at 7:20 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE LUZURIAGA, P.E. LTI City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 3 INC., ENGINEER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling noted that he had a financial interest conflict with this project and would recuse himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and exited the chambers. CP Monroe presented the December 9, 2002 staff report, with attachments. She reviewed project, action criteria and staff comments. She also noted that staff had heard from the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding the negative declaration and they had noted that the project would most likely require an Individual Permit from the Corps. A condition was added to require that a Corps of Engineers permit be secured before any grading/construction work can commence on the project. Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan was present to answer questions regarding the creek enclosure permit requirements and application. Thirty-four conditions including the mitigation monitoring program were suggested for consideration. C. Keighran clarified that since there was a quorum of 4 remaining seated, a motion would need three votes to pass. She asked the applicant if he wished to proceed. The applicant’s representative indicated that he wished to proceed. There were no questions by the Commission of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tony Ponterieo, LTI Engineering, represented the project. He noted that he had no new information to add, and he would be glad to answer questions. There were no questions of the applicant and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved approval by resolution of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit based on the fact that the environmental review did not reveal any significant effects of the project that could not be addressed with mitigations proposed and imposed and engineering and biological studies indicate that the criteria for a creek enclosure permit have been met, the action includes the conditions in the staff report which also encompass the environmental mitigations including requiring a US Army Corp of Engineers permit before any work on the project can commence and will act as the monitoring plan: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16, 2002, sheets C-1 through C-3, and date stamped March 6, 2002, sheet L-1 (Landscape Plan); 2) that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2202 Summit Drive clear of debris and shall maintain the 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 2 0, 2002, August 21, 2002, May 1, 2002, and May 21, 2001 memos, and the City Arborist's August 12, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that the condition of the existing sanitary sewer line should be investigated and repaired as necessary; 6) that work on the existing creek shall be performed only during the "dry" season (May through October) to reduce the potential for slope failures during the excavation work and the possible need for dewatering (in addition to the diversion of the creek flow); 7) that a geotechnical engineer should be engaged during the work to observe the excavation cuts and provide advice on the need for shoring of the existing improvements until all the fill has been placed; 8) that the fill placement and compaction work shall be performed in a "dry" condition; 9) that removal of rocks, boulders, loose and unconfined soil and rock debris, vegetation, organic soils, and other debris and rubble from the creek b ottom and sides shall be reviewed in the field by the project geotechnical engineer at the time the work is in progress; 10) that portions of the existing rip rap shall be removed where it has been undermined; 11) that ground areas that are disturbed during the clearing operation and other void or "hollow" areas shall be properly backfilled using the native City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 4 soil and rock, or approved import soil, by compacting the backfill material to a Minimum Relative Compaction of not less than 90% of the Maximum Dry Density as determined by ASTM Test Procedure D1557; 12) that native soils and rocks (acceptable for use as fill material) and import fill material should be placed in layers, no thicker than 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted; 13) that prior to us e on the site, all import fill material shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for inspection, testing (as necessary), and final approval for use on the site; 14) that the rip rap shall be underlain by a filter fabric to help reduce the potential for future erosion and loss of the soil under the rip rap caused by water infiltration; 15) that the surface of the new fill section should be provided with a means to minimize erosion of the near-surface soils; 16) that the existing surface drain pipes shall be connected into new collector pipes that are routed to the upstream, intake end of the culvert or the new downstream surface drain inlet; 17) that the house roof downspouts shall be connected into a closed pipe system that discharges directly in the new culvert pipe; 18) that the surface grading of the fill surface shall be constructed so that the ground slopes down to the new intake structure from the upstream side of the surface "ridge" line, and toward the new surface drain inlet, downstream from the "ridge" line. The ground surface shall be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5% away from the "ridge" line; 19) that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction; 20) that the applic ant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer; 21) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 22) that off-sit e runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, che ck dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 25) that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas where runoff is contained and treated; 26) that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas are protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching; 27) that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only during dry weather (April 15 through October 15); 28) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 29) that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 30) that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game; 31) that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the City of Burlingame for any trees 48-inches in circumference or larger; 32) that prior to any work in the creek bed, the applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary p ermits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 33) that unless no construction on days of religious meetings is requested by the nearby religious center, construction City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 5 hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. If requested construction shall not occur during times of scheduled religious meetings; and 34) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Creek Enclosure Permit. The motion passed on a 4 -0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 3. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued to the January 13, 2003, meeting; the neighbors will be renoticed for this new meeting date. 4. 716 CONCORD WAY- ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHARLES AND SUZANNE SAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GEORGE SKINNER; ARCHITECT) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report December 9, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Charles and Suzanne Saul, property owners, were present to answer any questions. They noted that they tried to address the Planning Commission’s concerns. They explained that the lower floor bathroom 9 SF may have been counted towards the overall FAR, but should not be as it is underneath of the stairs. Commission asked the owners to clarify the ceiling height in the garage area. The property owners explained that the maximum height is 6’-10” however there are heating ducts, plumbing traps and gas lines that run through the garage and storage areas that limit the ceiling height to 5’-4” in some places with breaks in certain areas that have the 6’-10” height, these ducts and lines would restrict the area from being used for anything other than a garage. Commission noted that they asked for some articulation along the right sidewall. Property owners and staff clarified that it is an existing wall, and that they have decided to leave two windows there to address Commission concerns. Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way, supported the application and feels that the proposed addition will preserve the integrity of the existing house which will be in scale and consistent with other renovations on this block. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 15, 2002, Sheets, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 6 site plan, floor plans, building elevations ; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated October 7, 2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: this is a fairly extensive floor area ratio variance, generally opposed to such variances; however in this case this is a remodel to an existing house and it appears to be the only reasonable way to add to the structure, the design proposed handles the mass and bulk issues which can accompany an FAR variance well and the remodel proposed is consistent wit the mass and bulk of other remodeled houses in the neighborhood; would like to see articulation on the right side wall but it is existing; can not be expected to remove it and the house as designed does fit the neighborhood; concerned about the precedent set by this sizable FAR exception, are we opening Pandora’s box and will have to let others do. Understand, have had a couple of applications with FAR variances for exis ting uninhabitable basement areas like this one, the concern with FAR is mass and bulk and this design seems to address that well. CA noted that variances are tied to the conditions on the property, conditions 2 seems to address that this exception is tied to this property and situation so action does not set a precedent. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and floor area ratio variance. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1110 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R -4 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN 8 FOOT FENCE HEIGHT. (TARA HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNERS) (87 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report December 9, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked CA Anderson if both property owners need to agree on this application, since the fence straddles the property line. CA stated that in this case, because the fence is a result of litigation, the resolution for a fence exception would be recorded with both properties. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Richard Newman, vice president of the Tara Highlands Condominium Association presented three letters of consent from the residents in the units that are along side the fence and would be most affected. Fence request is the result of a settlement agreement with the adjacent property owners, Mr. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 7 Neizman of 107 Highland Avenue. They thought that a permit had been issued for the 8 foot fence, had they know there was no approval they would not have authorized the contractor to build the fence. Ed Neizman, property owner of 107 Highland Avenue, stated that his property is lower than the adjacent three-story condominium building so the taller fence increases his privacy. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 12, 2002 site plan and fence elevation; 2) that t he applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Burlingame Building Department; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: there are exceptional circumstances with a high density residential use next to a single family dwelling, therefore an 8 foot fence is appropriate in this location. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote o n the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5 -0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE – ZONED C-R – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW, THREE-STORY, DUP LEX ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND AN ATTACHED SINGLE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (MIKE JALILIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CJW ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report December 9, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if a parking variance is also required for backing into a parking space on California Drive, CP Monroe stated that a variance would also be required for backing in, as the hazard is similar. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mike Jalilie, property owner, and Carter Ward, CJW Architects, were available to answer questions. Commissio n expressed concern over the proposed curb cut and single off-street parking space on California Drive and asked the applicant and architect why it is needed and what it would be used for. Architect stated that he discussed this request with the property owner, and they are willing to eliminate the curb cut but would like to keep the roll-up door for delivery convenience. There is a consistent pattern along California Drive. They counted 23 properties with garage doors on California Drive between Broadway and the subject property. Commission asked if it has to be a roll-up door and the size of the boxes that will be delivered. Architect noted that a roll-up door makes the most sense for storage and is consistent with other businesses in the area, design follows pattern on California Drive. The boxes to be delivered could be quite large, containing chandeliers and lighting fixtures. Commissioner expressed concern about the tandem parking variance for the residential portion of the project. Architect exp lained that with a 40 foot wide lot it is difficult to configure side by side parking for both units, site geometry drove tandem parking, inadequate space for side by side parking. Units are moderate at 1,300 SF and number of units available on-site is doubled. Commission confirmed that the commercial elevation will not change, other than the elimination of the curb cut. Suggested doing something more decorative with the garage door, strange to have a roll-up door with no curb cut, do something more consistent with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 8 a store front design. Commission asked staff how the residential parking requirement works, CP Monroe explained that at least 80% of the required parking must be covered. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to remove the curb cut on California Drive, replace it with parallel parking and remove the roll-up door and replace it with a storage access for more consistent with the commercial design of the building and bring these changes back to the Planning Commission for an FYI review prior to receiving a building permit: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 15, 2002, sheets A1 though A5, and L-1, and that all landscaping o this site shall b e installed and automatically irrigated as shown on sheet L-1, date stamped November 15, 2002; 2) that the four parking spaces provided in the tandem garages front on Edgehill Drive shall only be used by the residential tenants for parking of their vehicles and shall not be used as storage for the residential or commercial tenants; 3) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing the existing 14-inch diameter liquid amber street tree on Edgehill Drive, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such a permit is issued; 4) that the City Engineer’s August 21, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s October 15, 2002 memo, and the city Arborist’s November 4, 2002 memo shall be met; 5) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration project to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; and partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demotion permit; 6) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required t o meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 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; 8) that the curb cut along California Drive shall be eliminated and curb restored to provide on-street parking space; and 9) that the roll-up on the California Drive frontage shall be modified to a more compact door with a storefront design that matches the proposed commercia l façade and shall be brought back before the Planning Commission as an FYI item for approval before issuance of a building permit for the project. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: support project with added conditions to r emoved the curb cut on California Drive and to modify the roll-up and bring it back for review as an FYI; applicant has responded well to the Planning Commission’s concerns; tandem parking for residential in this case is a good solution for such a narrow lot; will be an attractive project when completed; like the intent of the C -R zoning district, applicant did a good job addressing mix of commercial and residential uses; eliminating curb cut on California Drive adds another on-street parking space. Cha ir Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5 -0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 7. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY – ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF THREE NEW WALL SIGNS (ALAN FORD/MARCO ACOSTA, SIGN RESOURCE, APPLICANTS/DESIGNER; SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 9 Reference staff report December 9, 2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted the value of the tables providing information on existing hotel signage in the area which staff prepared. Asked why some of those hotels had much more signage than was being requested here. CA Anderson commented that we are currently operating under a stricter sign code that does not allow variances for amount of signage which was not the case when these other signs were approved, and sign exceptions for amount of signage were allowed. Today within a zoning designation we cannot favor one user over another, all hotels, for example, must be treated the same in the same area. As commission discussed e arlier this year we probably need to look at the overall signage requirements for hotels in light of the basic change to the code. We have put a review of hotel signage requirements on the work program, but have some other planning priorities to work through first. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Alan Ford, represented the Hampton Inns, think staff did a nice job on compiling the comparative data on other hotels in the area; offered to answer questions. Commissioner noted that on the North and South elevations the sign seems crammed in , the “H” is only a few inches from the roof trim. Applicant noted that it will not be that close, this is a standard sign with a 3 foot tall “H”, if go the next smaller standard sign the “H” would be 2’-6” or a 16 to 17% reduction and the script portion of the sign would go from 18 inches to 14 inches which is fairly small, when picked the sign size looked at the scale of the whole building not just the peak of the roof. Is this a standard size for this size building? Yes. What is the proportion of the “H” to the lower case letters? The lower case is about half the size of the upper case. If the sign were reduced by 10% would it still be legible? Yes, but it would be totally custom made, and more expensive. There were no further comments from the floor or questions and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: following study meeting on this item happened to travel and noticed Hampton Inns, did not find the size proposed objectionable given the height on the building and the distance from which it is viewed; red seems to be the branding color and on this building is not objectionable; this sign is consistent with the variety of signs on hotels in this area now. C. Auran noted cannot see this sign from the residential area; the roof overhang protects the view of the signs from the residential areas to the East and West so move approval of this master signage program and variance for height because the proposed signs are consistent with the area and the existing signage in that area, by resolution with the following conditions: : 1) that the 75 SF wall sign 34’-7” above grade on the primary frontage, the 75 SF wall sign 44’-6” above grade on the north driveway (secondary frontage) and the 75 SF wall signs 44’-5” above grade shall be installed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date October 11, 2002; 2) that any increase in the number, letter height, sign height, location or area of the signs on the primary or secondary frontages, shall require an amendment to master sign program; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: hard to buy this sign, does look crowded under the pediment on the sides, if the letter size was 30 inches would not be able to read the sign because of the cursive font used, the size on the front works well and is a reasonable solution. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 10 Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the master signage program and sign variance for height at 1755 Bayshore Highway. The motion passed on a 5 -0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 8. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT- RE-DEFINE HEALTH AND BEAUTY SPA AS PERSONAL TRAINER AND ASSESSMENT BUSINESS AND BEAUTY SHOPS AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report December 9, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed action criteria and staff comments. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Karen and Jay Scheikowitz spoke in support of the change to the code. They noted that not allowing classes would make the personal training service offered less available to those with less money. Asked in their case how many classes do they presently offer. They noted at the Pilates Studio about a third of the people they serve come in groups of 4 to 6; however they charge less for these group activities and financially the studio just breaks even, so could eliminate them. The classes are for people who cannot afford personal training. They currently offer classes at 9 and 10 am and 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and additional classes on Friday and Saturday mornings. Classes are offered in 50 to 55 minute hours with five to ten minute spacing. Class sizes range between 3 and 6 people with 4 being the average number. There were no further questions or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to recommend to Council for approval the code changes deleting the definition of Health and Beauty Spa from Chapter 25, defining Personal Training and Assessment Business as a personal service, replacing Health and Beauty Spa terms in the code with Personal Training and Assessment Business, and adding a definition of Beauty and Barber Shop. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: unfortunate that such businesses are not able to provide group classes, means that their service is not accessible to a lot of people; but commission has been reviewing this issue fo r some time and there is little support on the Commission for class use in the commercial area; so will support the recommendation to Council that they approve these changes. Where did this change initiate? CP Monroe noted that item began as a code enforcement, Commission directed staff to consider how this use might fit into the pedestrian oriented commercial use on Burlingame Avenue, with subsequent review the commission recommended to Council (and council approved) a definition that would allow such a business if at least 25% of the revenues of the business were from retail sales; the Scheikowitz’s indicated after Council adoption that their business could not meet that requirement (only 3-5% of their business was retail if they could not include the personal training income); they returned to the Planning Commission noting that they could not meet the retail sales requirement of the Health and Beauty Spa definition and asking that personal training and assessment be called a personal service and Commission directed staff to look at appropriate parameters for that activity as a personal service; in that review it appeared that the zoning code also required a definition for Beauty/Barber Shop to make clear the distinction between the two types of personal services. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the amendments to the zoning code definitions deleting Health and Beauty Spa, adding Personal Training and Assessment Business and adding a definition of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 11 Beauty/Barber Shop. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent) voice vote. This item will be carried forward to the City Council. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1411 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO - STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. James Chu, applicant and designer, noted that this is a replacement of a single family dwelling, project meets all code requirements. Roy Christensen, 1427 Carlos Avenue, noted the 4 foot setback asked if 5 feet was required, if the driveway was 10 feet wide to property line and if the building met the declining height envelope requirements. Suggested that the house be centered on the lot, with the garage underneath to provide variety in spacing of houses on the block. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission asked for the following items to be addressed: · entry porch is outspoken compared to the rest of the house, too much, either play down the porch or add more detailing to the windows; and · consider only using one column on each side of the entry instead of two to address issue of porch blending. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: the style of this house is boxy; to keep with the architectural style of the Colonial style house the sides need to go straight up; the required side setback for this property is 4 feet and is met, and the required driveway width is 9’-6” and that is met as well; excellent job on design; Planning Commission advocates for detached garages, attached garages added to the bulk and mass of a house and narrow the separation between houses; compliment designer for meeting all zoning requirements, as this properties is sloping but the 30 foot height limit is still met, usually see special permit for height on lots like this; good plate height at 7 feet; good job on keeping mass and bulk reduced. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans are revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. 10. 1261 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R -1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (THOMAS AND KATHRYN ANGIOLETTI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 12 Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. TJ and Katie Angioletti, property owners, and Jerry Deal, designer, were available to answer any questions. Owners explained that they have a growing family and would like to stay in Burlingame but need a larger house. Addition is designed to be consistent with the style of the existing structure. Commissioners noted that plate height is consistent all the way through and asked designer if he could break up the plate line so there is not a layered cake effect. Designer explained that because of the Mediterranean style of the house it is difficult to break up the plate height without affecting the roof and overall design, easier to do with Tudor style homes. That is why there is a lot of articulate on the facades to c ompensate for the plate height. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked: · what are the species of the new trees to be added, species should be chosen to soften the scale of the building, want to see on the plans where they will be put. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information is added to the plans. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: nice job with design; beautiful home, keeping style consistent. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 11. 1616 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BOB MASON AND PAM MAXWELL, PRO PERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Alan Olin, applicant and architect, was available to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission requested the following: · that screening be added to soften the edges of the building and blend it into the site with large scale shrubs and trees, show location and species on revised plans, will leave place and species decisions up to the applicant. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested information has been added. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: complement architect on work this project, nice design. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans are revised as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 9, 2002 13 directed. The motion passed on a voic e vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele and Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council Regular Meeting of December 2, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the pla nning related items from the City Council meeting on December 2, 2002. She noted that the next council meeting would be January 6, 2003. She updated the Commission briefly on the progress of the review process for the Safeway project. Commissioners noted that the Safeway project review and action should probably be held at a special meeting. Based on the advanced planning program, Tuesday seems to be the night when most of the Commissioners are more available; Wednesday night might be a possible alterna te night; For preparation time it would be good to have the meeting on an alternate week to the Commission meeting. - Adoption of 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar CP Monroe reviewed the proposed meeting calendar for 2003. Commission discussed when would be the best date for the first meeting in November because Veteran’s Day falls on a Tuesday. Commission determined that Wednesday November 12 would be the better date for that meeting. C. Vistica moved to adopt the Commission Calendar with the meeting date changed to November 12, 2003, and C. Osterling seconded the motion. The motion to adopt the 2003 Commission calendar passed unanimously. - Discussion of sidewalk color on Burlingame Avenue CP Monroe referred the Commission to her memo rega rding the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study and the status of the sidewalk installation. C. Osterling noted that when he had asked that the Commission discuss this item he was unaware of the amount of the colored sidewalk that had been installed already, the temporary nature of the “peeling” appearance caused by the curing coating, and the extent of the study which resulted in establishing and adopting the current long term program. He noted that the real issue seems to be keeping the colored sidewalk clean given the current budget problems of the City. He felt that a neutral gray color might not show the dirt as much, but feel that it is too late now to change the color. CP Monroe noted that the Burlingame Avenue merchants are discussing a Business Improvement District and perhaps their activities could include some of the sidewalk cleaning. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES12.09