Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.03.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 26, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 2001, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved with the correction of a spelling error on page 3, paragraph 3, “applicant”. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved with the acknowledgement that item 1b, 1219 Vancouver Avenue, was continued since the applicant decided to redesign, item 3, 2812 Easton Drive, was continued to April 9, 2001, and items 8, 21 Dwight Road, and item 9, 1228 Balboa Avenue, would be heard in the order they were on the agenda, not as they were numbered in the packet. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 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 Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commission commented that the applicant for 1637 Westmoor Road did a great job with the changes and following the direction given by the Commission . Commissioner Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting for Item 1C at 1532 Vancouver Avenue because she lives within 500 feet of the project. 1A. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 2 1B. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) (ITEM CONTINUED) 1C. 1532 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT ALLEN WILLIAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND KATINA COSENZA, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings for each in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item 1A at 1637 Westmoor Road passed 7-0. Item 1C at 1532 Vancouver Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote. (C. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 12, 2001 MEETING) Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. Planner Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked: what changes were made to the proposed house in response to the Commission's comments at the study meeting? The applicant noted that all of the windows at the east elevation were reduced in size, siding had been added to the front entrance to match the existing siding, windows were added to the west elevation and the roof material was changed. Commission commented: is there a discrepancy on the plans, on the second floor, left side of the east elevation, the wall is shown to be 2'-0" high, but on the south elevation this same wall is 7'-0" high. The entrance is out of context; archway of entrance does not blend with any other element of the house. The windows on the east elevation appear to look directly into the neighbor's yard; only reducing them in size does not improve privacy, did applicant look into relocating the windows?; large landscaping at the east elevation would help to screen the addition and insure privacy; please clarify which trees are existing on the east elevation, their approximate size and which trees are proposed. On the south elevation on the right side, the windows appear to crash into the roof line below, this will be difficult or impossible to build. There is no architectural consistency to the house; original design is modern looking and the proposed alterations have tacked on many traditional details that are not appropriate; the original house has elements of wood siding, cement blocks and stucco, these materials and pattern of use are not echoed io the second floor; sudden change of materials at the corner of the second floor looks odd, as if materials suddenly ran out and so the addition does not blend with the existing house. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 3 There were no further comments from the audience. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: the direction given at the study meeting does not appear to have been fruitful. The drawings need to be cleaned up and made consistent, needs to make sure fascia shown on dormers at front elevation is shown on other elevations, wall on the east elevation must be drawn correctly and match what is shown on south elevation, the windows on the south elevation that are shown crashing into the roof line need to be revised; redesign the front entry to blend with the existing architectural materials and clean lines of architecture in original house. C. Deal moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Further Commission discussion: this project is improving in summary for the design reviewer the applicant needs to address the following issues: repeat the eave detail; the stucco wall on the west elevation stands out as different and massive; the arched entryway does not blend with the existing architecture; windows on the second floor of the east elevation do not match the existing square windows on the first floor; the existing house has architecture of planes and voids, created with the cement blocks punctuated by siding and stucco, these elements need to be engaged on the second floor. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 3. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 2001 MEETING) At the applicant’s request this item was continued to the April 9, 2001, meeting to the regular action calendar. 4. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT (IQBAL SERANG, ARCHITECT; ELIO D. URZO, APPLICANT; BANK OF AMERICA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Iqbal Serang, architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the signage shown on the plans was within the maximum allowed by code? Staff noted that no signage is addressed in this application, the applicant will have to make a separate application for signage. The architect indicated that he understood this clarification. There were no further comments. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Commission is satisfied with the responses submitted by the applicant. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 4 C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the tenant space shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 16, 2001; the proposed use is a full-service restaurant, with 628 SF of seating area on the first floor, 216 SF of seating area on the mezzanine, 868 SF of storage area on the mezzanine, and 276 SF of office area for the restaurant on the mezzanine; these areas and their designated uses shall be altered or expanded only with amendment to this conditional use permit; 2) that the tenant space shall be operated as shown on the commercial application form submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 16, 2001; that the business shall not be open for business except during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, seven days a week, with a maximum of 14 employees on site at one time, including the owner, and that there shall be no delivery service from the site and no classes offered at the site; 3) that this full-service food establishment may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet in each direction of all frontages of the business; 6) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s January 22, 2001 and the City Engineer's January 22, 2001 memos shall be met; 9) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW – ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the proposed revised ordinance which would establish eligibility of properties in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts for commercial design review, criteria for that review and a process for commercial design review. CP noted that there were still some editorial corrections to be made to the commercial design guidelines so Commission could review them at their next meeting and forward them on to the City Council. The guidelines are not intended to be regulations but an assistance to applicants, and as such the guidelines need only be approved and acknowledged by the Commission and Council. Commissioners asked that staff review the wording of the ordinance to make the exemption for all tenant and building facades that are 25 feet in length or less is clearly stated; this exemption would nclude all changes made to facades 25 feet or less in length, even if changes are made to 50% or more of the façade. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved that the commission recommend this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 5 Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that the quality of this ordinance and the process followed in its formulation is testimony to the need of professionals on the Planning Commission. It was noted that the commercial design review guidelines would be on the Commission’s next agenda so that they could go to Council that the entire package would be available at the public hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. SECOND UNIT AMNESTY – ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AMNESTY FOR SOME SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT Cers. Vistica and Deal both noted that they would abstain from action on this item because they owned property zoned R-1 with nonconforming second units. They asked CA Anderson if they could participate in the debate on the ordinance. He responded that they could testify on how the proposed program/ordinance will affect their property. They stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed second unit amnesty program as established in the ordinance before the Planning Commission. Commission noted that there appeared to be a word processing problem with the apostrophes on page 3. Chairman Luzuriaga asked the members of the Subcommittee to review how they arrived at the qualifying criteria. Commissioners noted felt needed one offsite parking space since parking in the existing neighborhoods is generally difficult now, this parking impact also affected the choice of a maximum of two people per unit; felt it important to have the owner on-site for close supervision of the rented unit, the owner would be more particular who rented to; important to get maintenance done to make units safe and sanitary, fire department needs to know if a second unit is present in case of an emergency; put a maximum size in place because did not want units to exceed maximum allowable FAR for site and wanted to keep them a small secondary use; felt must comply without exception to insure fit and the continuation of existing conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The following spoke at the public hearing: Lee Tanton, Linden Avenue; Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma Avenue; Stan Vistica, 24 Arundal Road; Richard Quadri, 530 Francisco; Mike Zerrela, Vancouver; Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo; Kevin Griffin, 1700 Sanchez. City has been 15 years in getting to a second unit amnesty program, started back in 1982, need program to increase affordable housing; Burlingame should not base its program on those of Daly City or Half Moon Bay; city needs hundreds more units, this is a good start, need to move now; would encourage to have program extend beyond 250 unit target. Have a duplex built in an R-1 zone, have owned 20 years, built about 1924, nonconforming but could not qualify under proposed program because each unit is 1100 SF, have always been rented; when changed nonconforming rules for single family zone was bypassed because unit attached so cannot expand primary unit (would like to add a family room), only solution for me is rezoning with neighbor to join adjacent R-2 district; concern is that with these criteria the program will not address a lot of existing, nonconforming second units. Have a second unit which will fall within the scope of the ordinance, take issue with the requirement that the owner live on the property, means cannot keep as an income property and would have to sell if able to move to a single family house in the future; don’t understand the 640 SF cap with a maximum 30 SF addi tion; owner does not have to live there to keep an eye on the tenant, should be careful who he rents to anyway. Own a single family house without a second unit; here to offer qualified support for second unit program; agree to extend cut off date to December 1953 because more defensible date since ordinance changed at that time; would like notification to be 300 feet from the start, not 100 feet and 300 feet only on appeal; like all five criteria, and like even more that exceptions are not granted; feel it is generous to allow City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 6 remodel up to 50% of value, do not agree if damaged by catastrophe should be allowed to be rebuilt; people who come forward will appreciate the value of their property; this ordinance is on the right track without changes. Do not feel that it is fair to limit this program to second units added before 1954, later units were better built and also add to the housing stock, they ease the burden of a high mortgage payment; feel that this will create a two class system among second units, if caught the later units would have to be removed, displacing low income tenants and reducing the low income housing stock; ask consider amnesty for all existing second units not just those built before 1954. Opposed to any legalization of second units, do not want to let people live in garages in Burlingame, the neighborhoods will become unsafe, on street parking will become more difficult since tandem will not work out. Own several rental properties in the area, have relatives in Daly City and Mission where second units allowed, cannot park within 7 blocks when visit; increase in crime rates in these areas, too much activity on the streets; need to preserve the neighborhoods in Burlingame for our children; people who rent these second units do not have good judgement about their tenants, are taken advantage of; older people cannot get rid of a bad person; if units are illegal they should be ripped out not legalized; will reduce property values and safety in the city; ask that you kill the proposal. Commission asked: do you own rentals? Yes, but not in Burlingame. How do you address safety? Potential tenants have credit checks, make deposits, must qualify; in this proposed situation, elderly people may do others a favor and get taken advantage of. A different type of people are willing to live in a garage, will not park in tandem in the driveway with the property owner, will park on street. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: cannot legislate from fear or based on what might happen, the nature of Burlingame is different than Daly City in terms of economics, density and physical fabric; this ordinance proposed a cut off for units built before 1954, at that time these units were not prohibited in the R-1 zone, this is worth a trail, if there is a problem we will do something different; we are not talking about transforming the city, the number is fixed, cannot add second unit now under this proposal. Feel that 100 foot notice initially is adequate since the impacts of these existing units is on the immediate properties, if problem the appeal notice will be 300 feet; do not feel that the fear factor regarding type of tenant holds water, makes no difference if people rent nonconforming second unit or whole house; need a place to start, this is a good point; the 640 SF size with 30 SF addition is a bit arbitrary but again need to start some place, can modify rough spots as we progress; compliment people who came to speak, if this were a huge community issue the house would have been full; would like to see this move forward to Council. C. Bojués noted that they spent a lot of time in the subcommittee reviewing this; these units are not just garages, they are separate structures built on R-1 properties or part of existing houses; the owner occupancy is a safe guard for both the owner and neighbor since the owner will live on the property too and experience whatever occurs; the downside of the proposal is that it is very limited but it is a st art so would move to recommend this project as described in this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: Can’t compare Burlingame to other cities, understand concern about safety that is the reason for having the property owner live on site; if owner has a child s/he will be more careful who they have living on the property with them; may want to reconsider the 640 SF in the future but was chosen because it seemed a comfortable size for two people; this project came about because we have a housing crisis, the people who need housing are lower income, students, service workers, elderly; feel that housing these will be an asset to property values, its worth a try; its also an opportunity to make these dwelling units more safe; favor the stricter requirements. The 1954 date was chosen because City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 7 during World War II there was a housing crisis and code did not prohibit second units; agree with all requirements, this is an experiment and it addresses the Council’s policy on housing; we are experiencing social pressure to provide more housing; think expansions should be limited to 30 SF. 30 SF would allow enclosure of an outdoor water heater or other appliance, make unit safer. C. Bojués, maker of the original motion, suggested by motion that the original motion be amended to change the effective date of the amnesty program to second units built before December 31, 1953. C. Osterling, the second to the original motion, agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the proposed second unit amnesty program as amended to address second units in the R-1 zoning district built before December 31, 1953, to City Council. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote (Cers. Deal and Vistica abstaining). This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1532 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW BOLAK, DESIGNER, AND DENIZ SALON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. Commission asked of staff: Is there a front setback necessary for the proposed work; were there any variances or special permits granted to the project proposed on this site in 1999? Staff responded that a variance is not necessary because no proposed work will encroach into the required front setback, and there were no exceptions granted to the property or structure at any prior date. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mathew Bolack, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that the existing stucco house does not fit into the neighborhood and that the current owners are proposing a gabled Craftsman style home, similar to those seen on the East Coast during the 1800's, which will fit into the warm architectural fabric of the neighborhood. Commission commented: this is good design and they feel that it fits into the surrounding neighborhood. Suggested that the architect and owner consider a redesign of the master bedroom and storage area because the proposed design allows for very little natural light and does not make the best use of space; French doors are the only source of light to this room; shed dormer addition should have more windows to break up the expanse of blank wall along the second floor; would like to note for owner's clarification that once the house is framed, if they are not happy with the number of windows, must come back through design review in order to add additional windows. Concerned about privacy issues with the balcony; it fits into the design, but is large; potential for it to become an observation deck and gathering point. Can it be reduced in size? Landscaping on the site is almost non-existent; would like to see a landscape plan showing trees and large-scale shrubs including plant size at planting; landscaping can help screen the balcony and insure privacy of the neighbors. Details of the house design are very important; would like to see more details in the eaves, water table, windows. Is the octagonal element at the rear of the house necessary?; has the owner actually furnished this room?; element doesn't fit into the rest of the design and these types of spaces are generally an inefficient use of floor area. Feel differently about the balcony; although on the second floor, balcony designed so that it is nestled into the back of the house; is only 8'-6" x 10' with doors swinging into it, do not think it is too large; Commissioners having commented that the balcony was too large noted that they could see the logic in this argument and were willing to agree that balcony is not too large; will not deny the project if owner chooses not to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 8 reduce the size of the balcony. Don't support the light fixtures proposed on the fence posts; this type of design, a row of lights, does not work well in an urban setting; suggest down-lights or burying the lights in the structure so that they do not impact neighboring properties. House has nice roof line, many pitches, but garage has plain 4:12 pitch; why not design garage to match house? Deniz Salon, the applicant and general contractor, addressed the Commission. He noted that he would prefer to change the roof on the garage, but it was his understanding that the ridge could not be made any higher because of height limitations. Staff noted that the garage height is currently 13'-0", where maximum allowable height is 15'-0". Commission suggested that there are many pitches on the roof of the house and the applicant explore a pitch roof closer to a 15 foot ridge for the garage. There were no other comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Osterling commented that the project fits into the neighborhood and made a motion to place this item with suggested revisions on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: clarification or direction to the applicant to eliminate the light fixtures on fence posts and replace them with down lights or buried lights; add windows on the second floor to the shed dormer addition; change the roof pitch to 6:12; develop the eave details; develop the window trim details; and provide a landscape plan to include placement of large scale shrubs and trees and size at time of planting. Chairman Luzuriaga 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 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m. 8. 21 DWIGHT ROAD- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER CP Monroe presented a summary of the project. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, applicant, architect and owner, was present to answer questions. He noted that this design was difficult to work out. The house is nvery narrow and addition had to be narrow also. Commission commented: work of the architect is very impressive, he understands the purpose of design review; addition carries the traditional style of the existing house; the design is an elegant solution to a difficult addition; great job; excellent plans. Small correction needed on the elevations where windows above the bed wall are not shown. Corridoor to addition is only 3'-0", would it be possible to increase this by a 1'-0" or 1'-6"?; would add more vertical element to the outer wall on the addition. The applicant noted that he would consider this, but it would take the building outside of the allowable envelope. The Commission noted that they grant special permits based on consistency of architectural style findings; feel a special permit for exceeding the declining height envelope would be warranted in this case and would strongly support application for the permit. There were no additional comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 9 Comment on motion: direction given to apply for a special permit to exceed the declining height envelope. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m. 9. 1228 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PORCH ADDITION (KENNETH ROBY, APPLICANT AND DAWOOD JAMSHIDNEJAD, PROPERTY OWNER) ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Kenneth Roby, applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that the roof on the porch had been redesigned and the materials changed so that it would fit in with the existing house. Commission discussed the project: do not support the new design for the porch; it is not integrated into the house, but instead tacked on to the outside; would look much better if the porch cut into the existing house and only the stairs extended into the front setback. Don't see evidence for findings to grant a variance for the front setback; physical hardship, such as slope on lot, or 25' frontage, is necessary to grant a variance; this house is already existing non-conforming in F.A.R. and a setback variance on top of that is asking for too much. Commission is placed in a tough spot; if porch design had come through the proper channels in the first place, we could have worked with applicant to arrive at a good design solution; instead Commission is forced into a corner; house looks better with the proposed porch, but the design of the porch is still not acceptable; in addition to this there are no findings to make for a variance. This is a poorly done job; the neighborhood will be forced to live with this bad design for years to come and it is the fault of the applicant. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor. Walter Smith, 1249 Balboa, commented that he feels the design of the house is beautiful, especially compared to the condition and appearance of the house before the present owner. He is not aware of the issues the house may have with code requirements, but thinks that the house as built is a great improvement over what was there before. There were no other comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Keighran noted that there is a consensus that there is no justification for the variance and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: in order to make this porch work, some floor area will have to be taken out of the existing house, the porch must be inset and not just have a pediment tacked on to it or the roof line changed; there are no findings for a variance on this property; the applicant seems to think that his options are either to keep this porch or have no porch; must realize that by going to design review consultant there is opportunity to arrive at a better design for the house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 10 10. 1220 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 – SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 4-STORY, 16,000 SF OFFICE BUILDING (ROGER HAY, SMITH GROUP, ARCHITECT; ROBERT WADELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented as summary of the project description and staff report. Commission asked if there was a difference between a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration; staff responded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration included actions which the project would be require to incorporated so that it would not have significant impacts on the community, a Negative Declaration is used for a project where, after study it is determined that without changes it would have no impacts unacceptable to the community. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bob Wadell, 808 Burlingame Avenue, property owner, and Roger Hay, architect, 225 Bush St, SF, represented the project. They noted submittal is incomplete at this time so can work with the City; Burlingame needs a professional design office center; have been working on this project for 18 months; public access pathway is no longer on the neighboring property. Work on the site has revealed why the site has not been developed, a number of hardships, two lots, a major drainage easement which is a part of the Bay, including pickle weed, limits the useable site; almost the entire site is within BCDC jurisdiction; when look at all the development guidelines as applied to this site, small foot print left to develop; originally looked at 18,000 SF of office with two levels of parking, have reduced to 16,000 SF with at grade parking reducing two floors in height. Commissioners asked: size and height of building next door, lot is 2.5 times as large with 19,000 SF of office; proposed project seems out of context, does not fit in neighborhood; property should be clarified one lot, not two, with drainage easement from CalTrans on it. Design proposed does not take advantage of the drainage easement as a “preserved” environment and asset to site, should be incorporated. Bayfront trail needs to be on site and part of project. Concerned about the appearance of the structure, looks in style and scale like the airport, major departure from existing, may be good in proper context but not here; need to show a hardship on the property for a parking variance (13 parking spac es is a big variance), concerned that there is no other place to park in area if not on site, should reduce size to meeting parking. Parking layout should be evaluated seems inefficient, dead end at gate on one way entrance drive, car cannot exit if there in error. Do study of number of visitors to an office of this size and use, two a day seems unrealistic given 16, 000 SF; concerned about the bulk of the structure, takes away the public view and access to the bay. Building is set too close to the Bay and on the street side appears “fenced in”, does not make a pedestrian friendly connection with the street. Would like an evaluation of the leasable space to gross square footage of this building against that of a standard office building. The size of the building proposed should be clarified. Architecture is interesting, need visual study to determine if this is the place to put it. Location is a gateway to the community, a focal point, building needs to fit into this location and environment, not modern, abstract and urban like downtown San Francisco, design needs to fit character of the neighborhood. Should look at siting of building given constraints on the site, building needs to be moved away from the Bay, pedestrian access should be provided at the front. Energy conservation should be examined, especially the amount of glass on the south side. There is a major change in Title 24 in June 2001, how does this proposal size up? There should be a parking study, parking at a number of buildings in the area is abused. Building looks like people are entering the back, should be addressed. Applicant noted would like to work with commission to shape project. Paul Savoran, 1240 Bayshore, this is a difficult site, this massive structure does not fit the size of the property; concerned about parking and public access; have 71 parking spaces on our site they are used by all neighbors as are the parking spaces at the Park Plaza Hotel; welcome a building that fits the lot City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2001 11 and meets all the city’s development requirements. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment scoping session was closed. Commissioner comment: perhaps design is too cool, concerned about whether applicant anticipates the cost of providing the quantity of detail and its maintenance given the leasable square footage of this building; would look good at 9 stories, but here three; a lot of stuff on this building that would have to be maintained for 50 years in an unfriendly climate. Suggest that this project be assigned to a subcommittee of the Planning Commission for clarification before proceeding to environmental evaluation. Chairman Luzuriaga appointed Cers. Vistica, Bojués and Deal with Dreiling as an alternate to form a subcommittee to work with the applicant. Staff will arrange a meeting of the subcommittee with the applicant. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of March 19, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions of the City Council at their meeting on March 19, 2001. The commissioners who attending the California League of Cities Planners Institute discussed briefly the highlights of the meetings, noted that they had tapes of sessions to share with the commissioners who were unable to attend, and felt that the meeting was particularly helpful regarding CEQA. - Appointment of Design Reviewer Commission reviewed the City Planner’s proposal that Randy Grange be appointed as the fourth design review consultant. Commission concurred with the appointment and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council for acknowledgement. - Discussion of Sign Code Issues CA Anderson reviewed some recent litigation and legal actions regarding sign codes and noted that he and Planning Staff were undertaking some revisions to our 1978 adopted sign code. He anticipated bringing these revisions to the Commission for consideration and action at the next meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MIN3app.26