Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.06.25 -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 25, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the June 25, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 11, 2001, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. 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. CP Monroe noted that there was a letter from Steve Pade regarding the project at 1204 Cabrillo Avenue at the Commissioners desks. Commissioners reviewed the letter. There were no requests from the public or commission to remove any items from the consent calendar. 1A. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -2- 1B. 715 CONCORD WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENNETH AND TINA CHURICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Keighran 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. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2000 CARMELITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NADINE LEWANDOWSKI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 11, 2001 P.C. MEETING) Reference staff report, 6.25.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Bojués noted that he would abstain from discussion and action on this item since he lived within 500 feet of the property. He stepped down from the dais. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, noted that his clients are both out of town and requested that this item be continued to the next meeting. Chairman asked CA Anderson if it would be appropriate to comment on the project without the client’s being present. CA Anderson noted that it would be all right as long as the public hearing is opened and the comments are directed to Mr. Deal. Commissioner asked how did the first floor eave line get closer to the top of doors and windows; applicant noted that the eaves were extended an additional six inches, had to extend over the window and door heads, direction to make the door and window head closer to the eave line was given at the last meeting; added more rooflines to the facade, there were no changes made to the second floor; at the design review study meeting the Commission requested that the door and stairway from the basement level to the exterior be eliminated in order to eliminate the potential of a second dwelling unit, why wasn’t that done? Designer noted that the access to the rear yard from the basement is important to the client, do not want to walk through the rest of the house to get to the rear yard, if the client’s had known that it was not allowed they would have proposed something different for space in the house, feel that a ladder is dangerous for regular use, their intent is not to rent the basement level it is for their use; feels it is inappropriate to deny access to the rear yard. Further comment: a strong horizontal element remains, makes the house look massive, has the applicant considered dormers to add articulation to break up the strong horizontal element; applicant noted that the house will contain a thatched roof composition which creates a horizontal look; why is a special permit for declining height envelope needed for this project? Applicant noted that the house is not encroaching beyond what is allowed, zoning code exception requires a certain size window (25 SF) in a dormer, clients do not want a large window at this location since it is a bathroom, a smaller window looks better, followed the client’s direction; there is no gesture for an extended overhang at the front porch; applicant noted that the client originally wanted to save the existing lower floor, they like the existing layout, the client decided to have a 9’-0” plate height and therefore it made more sense to demolish the existing house, would like to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -3- place the porch in its existing location as reflects the existing house, moved bottom floor 5’ but follows approximately the same footprint. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to continue the application. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Bojués abstaining and C. Dreiling absent). This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 1528 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING BASEMENT (JEFFREY BAUER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DUNLAP DESIGN, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 6.25.01, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from discussion and action on this item since she lived within 500 feet of the property. She stepped down from the dais. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jeff Bauer, property owner, noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant if he had considered planting large scale trees next to the house in order to screen the addition. Applicant noted that an existing Japanese maple tree will be relocated to the rear of the lot next to an existing redwood tree and there are two existing palm trees adjacent to the front of the house; Commissioner asked what is the reason for the increase to the size of the balcony; applicant noted that at the previous meeting he was given the choice to cantilever the balcony or to use posts, he chose to use posts and wanted to set them further away from the sliding glass door. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga noted that he was in support of the project when it was originally approved, applicant is continuing the same architecture, basement is less than 600 SF in area. C. Luzuriaga 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 May 30, 2001, sheets 1-3 and 5-6, 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 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 City Engineer’s April 24, 2000 memo, and the Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist’s June 4, 2001 memos shall be met; and 4) 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. Bojuès. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining and C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 4. 1636 CORONADO WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION (LOUIS BOBROWSKY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VADIM & ZOYA GERTSVOLF, PROPERTY OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -4- Reference staff report, 6.25.01, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Richard Cook, Bobrowsky & Cook Architects, noted that the proposed changes are to the previously approved design review project which was designed by a different firm, and generally were required in order to accommodate construction; window at the front of the house was slightly changed in order to accommodate a necessary shear wall. Commissioner commented that the fixed glazed window above the front door doesn’t match the other windows; applicant noted that the shape is consistent with the operable windows, but is fixed since it is not required to be operable; Commission suggested that the applicant considered a more simpler door to the balcony and first floor deck, multi-pane french doors are not consistent with the existing window pattern, style of existing exit door on first floo r would be a more appropriate door type; applicant noted that the client’s wanted this type of door; Commission noted that window types and pane placement need adjusting, fixed window above the front door has a vertical mullion, suggest no mullion, main window in living room looks similar to the bedroom window on the second floor, existing living room window creates a hierarchy of space, larger window indicates that there is a livingroom there, should stay with original size; applicant noted that the existi ng living room window is larger, needed to make this window smaller in order to build the appropriate shear walls to support the second floor wall above the livingroom, are using strong walls in this area, second floor wall is set back from the first floor wall, client felt that the existing window extended down to close to the finished floor and that it didn’t allow enough room to add furniture along this wall; there is a high straight wall above the first floor exit door on the rear elevation, this elevation needs more detail, needs to be broken up, high straight wall is probably due to the increase in space required for the joists. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this applicant has run into an unfortunate situation, mistakes were made by the previous designer, changes are small and in keeping with the original approval, not in favor of reopening the project. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: would like to see the multi-pane French doors made to be more consistent with the existing door on the first floor of the east elevation (window K), front living room window needs to be slightly larger than proposed, at least as high as existing window, it is important to the character of the house. Maker of the motion noted that since the applicant indicated that he is willing to change the style of the french doors, he agreed to amend the conditions of approval to include the change to the French doors to match the existing window pattern, but does not agree with the suggestion to increase the size of the living room window; the second agreed. Commissioner emphasized that it is important that the livingroom window needs to look less like the bedroom window and encouraged the maker of the motion to require that the livingroom window be enlarged, it is not consistent with the architecture. The motion maker disagreed with the request to require that the living room window be enlarged. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the amended conditions listed below: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 4, 2001, sheets 1-5, 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 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 March 22, 2000, and June 11, 2001 memos, and the Recycling Specialist’s June 11, 2001 memo shall be met; 4) that the window pane pattern on the French doors on the east elevation shall be consistent City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -5- with the pane pattern on the existing door on the first floor of the east elevation (window K); 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. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the application with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting and C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. 5. 1333 CAPUCHINO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (JOHN GLANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 6.25.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, designer, noted that the property owner was not available, the front wall of the proposed garage is located in the same place as the existing garage, existing garage is ready to fall down, property owner is adamant about saving the existing plum tree behind the garage, would like additional room for storage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojuès noted that this is a nice improvement, storage area is small only 4’ wall across the rear of the garage, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15, 2001, sheet G-1, with a maximum height of 15'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-1" measured from adjacent grade; 2) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s June 11, 2001, memo shall be met; and 4) 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: in favor of a single-car garage because this is an existing single-story house, would want to see a two-car garage if this were an existing two-story house. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. 6. 1420 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED NEW DETACHED GARAGE (WALLY BALDWIN, CITY BUILDING INC., APPLICANT; MARK THOMAS, HTA, ARCHITECT; TODD AND CHRISTINE DOW, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 6.25.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the public works department has accepted this encroachment; CP Monroe noted that there was no objection by public works to 2”, can accept 3¾” with conditions and a special encroachment permit 8 ¾”. The current encroachment would set a precedent unacceptable to Public Works. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -6- Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Todd Dow, property owner, and Wally Baldwin of City Building, contractor, noted that the staff report clearly explains the situation, human error occurred in field when building the garage, southeast corner of the foundation was built on property line and within 2½” on the opposite corner, will terminate stucco and roof tile so that the maximum encroachment is reduced to 3¾”. CP Monroe noted that there are 18” barge rafters on all four corners of the existing garage. These were not on the originally approved plans and on the right side extends on to the adjacent neighbors property (front rafter) and into the public easement (rear rafter). No barge rafters are shown on garage plans for this amendment and will be removed as a part of the correction work. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to recommend approval of the special encroachment permit to council and to approve the design review application, 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 June 7, 2000, sheets A1.1, A1.2, A3 and T1; date stamped June 30, 2000, sheets A2, A4 and A5; and that the detached garage shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 14, 2001, sheets A1 and A2, with removal of all four of the barge rafters, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of any buildings on site shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 Chief Building Official’s June 3, 2000 memo and the City Engineer’s May 30, 2000 and June 18, 2001 memos shall be met; 4) that if the detached two-car garage is ever demolished, damaged exceeding 50% of its value or destroyed in which case it is required to be rebuilt, it shall be rebuilt only in compliance with the current code in affect at that time, and a survey shall be required and property lines established to ensure that the entire detached garage will be built on this property and that no portion of the garage will extend over any property line; 5) that the special encroachment permit for the garage to extend 3 ¾” into the public right-of-way at the rear of the property shall become void if the detached garage is ever enlarged, rebuilt, demolished or destroyed; and 6) 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. Bojuès. Discussion on the motion: human errors do happen, is confident the problems will be corrected with the decision to approve since the public works department can accept the encroachment as conditioned, there are many nonconforming fences and buildings which encroach into easements from the past. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application and to recommend approval of the encroachment permit to City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). The recommendation to City Council is not appealable, appeal procedures were advised on the approval of the design review application. This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. 7. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL #100 – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (LINDA WHITE, UNITED HEALTH CREDIT UNION, APPLICANT; ROBERT G. SARNOFF, ARCHITECT; MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Luzuriaga noted that he would abstain from this item since he owned a property within 500 feet of this project. He stepped down from the dias. Reference staff report, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions for staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -7- Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Linda White, 1738 El Camino Real, represented United Health Credit Union the applicant. Commission asked if the ATM could be used by anyone; she noted that it could. Would there be 11 employees on site; yes have 8 employees now at two sites (Peninisula and Mills Hospitals) hope in ten years to have eleven employees, and with construction of a new hospital don’t know if there will still be space at the two hospitals for them. Does most of the membership work in this area, about 70% works at one of the two hospitals many family members do not. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the conditional use permit, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the tenant space shall be used as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6, 2001; the proposed use is a real estate office, which includes property management and real estate investment, with 2700 SF of office area located on the first floor in Suite 100 of the existing building at 1870 El Camino Real; that the existing 59 parking spaces on site shall be maintained and the area and the designated use for this real estate office 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 April 6, 2001; that the business shall not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 15 employees on site at one time, including the owner; and 3) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Have a differnet view, it looks from the plans as if there is work space for 16 people in this workspace, that is a lot of people to serve 30 customers a day (2.6 customers an hour), either they need fewer employees or they should expect more people, the ATM is open to the general public and since there are few in the area will generate a lot of traffic and parking, the building is very difficent in parking and is located on a oneway street, can’t support request. Concerned about parking 84 spaces provided building requires 184, but this site was previously occupied by a ReMax real estate office which would regularly generate more traffic,the parking problem is with the building, city has not worked with the state to convert the frontage road to parking, believe most of the users will be from the area. Same concerns however the applicant is not asking for a parking variance, office use to office use, the building parking condition is existing, concerned about the ATM and people double parking infront instead of going all the way to the rear to park and walk around to the ATM; anticipate reworking this part of town before the hospital is redeveloped so time to address parking issues before area built out. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Bojuès dissenting, C. Luzuriaga abstaining and C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. 8. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A “PARK AND FLY” PROGRAM FROM AN EXISTING HOTEL (LARRY BUILTA, APPLICANT; HOST MARRIOTT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 6.25, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-six conditions were suggested for consideration, 34 of these were from previous approvals and two relating to the proposed park-and-fly program. CA Anderson noted that there were three aspects of this application that make it different from those that have operated at local hotels which the city has enforced on or denied: the customers cars will be parked in an established off-site long term airport parking facility, the customers will be shuttled from the off site location to the hotel and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -8- the cars will not be brought to the hotel at any time, and none of these cars will be parked at the hotel. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alice Chung represented the Hyatt Hotel. She noted that the staff report accurately represented the request, she had nothing to add and would be happy to answer questions. Commission asked how often a day did they expect park and fly customers. Applicant noted it was new and hard to estimate, Hyatt’s previous experience at other hotels was typically 3 to 5 such customers a day; purpose to serve airline customers living out of the area who need to catch early morning flights out of San Francisco International. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués commented on the differences between this request and others seen noted by the City Attorney, that the additional traffic would be 5 shuttle bus runs to the hotel from the Thrify site in Millbrae which seemed to be a minimal impact on Burlingame so moved to approve the request by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s memos of June 29, July 2 and August 20, 1984, the City Engineer’s memo of September 4, 1984 and the Director of Parks’ memos of June 25 and August 22, 1984 be met; 2) that the project be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped August 16, 1984 and parking garage as shown in the plans of October 1, 1984; 3) 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 buildings shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; valet parking, patrons, visitors or employees may not be charged for use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city; the applicant shall design the parking structure so that one-half deck of parking can be added in the future if it is needed to relieve on-site parking demand; 4) that any future rental car use and storage of rental cars on-site operate according to a program reviewed by Hyatt and city staff and be brought to Commission for review prior to introduction of the use on-site; 5) that the project receive all necessary permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over this site including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration; 6) that in the future, as required, the developer participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to Southern Pacific, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or other intercity transit opportunities for employees as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees’ trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; provide airport shuttle pick-up; 7) prior to construction of the on-ramp, install and maintain landscaping on the entire site; 8) provide on-site security services and patrol; 9) make improvements necessary to fire mains for adequate flow and pressure to meet fire fighting standards, install low flow water fixtures, put all underground utilities in non-ferrous pipes or encase/coat steel pipes; 10) during construction provide all parking for construction equipment on-site and a supervised program for on- site and off-site parking for construction workers approved by the Department of Public Works; 11) design building of concrete with non-reflective window areas, incorporate energy efficient systems to match expected loads, provide natural ventilation in atrium area, incorporate passive and active building, site and mechanical systems; have a PG & E energy audit within 18 months of completion and implement all recommended cost effective conservation measures; 12) soil and foundation investigation by a California licensed engineer to determine foundations, structural protection within area between elevation 5' and 10', provide protection to Easton Creek to a standard acceptable to the City Engineer, recompact and fill site as required by city; 13) conduct a hydraulic engineering study to determine necessary improvements to Easton Creek to accommodate 100 year flood, coordinate creek improvements with site and roadway improvements, minimum floor entry of site 9' MSL, site should be filled to 10' MSL; protect Easton Creek from silt during construction using measures approved by the City Engineer; 14.) rain site away from Route 101 and to Easton Creek, install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas, maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis approved by the city; 15) landscape site with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, follow procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -9- approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 16) retain an acoustical engineer to determine design and construction measures to reduce noise during construction, place solid wooden fence around construction site as necessary to reduce on-site construction noise, project should comply with Title 25 requirements and interior noise level standards of the city, atrium cover design should take into consideration possible need to replace fabric cover with a more noise attenuating covering if city established interior noise levels cannot be attained after construction; 17) to retain traffic allocation the project will be developed on the following time frame: Date Submit final plans September 1985 Pick-up building permit January 1986 Final foundation July 1986 Final framing January 1987 Occupancy September 1987 18) that the tent as installed shall match the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994, Sheet C-4T Tent Site Plan, Sheet 1, Tent Elevations and Plan, and Sheet A3.1 Hotel Elevations; 19) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 28, 1994 memo and the Chief Building Inspector’s October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 20) that all employees shall be encouraged to park in the off-site parking lot during non-office hours, when all the parking spaces at the hotel site are full; 21) that the tent shall be permitted at this location as a temporary use for 10 years (2005); 22) that the Hyatt Hotel staff shall submit to the Planning Department, plans documenting all on site parking within 60 days of this action; 23) that the tent and its use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 24) that up to 85 parking spaces shall be designated for valet parking, that the two parking areas suitable for valet parking use shall be the 32 spaces in the outdoor lot between the front entrance and Bayshore Highway and the 53 spaces at grade and out of doors in front of the parking garage on the Bayshore Highway side, and any change to the area used for valet parking shall require modification of this permit; 25) that the car rental operation at the Hyatt Hotel, 1333 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 7 am to 3 pm and 12 pm to 6 pm 7 days a week (changed number of employees from 1 to 2 and increased hours by 14 hours per week), and that 8 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles on the first floor of the parking garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; 26) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned or repaired on the Hyatt site; 27) that customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to these operating limits shall require an amendment to this use permit; 28) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (June 1998) and every two years thereafter; 29) that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 30) that the parking plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 5, 1997; Sheet A1.1 Site Plan, Sheet A1.2 Improvement Plan, Sheet A2.30(N) Parking Garage Level G1 & G2 Restriping Plan, A4.0 Control Lane Layouts, Sheet A2.31 (N) Parking Garage Level G3 & G4 Restriping Plan date stamped September 9, 1997, and Parking Revision pg. 1 and Parking Revision pg. 2 date stamped October 3, 1997; and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site or on the adjacent city property; 31) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s September 8, 1997 memo, Chief Building Official’s September 15, 1997 memo, Senior Building Inspector’s September 8, 1997, Traffic Engineer’s and Senior Engineer’s September 8, 1997 and October 6, 1997 memos shall be met; 32) that the park and fly program operated as described in the Hyatt letter date stamped May 16, 2001, and the Thrifty Rent-A-Car letter dated May 9, 2001, shall be allowed to operate from this hotel until December 31, 2002; if at that time the applicant would like to continue to offer the park & fly program from this hotel, an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required; 33) that if the arrangement between the Hyatt Hotel and Thrifty Rent-A-Car in Millbrae (location where vehicles in the park and fly program shall be parked) expires or is revoked before December 31, 2002, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -10- the park and fly program at this hotel shall be terminated; 34) that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter ($18.00 daily maximum), any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 35) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided or site, their configuration and or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; and 36) that before charging for on-site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve to December 2002 with conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1373 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NENAD VUKIC, PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 11, 2001 P.C. MEETING) C. Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of this property so will abstain from this action. He stepped down from the dias. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Ben Bahravesh, architect, represented the project noting that this site slopes away from the street which affects the height calculation; the house is more than 30 feet if measured from average top of curb but less if measured from adjacent existing grade, he did not want to clip the ridgeline to keep it under 30 feet; adjacent neighbor’s wall is also 5 feet from property line and long and unarticulated; should note that the second floor proposed is over the existing house’s first floor footprint. Planning Commissioners noted the following items should be addressed: • Long, two story wall on the right side needs articulation; and • How will proposed project affect the Oak tree at the rear of the right elevation, is it accurately placed on the drawings? Will it be removed, how will it be protected? C. Luzuriaga moved to place this item on the consent calendar with the proviso that articulation is added to the right side to soften the two story stucco wall along with addressing the Commission’s other comments. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the next consent calendar provided all the information requested was submitted to staff in time. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 10. 1419 MONTERO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 11, 2001 P.C. MEETING). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -11- CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commision asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, represented the project noting that if this were on a flat lot the house would be 28 feet tall, the slope on the lot makes the difference in the height; after last meeting lowered the roof pitch the most possible and still retain the Tudor style, looked at the grade of the driveway, will need to install some retaining walls to keep the maximum slope to 15%, shown on plans. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran noted that this was a nice design, appreciated the applicant eleminating the height variance and moved to put this item on the consent calendar. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. Commission comment on the motion included: • Lowering the roof peak to 36 feet makes this project fit better with the neighboring houses and still able to do a Tudor style; and • Revision of roof improved the gambol roof lines a the the front and rear as well. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to the next consent calendar providing all the information is submitted to staff in time. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. The item concluded at 8:48 p.m. 11. 1131 OXFORD ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LEONARD AND ANNA HEYMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Leonard Heymann, property owner, represented the project with Jerry Deal, designer. Noted older home and that focus was on putting the house back the way it had been built, meant adjusting and fixing older additions done 45 years ago. Commission noted on the project: • Old house with lots of character, nice to see someone working to put it back the way it was. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojuès made a motion to refer this item to the consent calendar for the next meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next meeting if the plans are submitted in time. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -12- 12. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; J. KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked what happened to the trees on site, particularly the one where the new driveway is located. Staff directed the question to the applicant. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project noting the neighbor had a permit from the Parks Department to remove the pine tree where the new driveway is located, it was planted on property line and the roots were affecting the foundation of his house; noted that the present design is a total change in style from the project previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, added a 200 SF porch to better match the character of the street; garage doors can be sectional or one piece; house is shorter than previous design. The following neighbors commented on the project: Burt Price, 1551 Cypress; Kerby Altman, 1517 Cypress; Christoper Andrews, 1544 Cypress; Diane Wirgler, 1536 Cypress. They noted: any addition is better than house there now, fire trap; tree on property line was damaging house on other side; satisfied with a decent house. Proposed house is too massive for 50’ x 120; lot need to shrink it, lower the height, step second floor back from street, remove one bedroom or couple 100 SF; house not being built by a Burlingame family but by a speculator for profit and is not oriented to the fabric of the neighborhood, commission’s charge is to protect the fabric of the neighborhood, stop this; three trees removed from this lot and replace one at almost the same location as one removed with a 24 inch box tree, why? three properties nearby with elderly residents all with important trees, will their trees be removed as well; how can the neighbors monitor tree removal. CA noted that tree removal is the responsibility of the Beautification Commission, should contact them. Glad to hear changes, reduced size, add porch, still too large for block of one story houses. Designer noted that trees removed had permits, FAR is 2800 SF which includes the 200+ SF porch. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted: • Staff should report on the tree removals and the permit process followed; • New design better, smaller and more articulation on each elevation; • Fits the character of the neighborhood, like to see other than Tudor, can’t deny on the basis that the project is two story, this craftsman fits the neighborhood and the design parameters. • Neighbors should voice concern about tree removal to the Beautification Commission. C. Osterling moved to place this project on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place the project on the consent calendar at the next meeting if the plans are submitted in time. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of July 2, 2001. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2001 -13- CP Monroe reviewed the planning related items at the July 2, 2001 Council meeting. Commission discussed briefly the change in rules for noticing and procedure caused by adding a citizen to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, a standing committee of the Planning Commission. Chairman Vistica noted that he had, after discussion at a previous meeting, asked Jerry Deal if he would be interested in continuing to participate on this committee in the capacity of resident. He would follow up again with Mr. Deal in light of these changes in procedure. C. Luzuriaga was appointed to the open commission seat on the committee. - FYI - Discussion of Council Action at 1441 Bernal Avenue. CP Monroe discussed with the Commission the City Council action on the appeal of this project. Noting the solution to the planter strip suggested. The commissioners suggested that the cores in the driveway for drainage in the planter strip/box be at least 6 inches in diameter, 12 inches apart or the driveway be saw cut out under the box to drain properly. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MNUTES6.25