Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.08.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 27, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the August 27, 2001 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners Osterling and Luzuriaga Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Civil Engineer, Donald Chang III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 13, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Because there was no quorum for two items, item 1d, 1440 Chapin Avenue, was removed from the agenda and the design review study item at 1323 Carlos Avenue will be discussed by a subcommittee of the commission seated. V. FROM THE FLOOR Gus Greco, applicant for the conditional use permit requested at 1147 Rollins Road asked that his item be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting when there would be a full commission. The Chairman noted that the full commission was currently six members and at least five were expected to attend the next meeting. The applicant noted that five would be fine and staff was directed to place this item on the September 10, 2001, agenda for action. Alvin Potter, attorney representing the property owner at 1709 Easton Drive clarified that public testimony would be taken on this item on the action calendar tonight. It was confirmed by the Chairman. There were no further comments from the floor. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 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 noted that item 1d, 1440 Chapin Avenue, would be rescheduled for the next meeting because a quorum was not present. He also requested that item 1c at 1160 Broadway be removed and placed on the action calendar. He noted that the following two items remained on the Consent Calendar: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 2 1A. 211 CHAPIN AVENUE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LAP POOL AND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE (PABLO PEREZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 1B. 931 CAPUCHINO AVENUE – ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PARKING VARIANCES FOR NO COVERED PARKING SPACE AND FOR FRONT SETBACK PARKING FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION C. Keighran moved to approve the consent calendar. C. Auran seconded the motion. On the motion: Chairman Vistica noted that he would vote no on item 1b, 931 Capuchino Avenue. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion. Item 1A, 211 Chapin Avenue passed with a 4-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent) voice vote. Item 1B, 931 Capuchino passed with a 3-1-2 (C. Vistica voting no, Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:16 p.m. VIII. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 2. 1323 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOSE A. JIMENEZ, J AND M DESIGN, DESIGNER) C. Auran noted that he lived within 500 feet of this application and would recuse himself. He stepped down from the dais. Chairman Vistica noted that although there was not a quorum of the commission seated for this item, if the applicant wished, the three commissioners present could sit as a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and give their suggestions on the design. The applicant agreed. Chairman Vistica adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:18 p.m. CA Anderson noted that sitting as a Subcommittee the commission could advise the applicant but could take no formal action . CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jose Jimenez, designer, 1167 Carlton Avenue, Menlo Park, represented the project. Commissioners noted the following regarding the proposed design of the project: • The bay windows on the front and rear of the house do not seem to blend into the design; • All the windows should be wood mullion with wood trim, set in stucco mold, detail like many houses in neighborhood; • The entry stairs are grandiose compared to the entry door, should be simplified and made to fit the entry; • All the windows on the front of the house should be the same scale, look compatible; • There is no articulation on the left side wall, some should be added to break up the mass; • Second story layers on the first to meet declining height envelope on both sides but does not address the architectural style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 3 • Architecture of the garage should be more compatible with that of the house, pitched roof; • Upstairs hallway is a large space with no windows, might want to add skylight or dormer. There were no further comments from the applicant or audience. There was a consensus among the members seated that this project would benefit from working with a design reviewer. Chairman Vistica noted that because they were seated as a subcommittee it was up to the applicant to decide if he wanted to go to a design reviewer or return to the commission on the design review study calendar. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. Chairman Vistica adjourned the Subcommittee meeting and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 7:33 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS C. 1160 BROADWAY – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (RAYMOND LEE, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LIMITED, PROPERTY OWNER; SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 8.27.01, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Raymond Lee, representing Spear Design Associates, pointed out that all of the Planning Commission’s concerns have been addressed and that he would be available to answer questions. The Commission noted that the applicant has done a great job, the project has evolved in a positive direction, and there has been a cooperative effort in this commercial design review process; still concerned with the way the building addresses the street, the windows on the front façade need to make a better connection between the street and the inside of the store, the window sill first started at 6’ above the ground with no view into the store, then lowered to 5’ from the ground, now 4’-6”, typical window sill on Broadway is 18” from the ground, so the 4’ – 6” high display windows on street façade do not fit in with the character of Broadway, feeling of a department store does not belong on Broadway, would like to see full windows extended down to a 3’ sill height. The applicant noted that he has discussed the window issue with the tenant, who has come a long way since the original design, felt that the tenant has tried to accommodate all of the Commission’s concerns, this is a better design, originally started off with windows located above eye level. The Commission noted that they would like to see the all of the shelving eliminated from the front wall, front windows need to be pedestrian friendly. The applicant asked if the concern with the window was the only issue holding the project up; Commission agreed, noting that there is a lot of pedestrian activity at the front of the building, there are a lot of other buildings on Broadway with window sills at 3’ above the ground, shelf space should be at eye level, eyes do not go lower than 3’ so removing the shelving will not be a significant impact on the products, whether shelving is at 3’ or 18” does not matter; the applicant noted that the tenant worked out the floor plan so that the cash registers will be placed along the front wall of the building adjacent to the windows, shelf space a these windows is not to store products but for use of employees at the cash registers, people walking outside will be looking at the backs of the cashiers; Commission noted that a sill height of 18” – 2’ is consistent with Broadway. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 4 The Commission pointed out the that the parapet height has been increased from 15’ to 16’ above grade and asked the applicant to explain why it was increased. The applicant noted that at the last meeting there was a concern that the mechanical equipment on the roof would be seen from the street. The parapet height was increased by one foot to hide the mechanical equipment from view at the street level. 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: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 20, 2001, Site Plan, Proposed Floor Plan, Proposed Roof Plan, Proposed Elevations, and date stamped August 1, 2001, Existing Floor Plan, Existing Roof Plan, and Existing Building Elevations, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the window sills for all windows along the front façade of the building shall be located 18” above grade and that there shall be no view obstruction into the store in front of these windows; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s July 2, 2001 memo, and the Fire Marshal’s June 29, 2001, memo shall be met; 5) that an application for a parcel map to merge the three lots shall be processed and granted before the final inspection is scheduled; 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. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 3. 1705 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION TO RETAIN AN EXISTING FENCE (DONELSON BERGER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 8.27.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked CA Anderson if there was anything in the code regarding the limitation of something that has existed for a certain amount of time? CA Anderson noted that it is a factor to consider by the Commission, but there is nothing in the code which addresses that issue. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Don Berger, property owner at 1705 Easton Drive, noted that the fence in dispute is approximately 35’ in length, he has been granted an encroachment permit for the 5’ fence 4’ on city property, issue here is obtaining the fence permit for the existing fence, house was built in 1910 and was repeatedly remodeled, city records only date back to 1978, it appears that the height of the existing fence was changed to 8’ = 4” when the house was remodeled by the architect who lived in the house, assume the architect would have obtained permits to increase the height of the fence, he only has preliminary plans for this remodel of the house but many of the features are still in place, feels that the height of the fence was changed from 8’ to 8’-6” by the architect when the house was remodeled. Commission was unclear about when the 4” was added to the fence; property owner noted that this has never been an issue before, he has been there since 1995, previous owner there since 1985, issue of fence height was never brought up. Alvin Potter, attorney representing for Bill Thompson, property owner at 1709 Easton Drive, noted that he is opposed to the fence height, asking that the fence be reduced from 8’-4” to 6’ in height and that the bamboo City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 5 be reduced from 15’ to 7’ in height as required by the zoning code, also requesting the Commission to prohibit the use of a sprinkler system to water the bamboo, read several publications and all indicate that it is tough to control bamboo when it is irrigated and when it reaches 6’ to 8’ in height, bamboo will ruin Mr. Thompson’s driveway; applicant has cut the bamboo but continues to irrigate, has diminished the value of Mr. Thompson’s house, he spent $1100 to install a root barrier to prevent bamboo roots from encroaching onto his property and damaging his driveway, applicant threatened to let roots grow onto Mr. Thompson’s property, has followed through on that threat; bamboo should be maintained, 4x6 pole which extends 28” above the fence height should be cut down to the fence height. Commission noted that Mr. Thompson has been at this property since the 1940’s and asked why has it become an issue now? Mr. Potter noted that this issue has been discussed before, these property owners have been playing games, neighbor previously had a cable from his fence and attached it to Mr. Thompson’s garage. Commission asked if the main issue is the fence or bamboo? Mr. Potter noted that both are issues. Commission was unclear about the height of the bamboo; bamboo height is 8’-4”. Mr. Berger noted that the fence and bamboo has existed for a very long time, reason that this issue is here is that Mr. Thompson has been harassing him, 4x6 post is still in place because he was replacing a wire fence, he stopped the process of replacing the fence pending Planning Commission action, his living room looks onto Mr. Thompson’s driveway, sprinkler system is used to maintain other planting in yard. Commission asked why are there 7 exterior lights along the side of the house? The applicant noted that these lights were installed in 1995, they are low voltage lights, light focuses down onto the pathway along the side of the house, provides safety at night, also accents the design of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Feels that the fence and bamboo should comply with the fence regulations, sees no extraordinary circumstance to allow anything over 7’ in height, there are other options to provide privacy using other types of landscaping, should reduce height of fence and bamboo; Commission asked if the neighbor has rights to the roots on his property; CA Anderson noted that the neighbor has the right to protect himself; Commission noted: bamboo and fence can be kept but it’s height should be maintained to city code, sprinkler system can remain, a condition should be added that if the bamboo cannot be maintained at 7’ in height they shall be replaced by a wooden fence at a height allowed by code; fence has existed for a long time, neighbor has lived here a long time and it has never been an issue before, feels that it is unreasonable to ask the applicant to reduce the height of the fence since it has existing for so long and it has never been an issue until now, bamboo should be maintained at 7’ in height; feels that there are extraordinary circumstance on this property, finished floor is 3’ above grade, it is appropriate to have a taller fence since the neighbor has public living spaces in the affected area, bamboo height should not exceed the fence height, am in support of the fence exception; Commission pointed out that it would not make sense to require that the bamboo be cut down to 7’ since the bamboo is located in front of the window; Commission agreed and noted that the bamboo height should be maintained at a consistent height with the fence, no greater than 8’-4” in height. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the fence shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 20, 2001; with the first 30'-0" from the property line at 5'-0" of fence in height, with 33'-0" of bamboo hedge maintained at 8'-4" in height , and 115'-0" of fence extending from the bamboo hedge to the rear property line at 8'-4" in height; 2) that the bamboo hedge along the right side of the property line shall be maintained at a height of 8'-4"; 3_) that the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for the existing 5'- 0" high fence along the right side of the property and encroaching by 4'-0" into the public right-of-way; this encroachment permit shall be valid until the fence is removed or destroyed; 4) that if the wooden fences or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 6 bamboo hedge are not maintained at the 8’ – 4” height they shall be replaced by a wooden fence at the height allowed by the code at the time replacement is required; and 5) 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. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: fence height has been there a long time, this issue has now come up 20-30 years later, appears that there are other issues between the neighbors, main concern is that the bamboo not grow to 12’-15’ in height; cannot support the height of the fence, there are no exceptional circumstances, this is a flat lot, there are other landscaping techniques which can be used to obtain privacy. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 3-1-2 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. 4. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, 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) Reference staff report, 8.27.01, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Johnny DaRosa, DaRosa and Associates, 475 El Camino Real, Suite 308, Millbrae, designer and applicant, noted that the staff report was clear and that he would be available to answer questions. Commission noted that the covered porch was eliminated and asked why is the front porch is so large that it requires a front setback variance? The applicant noted that the existing uncovered front porch landing exceeds the front setback requirement, would need a variance anyway. Commission commented that the proposed front porch does not follow the pattern of the neighborhood. Applicant noted that in when discussing the project with the design review consultant, he considered removing the railing but was concerned with safety of walking down many steps, decided to simplify the railing. Dorell DiRicco, representing Juanita Cox, 2532 Valdivia Way; June Bitter, 2673 Martinez Drive; Diane Johnson, 2668 Martinez Drive; Byron Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court; Kevin Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive, spoke in opposition of the project. My lot is 50’ below the rear of the project site and the applicant’s property rises an additional 20’, concerned about loss of privacy with activities now closer to her property line, re-grading the land for the trellis and the deck/spa will erode the 50’ cut bank and may cause a landslide, addition will tower over my house, see no difference between the original project and the proposed project, concerned about drainage onto her property, will loose afternoon sun; submitted a letter outlining her concerns with the project, lives adjacent to and above the subject property, strongly objects to the proposed project, concerned with obstruction of views, will impose a great hardship, she is the original owner, no one on this block has ever blocked a neighbor’s views, will reduce the value of her house, views are very important to her and her husband, husband had a stroke 12 years ago and is home-bound, husband was a WWII pilot, now have views of the bay and airport, in March the Commission suggested that the applicant reduce the height of the addition and to use more of the rear yard instead of proposing two stories, no significant changes were made, lowered roof by 1’, Commission asked applicant to reduce the impact of the 67’ long wall, only created a 3’ opening, not enough, most houses on Martinez Drive were built City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 7 staggered so that views would not be obstructed, this view loss is great; lives across the street, revisions are very minor, house is too big, story poles have sagged and do not show an accurate picture of the addition, now have view of the airport, hotels, runways and shoreline, neighbor is entitled to a view, I proposed an addition which was reviewed by the Commission in 1989, was denied because it blocked a neighbor’s view. This proposal will take out short and distant views; located two houses above the subject house, with the addition will loose view and will look at wall and roof, quality of life will be altered, now have a nice view from the master bedroom and bath; object to height of structure, will not set a good precedent for the neighborhood, others will want to add a second story, submitted a copy of the Declaration of Restrictions (deed covenant) given to him when he purchased his property, view was part of the value when he purchased his house in 1999. The applicant noted that he understands the concerns regarding views, all drainage will be addressed by an engineer to meet city drainage requirements, eucalyptus trees wi ll be replaced by low growing trees, eucalyptus trees now affect neighbor’s views, will improve the views by removing the eucalyptus trees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in regards to the front setback variance, the front façade is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, see no extraordinary circumstances to grant the front setback variance, since the existing front porch landing is 10’ away from the front property line, see no reason why it couldn’t be rebuilt at the same setback, views are very important in this area, story poles indicate views will be blocked, need to protect the views, can have a second floor but view obstruction should be minimized, design needs to be altered to accommodate the neighbors. Commission asked Senior Engineer Chang how the drainage would be addressed; SE Chang noted that all roof drainage must drain to the street, if the lot slopes to the rear a sump pump will be required to pump the collected water to the street, drainage must be reviewed and approved by Public Works at time of building permit submittal. Commission noted that views will be opened up with the removal of the eucalyptus trees, view loss is a major and significant concern, several neighbors are in opposition to the project because of view loss. C. Keighran moved to deny the application noting that there is no hardship for the front setback variance and that the neighbor’s views will be significantly blocked. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: will support the motion, although views will be increased with the removal of the eucalyptus trees, current views will be blocked with the proposed addition. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-2 (C. Luzuriaga and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:46 p.m. 5. 1147 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GAS STATION REPAIR SHOP TO A MINI-MART (GUS GRECO, APPLICANT; H.P. ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, DESIGNER; CLOVER TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) This item was continued to the September 10, 2001, Regular Action Planning Commission Meeting. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1361 DE SOTO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 8 TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN AND CATHY GARAGOZZO/LARRY MORSELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Garagozzo, property owner, represented the project. Lisa Rothrock, 1355 De Soto, neighbor also spoke. The applicant noted that he had a family of six, he wanted to design a French country house similar to those in the San Mateo Park area, they used shutters and belly band to break up the mass, along with divided light windows, the foot print of the house is small and compact, the interior simple, the rooms small. The neighbor noted that they added a second story on their house four years ago; she like the proposed house and would only ask that the window in the second bedroom upstairs (left elevation) be relocated to the right side of the chimney so that it would not line up with the master bedroom window on her house. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. Commissioner comment on the design: • There appears to be a problem with the scale on the plans, are the exterior doors 8 feet tall, no 7’-6”; • The entrance of the house is over powered by the portions of the structure on each side of it; • Entry is weak, concerned about the mass at the front of the house; • First floor plate can be 9 feet, second floor plate should be 8 feet, it is not noted clearly on the plans; C. Bojués noted that the project was almost there, he then moved to place this project on the consent calendar when the items identified had been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion to place this project on the consent calendar when all the changes have been addressed was passed on a 4-0- 2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). The commission’s action is advisory and there is no appeal. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 7. 1615 WILLOW AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ANN PHILIPS, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, architect, represented the project. He reviewed the changes proposed as part of the remodel on the 50’ wide by 162’ deep lot. He noted that the project includes the demolition of the existing garage which contains a living area, and its replacement with a new garage 50 percent smaller for cars only. There is only one change from the proposed plans before you and that is that the applicants would like to move the new garage structure forward 5 feet, to provide more garden space to landscape behind the garage to screen it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 9 The commissioners commented on the design: • Concerned about the piece on the front, need to keep the scale of the existing house; • Existing living room has a gable design with its own mass, built behind to keep cathedral ceiling; • Can the articulation be increased on the left side; • Reduce mass and bulk of garage, move it forward 5 feet, keep same height as original, keep 1 foot off property line, increase planting behind to screen for neighbors. C. Bojués noted that this was a nice design, the location of the garage should be fixed on the plans, and moved to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica agreed noting that he was convinced by architects comments that present design address all the items which were called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the plans have been corrected for the garage location and submitted to the Planning Department. The motion passed on a 4-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent) voice vote. The commission’s action is advisory and there is no appeal. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 8. 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 - SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED REMODEL TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (JONATHAN WINSLOW, WINSHIP PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; NADEL ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AIRPORT BOULEVARD HOTEL LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and issues the staff had identified to be addressed in the initial study. Commissioners asked: are the 52 compact parking spaces included in the 342 total number of parking spaces, yes; is the applicant willing to exempt park users from paying a parking fee when he installs the parking control program? Staff noted that at times of heavy use in Bayside Park, people do park in the hotel’s parking lot, think there was a previous agreement to allow this, perhaps the applicant can share how he intends to address this. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment for environmental scoping of the proposed hotel remodel project. The project was represented by Jonathan Winslow, WindShip Properties, project manager; Roger Snell, WindShip Properties CEO; Fernan Nadel, project architect; April Phillips, landscape architect. The project team presented their experience in rehabilitating “tired” projects, feel that this is a well located property, they will be gutting the inside of the hotel but will keep the structural shell intact except for filling in the porte cochere and building a new porte cochere with a 10 foot side setback next to the current one on the Bayside Park side of the site; concerned about changing the visual image of the hotel which will include exterior treatments on the exiting stairwells on the ends of the building and to the metal mansard structure now on the roof, will dress up the glazed sides of the building with tinted windows creating a single vertical- horizontal graphic on the sides of the building with the remaining glazing having a single color scheme; landscaping will be a combination of vegetation (rows of Poplar trees) and man-made features such as 35 foot “glowing” tree structures and “glowing” seating benches; the chain link fence will be repaired and vines added where possible; feel can work something out with parking for Bayside Park users; rehabilitation City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001 10 will not change the number of employees at the hotel. There were no comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioners identified the following items to be considered in the initial study: • Parking demand study should include impact on Bayside Park parking; • The site needs pedestrian access to/from Bayshore Highway and Airport Blvd., proposal should be evaluated; • Access to the Bayside Trail in the adjacent Bayside Park should be provided and enhanced for hotel guests; • Pedestrian tie to the future reconstruction of the Broadway Interchange should be addressed; • The possibility of increasing greenery along the CalTrans fence should be investigated and provided if possible, should be considered in visual analysis; • Visual impacts of tinted glass, and crown trellis at top, look at reflectivity, shadows, etc. • Impact of the change of the use of the site on the parking and the parking and community use of Bayside Park. There were no further comments and the item was concluded. Staff was direct to address the identified issues in the Initial Study and environmental documents. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of August 20, 2001 CP Monroe reported on the August 20, 2001, council meeting, noting that C. Dreiling’s resignation letter was included in the acknowledgments for this meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES8.27