Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.12.10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 10, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the December 10, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. SEATING OF NEW COMMISSIONERS Chairman Vistica thanked Commissioners Chuck Mink and Karen Key for their three and a half months of temporary service to the commission while Council recruited to fill the two seats permanently. Outgoing C. Mink thanked the commission for the opportunity, complementing the Council on their selection of a beard and the stamina of youth for his replacement, he noted he would continue to follow the progress of the commission and community. Chairman Vistica then introduced the two new commissioners being seated, Christopher Keele and Michael Brownrigg. III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza IV. MINUTES The minutes of the November 26, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, spoke noting that a parking lot has been installed across the street from her on the Sisters of Mercy property. She believes this development violates the Open Space Element of the General Plan. In addition, the added parking will aggravate the traffic at the congested intersection and create unsafe conditions. She received no notice from the City of the work that was proposed. VII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VIII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1443 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-3/C-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF FREESTANDING SIGN (CHARLES L. KAVANAGH, APPLICANT; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: if the applicant has considered reversing the location of the reader board and the name of the Church on the proposed sign, so that the sign could be reduced to 6 feet in height and the variance for the height of the sign could be eliminated, the name City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -2- of the church appears on other signs on that street frontage so identification on this sign is less important. There were no other comments from the commissioners. This item was set for the regular action calendar on January 14, 2002, all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2. 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO EXCEED THE BAYFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND FOR CONTROLLED PARKING FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (JONATHAN WINSLOW, WINSHIP PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; AIRPORT BOULEVARD HOTEL LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is the applicant proposing to put an new fence around the entire site, and will the new fence include landscaping along its entire length; how will the hotel’s parking work in conjunction with sporting events at the adjacent park, please describe; there seems to be a lot of lighting proposed for the hotel parking lot, especially the “tree lights”, how much glare will be created and will it be visible off the site; applicant should present samples of the window Mylar proposed and review the pattern suggested; glad to see that there will be a new fence along the freeway frontage of the site, this should be coordinated with the city’s work with CalTrans and the freeway improvements being considered including at the entrance of the hotel, the present fence is dilapidated and the landscaping neglected, can the applicant enter into an agreement with CalTrans to install and maintain the landscaping; concerned about the lack of landscaping on the site, vines are not proposed for all the fencing, how will the applicant guarantee good quality well maintained landscaping on the entire perimeter of the site. Staff should document how the front landscaping got from 80% required to 30% and now to 9% with this project; the applicant should show the progressive reductions in landscaping on a plan and explain why the current reduction is necessary. Commission comments continued: the applicant should work with the baseball league and city to set out a list of objectives for the parking arrangement with Bayside Park users i.e. such things as free, easily accessible, open to the public and number of parking spaces available; there are discrepancies between the parking shown on the plans and the numbers in the staff report, correct. The applicant should address in detail why they chose the design of the new roof screen which has a bigger impact than the existing mechanical penthouse screen; why was the shape chosen, a curve for example would look less lopsided; what will the landscaping at the front of the site look like from the street, some of the landscaping within the parking lot will be and look artificial (plants in cages and lamp trees). Would like to see a photometric study of lighting on the site, how will the main block of the building be lit, would not like to see flood lighting of the structure. Project could improve safety and access to Bayside Park if a second gate into the park were put at the entry driveway, since parents will cross the street the cross walks these could be marked better; why are landscape items being put in cages; would like more information on the ultimate size/scale of the poplar trees and how they will scale against the eucalyptus tree backdrop, the fabric trees should be included in the scale analysis. There were no further comments from the commission. This item was set for the next regular action calendar after the additional information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -3- IX. 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. There were no requests. 3. 1204 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (NICOLAS KOROS, APPLICANT; KIRKBRIDE FAMILY, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON 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. Bojués Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. X. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1321 SANCHEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE (NAN CROLEY, JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RONALD AND KIM RAMSEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 12.10.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, architect, was present to answer questions about the project. He noted that the muntins of the family room window set it apart from the rest of the house, so he chose not to repeat this design element in the other windows of the house; the railing at the rear was changed to add some decorative elements, but it was felt that a heavy balustrade, such as the one existing at the front porch, could not be supported by the architecture at the rear elevation; the design of the house requires a special permit because the lot is narrow; the side setback variance is minor and the proposed setback is actually greater than the setback that would be allowed if this R-2 property were developed with a duplex. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the design of the house has evolved nicely and the applicant has addressed the changes requested by the Commission. The variance is justified because of the small size of the lot and the design of the dwelling is improved by the request for a special permit to exceed the declining height envelope. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -4- 15, 2001, sheets A-E1, A-E2, A-2.1, and A-3.3, and date stamped November 29, 2001, sheet A-3.1; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist’s November 5, 2001, memos shall be met; and 3) 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. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. 5. 1509 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIRAYR KOUROUYAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KAMAL TABIB, DYNAMIC DESIGNS, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 12.10.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria a nd Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Kamal Tabib, designer, was present to answer questions. The Commission asked if the windows shown are true divided lights. The designer noted that the window type true divided lights was included on the revised plans and that hopefully the owner would install the correct windows. The Commission commented a condition of approval should be added to ensure that true divided light windows are used. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the applicant has made many changes to this project and has complied with the requests for a 6’-0” porch and landscaping. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution and with an added condition that all windows be true divided light windows, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 12, 2001 Sheets A1,A2, A4, and date stamped November 29, 2001 Sheets A3 and L1; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist memos dated October 22, 2001 and November 15, 2001 shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that all the windows on the approved plans, shown as true divided light windows, shall be installed as the true divided light windows; 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. Keighran. Comment on the motion: approval includes findings for the proposed front setback variance; the variance is justified because it is less of an encroachment than the original project and because the design of the house I and its fit in the neighborhood are improved by the presence of a porch. C. Bojués agreed to the amended motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -5- Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 6. 1509 LOS MONTES AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 12.10.01, with attachments. Chair Vistica noted that he would abstain from voting because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais Vice Chair Keighran proceeded with the hearing. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if staff knew the height of the existing structure. Staff referred the question to the applicant. Vice Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Ron Grove, applicant and owner was present to answer questions. He noted that the proposed two-story house is just 3’-0” higher than the existing house. He has made an effort to make changes to the plans to address Commission concerns, including installing story poles and re-routing the driveway to save the bay tree on the lot. He pointed out that there are numerous two-story houses in the neighborhood and that the floor area of the proposed house is 500 SF less than the amount the code allows. He noted that no views will be blocked by the proposed house. Susan Smith, 1515 Los Montes Drive, spoke concerning the proposed house. She feels that the story poles do not show the whole picture or impact of the new house; she will lose a view from the living room of her house, looking south; the house does not fit into the neighborhood; 90% of the homes have attached garages and this house has a detached garage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: story poles were a great help in evaluating the project; the proposed height is only 3’-0” higher than the existing; the Bay tree has been saved on the property; there are other homes of this size in the neighborhood. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution. There was no second on the motion to approve. Further Commission discussion: height of the proposed project is not greatly increased over the existing height; the roof lines of the house are blended well; an attached garage would make the house look massive; the proposed detached garage is pedestrian friendly; the design of the house is still too massive; a smaller project would be more appropriate to the fabric of the neighborhood; not having an attached garage with doors on the street is an asset to the neighborhood; the project has been greatly improved by the design review process. Vice Chair Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 30, 2001, sheets A1, A4 and L1, and date stamped October 3, 2001, sheets A2 and A3, and date stamped October 12, 2001, sheet A7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, City Recycling Specialist’s, and the Chief Building Official’s May 7, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the dimensions of the proposed detached garage shall be 21’-0” x 21’-0”; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -6- 5) that the 4 existing redwood trees at the rear right corner of the property and the 1 existing Bay tree at the left side of the property shall remain after construction; 6) that no fence or other permanent structure shall be erected in the 5’-0” public sewer easement located at the rear of the property; 7) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 8) that the project shall meet all the re quirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: in redesign the size of the house was reduced by only a minor amount, 300 SF, from the original application. Vice Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 3-2-1-1 (Crs. Bojués and Keele dissenting, C. Vistica abstaining, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m.. 7. 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) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 12.10.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: were the traffic numbers used to project trips for a mini-mart at this location averages taken from another source or counts bases on this particular location; the numbers were based on mini -mart trip generation from a standard source; the numbers show an increase of 6% of trips with the addition of a mini-mart, were these gas stations the same size; it is hard to tell since the increase is based on the sum of a number of site specific traffic counts; in one submittal it notes that the County Health Department has approved this use, what does that mean; the applicant should address this. Is it possible to have a cash only ATM? Yes. There seems to be a problem with the numbering of the on-site parking spaces on the plans. Access to and from this site is awkward, given the intersection, has the applicant discussed redevelopment of the entire site to improve the use of this site relative to the signalized intersection. This question was directed to the applicant. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, representing the property owners Gus and Gladys Greco, noted that the applicant owns two or three other similar gas stations on the Peninsula; which they have converted to mini-marts since this application was submitted the applicant has re-evaluated the proposed operation based on previous comments made by the Commission, including not selling alcoholic beverages; they have found that it is hard to find qualifie d mechanics to support the service part of the gas station business, this is an ideal location for a gas station with mini-mart because of its proximity to the freeway; they hired John Wilson to do a traffic impact study and worked on resolving the study parameters with the Engineering Department, the trip generation was based on actual gas sales from the site and adjusted by the increase in trips as documented by the San Diego Association of Government trip generation studies for mini-marts, these indicate that there would be 13 more customers with a mini-mart on the site, equivalent of 26 individual trips (13 in and out); feel that adding a mini-mart will not generate a lot more customers but will cause the existing customers to spend more money when they stop for gas; they have had an ATM that only dispenses cash on the site for several years; concerned about the condition which prohibits a microwave oven to heat up food, think issue of food establishment is covered by not allowing tables and chairs for customers to use; the Health Department review referred to is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -7- that they have reviewed the applicant’s proposal to serve food and approved it pending city approval of the use; the ingress and egress at the intersection has changed with the new signal, people are using Cadillac Way more, don’t feel that one more customer an hour will have a big impact on the intersection, the traffic consultant did not feel that an access study was necessary; applicant does not think that this will become a 7- 11, because of the number of existing gas sales, 7-11 sells alcoholic beverages which attracts customers and in the San Diego studies the size of the mini-mart did not seem to be a factor in trip generation, the key was pass by traffic. Commissioner noted that this mini-mart is bigger than any of the others in the city at this time. Applicant noted that the Chevron station sells twice as much gas as the Union 76 station so would have more customers. Commissioner asked if this particular location was factored into the trip generation numbers. Applicant did not know. Commissioner asked if there were any hazardous wastes on the site; applicant noted that when the tanks were replaced the site was cleaned up, they will not just redo the floor of the service bays, they will replace it for compliance with County requirements. Commissioner; do not understand why the size of the mini-mart does not affect the number of customers attracted, could information about change in number of customers from your other sites after installation of mini-marts be provided, where are the applicant’s other stations; what about shift in customers from 7-11 to this site; applicant noted that they did not recall being asked to count customer levels at the 7-11 and none of their other sites are accessed off a freeway, they are all along El Camino Real. Commissioner clarified that the 1695 SF area for the mini-mart included the storage area and rest rooms; yes. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the comparison with other mini-marts in the city does not work in this case, need to consider the location; the nearby 7-11 is 50% larger but has 600% more customers; did site visit at 7-11 and during the 20 minutes all the customers came from the north passing by the gas station; people will stop at the gas station for lunch, using the microwave, the ATM also increases the reasons to stop, together diverted 7-11 pass by traffic, ability to microwave lunch, ATM etc. could increase the number of customers at the gas station by 700-900 customers, have studied location and this could become a nightmare, difficult to support. Concerned about the comparative table because the sales area in each existing mini-mart may not have included rest rooms and storage, the 7-11 has 10 on site parking spaces and this gas station is providing 12 so there will be no impact there, now there is a signal at the intersection customers must use which improves access over the present situation, customers will prefer 7-11 because they sell alcoholic beverages, presence of microwave improves convenience. Concerned about traffic and increasing the attraction to the gas station, easier to stop here than 7-11 and it is more attractive, table may not be perfect comparison but anticipate there will be more than 250 customers here after the mini-mart is built based on location; signal has not resolved access problem, cannot support based on the numbers given, need a more accurate study. Not opposed to the location of this mini-mart, but not convinced by the traffic data that there will be this few customers. One way to tell if this site will compete with 7-11 is for the applicant to tell us the number of items with skew numbers, if it is fewer than 7-11 then 7-11 will be the better choice for a customer, this comparative information should be provided before a decision is made. Concerned that we will create another 7-11, with a volume of customers at the gas station which exceeds 600 a day, the traffic at the station location is difficult and dangerous, cannot support. C. Bojués moved by resolution to deny the conditional use permit and take-out permit to convert three service bays to a mini-mart at the existing gas station because of the negative impact on traffic at this location. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -8- Comment on the motion: CA Anderson pointed out for the new commissioners that a denial would not allow the applicant to resubmit this same request for a mini-mart for a year, a denial without prejudice would allow the applicant within 90 days to revise his request, if he wished, and resubmit it for further consideration; given the choices think applicant should be allowed to address the traffic and customer issues raised with a new valid study, also should include a market study of new customers and diverted 7-11 customers based on this location, the study should be done by a firm that deals in market studies for this type of business, the results of the study can then be translated in to traffic i mpacts, so would suggest a denial without prejudice. Would also ask that the sales area of this proposed mini-mart and sales volumes be compared to the sales areas and volumes of the other mini-marts owned by this applicant. Traffic study needs to be amplified as discussed and better sampling used. The maker and second of the motion agreed to amend the motion to be a denial without prejudice. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice the application for a mini- mart at 1147 Rollins Road. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised, noting that the item was subject to appeal until the date of the next City Council meeting on January 7, 2002. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. XI. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 229 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH AND TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MANISCALCO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICK ESCOBAR, PROPERTY OWNER) (NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Maniscalco, architect, was present to answer questions. He noted that the addition was designed to fit the character of the existing single story house. The existing garage must be removed because of the first floor additions; the new proposed garage abuts a greenhouse of similar length on the property to the left. The extended garage will be used for storage of yard tools and possibly a boat in the future. The Commission asked about the necessity of the skylights on the north elevation and if they would be tinted; why did the architect chose to use a shed dormer; is the change in materials from stucco on the side elevations to siding at the rear intentional. The applicant responded that the skylights are needed because of the high ceiling height in the living room and while untinted, they have interior automatic shades; the shed dormer was used to create livable space in the proposed loft without changing the single-story appearance of the house; and the change in exterior material was intentional because the stucco at the side elevation matches the existing house and the siding at the rear elevation is in keeping with the deck an outdoor design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • The garage should have a barge rafter extended from the roof to make it appear symmetrical; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -9- • Clarify plans to show whether the access door for the proposed garage is a solid hinged door or a glass slider, both are currently shown on plans; and • The trim on the existing windows should be carried to all windows in the addition, in particular those on the shed dormer and the upper window on the west elevation.. Comment on motion: the design is very nice and the proposed addition has a minimal impact on the neighbors. The special permits for the garage are warranted because the garage will not impact the neighbors since it is adjacent to a similar building at their side property line and the design complements the main dwelling. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica 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 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 9. 840 NEWHALL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WIDTH FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JERRY DEAL, JD AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND GERMAIN ALFARO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that 600 SF dimensions of the garage are the result of the owner wanting to park two cars in the garage as well as being able to use it for storage. He explained that there is a request for a front setback variance for the new house because the property narrows from the rear to the front and because the required setback creates a lot of space in the front yard that is not private while at the same time reducing the size of the backyard. He noted that two other newer houses on that block had setbacks similar to the setback proposed with this project. The Commission commented that there did not appear to be any special circumstances on the lot to justify a variance; the character in the neighborhood is predominantly very large front setbacks; the design of the house is very nice; if the applicant complies with the required front setback, the private space in the backyard can then be increased by eliminating the extra storage space attached to the garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Eliminate the variance for front setback because there is no hardship on the lot. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: all of the Commissioners seated concurred with the recommendation listed above. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -10- Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:44 p.m. 10. 1520 LOS MONTES DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ED NEALE, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. The Commission asked staff if there was a measurement included in the code to differentiate between remodels and new homes based on the demolition proposed for a project. Staff replied that the only distinction is based on the amount of floor area added. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, and Ed Neale, owner, were present to answer questions. The architect noted that the FAR variance is the result of the way the code calculates floor area under the new deck; the space underneath the deck is counted as living area though it could never be used as such without undertaking major work on the space. The owner noted that the request for an FAR variance is so that he can have a deck at the rear of the dwelling at the same floor where the main living area is in order to fully enjoy the property. The Commission noted that the plans needed to clarify the type of windows and trim proposed; the house has many Craftsman details on the front elevation, but these details have not been carried through t o the other elevations; is there another way to address the front entrance so that there isn’t just a single pillar supporting the front porch; there is so much demolition occurring with this project it is almost a replacement so it is logical to think that an FAR variance could be eliminated. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following direction given: • Repeat the Craftsman details shown on the front elevation on the right, left, and rear elevations; • Detail what type of windows and trim are proposed; and • The FAR variance should be eliminated because there is no hardship on the property to justify it; if the deck is retained, floor area should be eliminated from somewhere else in the house so that the proposal meets code requirements. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: all of the Commissioners seated concurred with the recommendations listed above. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:03 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -11- 11. 1415 BENITO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PETER AND SHIRLEY CHIANG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Johnny DaRosa, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. Randy VandenBrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue, spoke to request that the plans show if the existing trees at the rear of the property will remain after construction and noted that there is an existing basement in this house which was not shown on the plans. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following direction given: • House design does not fit with the neighborhood; proposed house is too bold and busy, needs to be softened; • Applicant should provide a detailed landscape plan to show existing and proposed landscaping including trees to be retained on site it is important that the scale of the landscaping match the scale of the house and that new plantings be designed to soften and screen the addition from neighbors and from the street; • Window trim needs clarification, the proposed trim is heavy and appears to overpower the windows; • Applicant should provide a two-car garage and at the same time, can improve the massive appearance of the garage by showing two garage doors instead of one door; • The triangular-shaped transoms above the windows are not consistent with the style of the house; • The pop-up window in the garage should be eliminated; • The windows on the right and left elevation are very large and will have a big impact on the neighbors; can they be scaled-down or screened with landscaping; and • Current proposal is like a layer-cake; would like to see some variation in the eave lines and articulation to break up the massive appearance of the house; This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:18 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 -12- XII. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting of November 28, 2001 and City Council regular meeting of December 3, 2001. - CP Monroe reviewed the Council actions at their meeting on December 3, 2001. - The November 28, 2001 Joint City council/Planning Commission meeting were not noticed on the calendar for approval so will be placed on the January 14, 2002 agenda for approval. - Issues for February Joint Session - Commission discussed items which might be considered at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting in February. It was noted that there were four items which were to be carried over from the November Joint meeting; also that it might be appropriate to review progress on the SAP for the north end of the city. Staff noted that because of a delay the DEIR for the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue would not be available until the third week of January 2002, so the Pl anning Commission’s special meeting to take public comment on the DEIR study should be delayed from January 30 to a later date in February to provide the public time to review the DEIR document. February 20 was discussed as an option for a new date. - Open Study Meeting on Housing Element CP Monroe reminded the Commission that a special open study meeting on the Draft Housing Element would be held on December 19, 2001, in the Council Chambers. The focus of the discussion would be the Goals, Policies and Action Program. Changes would be incorporated and the document prepared to be forwarded to City Council in January,2002, Following Council review of the draft it would be sent to the State for their comment. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES12/10