Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.11.27 1 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 27, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the November 27, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 13, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was amended to move Item 5 - Second Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program- to the Planner’s Reports section. The agenda was then approved. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1637 BALBOA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ELIAS J. NOVO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER). CP Monroe presented the staff report. The commissioners had no questions. A commissioner noted that the existing garage is in the front setback and the addition matches this and is not detrimental. Chairman Luzuriaga set the request for front setback variance on the consent calendar for the December 11, 2000 meeting. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. 2. 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO RETAIN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 2 CONVERT ITS USE TO LIVING QUARTERS (ALLEN T. MENICUCCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked: applicant is adding a bedroom, what parking is available on site; should include a condition that requires annual review of this use and a sunset clause; is lot coverage exceeded with this current request, if it is it should be noted that the surplus lot coverage can only be used by the accessory structure, not for expanding the house later; does the accessory structure meet current building code requirements, can you check the Building Department; is a building permit required to implement this request. There were no further questions and Chairman Luzuriaga set this item to the consent calendar at the meeting on December 11, 2000, if all the information is provided to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 3. 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS (PETER GUMINA, FRAME-O-RAMA, APPLICANT; 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER). CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked: what is the amount of signage on the adjacent properties, could staff prepare a comparative table; would like this signage program to come closer to code requirements 105 SF requested where 43 SF allowed seems a big difference; is sign C needed; would like applicant to submit a realistic representation of the sign color proposed, could not find PMS colors cited; would applicant provide rational for the exceptional hardship on this property to justify this signage program; site already has a parking variance to also ask for so much signage is a lot, need a valid reason for exceeding the code. There were no further questions. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for the action calendar at the December 11, 2000, meeting if all the information has been submitted to staff in time. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. FLOOR AREA RATIO BASEMENT ORDINANCE - CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY BASEMENT AREAS IN FLOOR AREA RATIO CP Monroe reviewed the proposed code changes to implement extending FAR to basement areas in single family houses. The changes to the proposed ordinance were suggested by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. Commissioners suggested that existing 10' x 10' basement utility areas be exempted from FAR calculation even if they extend more than 2 feet out of the ground. CA Anderson noted that the problem is how to define pre-existing, better to exempt 100 SF no matter how far out of the ground. Would like to add a maximum size for bathrooms in basement area, consensus was that 25 SF would be a good maximum size and too small to allow a shower to be installed later; there was agreement that for noticing this hearing staff should take out a larger ad in the San Mateo County Times and Independent as well as notifying those who have written or signed petitions regarding basements in FAR calculations. Staff was directed to bring this item back to the Commission for action in January. This item concluded at 7.40 p.m. 5. SECOND DWELLING UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM - REVIEW ISSUES REGARDING AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR EXISTING ACCESSORY LIVING UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE AND DIRECT STAFF This item was moved to the end of the agenda under Planners Reports so that the commission could discuss it without delaying the action items. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 3 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. 6a. 1419 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL GUMBINGER, GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND PAOLA FLYGARE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED). 6b. 1000 LARKSPUR DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (EDGAR M. GARCIA AND JANE F. CREAGER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED). 6c. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TANNING FACILITY (JOANNA CORKERY, APPLICANT; MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED). 6d. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 130-ROOM HOTEL (PIETRO PARTNERS, APPLICANT; BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER) (13 NOTICED). 6e. 1390 ROLLINS ROAD - ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES (BRANDON LAWRENCE, APPLICANT; ERIC LUNDQUIST, PROPERTY OWNER) (21 NOTICED). 6f. 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LEASE OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (TODD GREEN, 800 AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED). No items were removed from the consent calendar by Planning Commission or the public. C. Deal noted he would abstain from the vote for 1000 Larkspur Avenue because of a business relationship with applicant. Commission made the following comments: On 1550 Bayshore Highway, item 6d, would like to review landscaping selection. CP Monroe noted that applicant is working with City Arborist and Planning Commission can be updated by memo when applicant submits for building permits; on 1419 Vancouver Avenue two conditions should be added 1) that the windows on the west side shall be increased to meet emergency egress requirements and 2) that the transition in the roof, which is shown as flat with no detail, be revised to a ridge gap with composition shingle. No further comments were made by Commission. C. Keighran moved for approval of the consent calendar with direction to staff to keep Commission informed of approved landscaping at 1550 Bayshore Highway and the two additional conditions added to 1419 Vancouver Avenue. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote and the mo tion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). The vote for 1000 Larkspur was 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining, C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 4 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 7. 1636 CORONADO WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; VADIM AND ZOYA GERTSVOLF, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED). Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Rolando Noriega, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant what physical hardship exists on the property? Applicant responded that existing design of residence makes it difficult to design floor plan that does not exceed F.A.R. requirements. Commission continued: findings for variance must be based on physical hardships and none appear to exist on property; changes to the design since it came before them last seem to have added size for amenities, such as third bathroom on second floor, rather than reflecting basic needs; the house appears front-loaded, in particular bedroom #4 could be reduced to remove the F.A.R. variance; landscaping shows only two small deciduous trees which will not afford screening for the addition when they lose leaves, want to see additional landscaping in the form of small- scale evergreens or shrubs to soften the sides of the proposed structure. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: appears that Commissioners are unanimous in failure to find justification for F.A.R. variance. Design can be improved by reducing size of bedroom #4 to address front-loading of house and by adding landscaping at sides of proposed house. C. Deal moved to deny the F.A.R. variance and to deny without prejudice the design of the project. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: in this situation the revised project should return to Commission as design review study item. Chariman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote. The motion for denial of the variance and denial without prejudice of the design passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 8. 1443 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING FROM R-3 TO C-1 FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY (CHARLIE KAVANAGH, APPLICANT; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) (110 NOTICED). Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and noted that Commission should make a recommendation to Council. Commission asked of staff: code does not allow illuminated signs in R- 3 zone, but across the street from United Methodist Church Safeway has split zoning and an illuminated sign, is this sign in R-3 zone? staff responded no, sign located on parcel zoned C-1. What about other churches in city with illuminated signs in an R zone? CP noted that these signs may be existing non-conforming, pre-dating our sign code regulations on lighting. Commission continued: is there way to allow church to have illuminat ed sign without rezoning the property; if entire property is rezoned to C-1, will the Subarea B also be extended to El Camino Real? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 5 CP noted that a possible alternative to rezoning is amendment of the sign code for R-3 districts. C-1 and Subarea B would both be extended to El Camino Real with the proposed rezone. Commission had no additional questions or comments for staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Charlie Kavanagh, 470 Chatham Road, applicant and representative for United Methodist Church, was present to answer questions. Applicant commented that the church would like illuminated sign to make facility more visible to the community. Commission asked: does church see any disadvantage to having the entire property rezoned to R-3 and the sign code amended to allow illuminated signs in that zone, as opposed to having the property rezoned to C-1, Subarea B; is sole purpose of this application to get an illuminated sign on the property? Applicant responded that attempt was made to locate the sign on the C-1, Subarea B portion of the property, but that area is not close enough to El Camino Real where church hopes to attract attention of additional participants. DeWayne Moore, member of United Methodist Church, resident of San Mateo,explained that an illuminated sign is important for the church to attract participants for youth programs; church has run yellow page and newspaper ads with little result; Bryant Zimmerman, member of United Methodist Church Board of Trustees, resident of Hillsborough, noted that the main objective of the church is to get an illuminated sign and have the split zoning on the property removed. Reverend Nimphas Edwards, Senior Pastor United Methodist Church, spoke to urge Commission to recommend approval of rezone so that church can erect sign to help get word out about the organization and it=s programs, other churches are successful using such signage, noted he could see no difference between rezoning to all R-3 and rezoning to all C-1, Subarea B. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there appears to be consensus among commissioners that church should have illuminated sign, question is how? Church has been there long time and we hope it will continue in that location, however if in the future church should go away, rezoning the entire property to C-1, Subarea B would mean an office building or large parking lot might be erected on site, this would mar the entrance to the downtown area; commercial zoning is not consistent with multi-family zoning along El Camino Real; in the event that church is no longer at this location prefer to see residential condominium development on property; what is definition of illuminated sign?; can church erect sign that is indirectly lit by floodlights from below? is it possible to rezone entire property to R-3 and amend sign code to allow illuminated signs in this zone by special permit only? CP noted that existing office use on property, Call Primrose, would become existing non-conforming if entire property were rezoned R-3 and in that event, Call Primrose building or use could not be expanded; sign code allows exterior illumination by flood lights, if the light does not extend off the site and surface of the sign is non-reflective, but do not believe this is the type of sign church wishes to install. Chairman Luzuriaga reopened the public hearing. DeWayne Moore noted that the sign the church wishes to erect has an illuminated face only on El Camino Real and would not have a detrimental impact on any neighboring residential areas. Eleanore Bilsey, 112 Howard Avenue, noted that she could not hear the Commissioners. Asked what will happen to Call Primrose office space if property is rezoned entirely R-3? Do not want the activities at Call Primrose to suffer; in the past church has had various parts of sign stolen, do not feel exterior illumination of sign is the answer because bulbs will likely be stolen. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to continue the application. Would like to see staff work with church to propose rezone for all of property to R-3, except for the Call Primrose parcel which should remain in C-1, Subarea B zone, and to propose amendment to the sign code which would allow illuminated signs in the R-3 zone with a special permit. Chairman Luzuriaga seconded the motion. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 6 Discussion on the motion: Call Primrose is still legal use with proposed motion. Could it be rebuilt in event of fire or natural disaster? CP noted that Call Primrose could be rebuilt subject to current C-1, Subarea B zoning and building requirements. Staff was directed to give this item priority on the January 8, 2000 agenda. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. 9. 1360 BROADWAY - ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT (GUNADI KISMOHANDAKA, APPLICANT; JAMES AND STELLA WU, TRS AND VICTOR S. WU, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED). Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and conditions for approval. Commission had no questions for staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Michael Seagal, representing the applicant, and Jerald Laesser of Martinizing Dry Cleaning Franchise, were present to answer questions. Commission asked if contact water from the Thermo Tek evaporative water treatment system is deposited in the sewer system? Applicant responded that contact water is contained in barrels which are removed by a waste disposal company. There were no further comments from Commission or the audience and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the proposed retail use is less intense in terms of parking than the former grocery store use and that the proposed exterior changes are minor. C. Keighran moved to approve the project with the following conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2) that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 10. 1243 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CLASSROOM USE (TRAFFIC SCHOOL) (ROCKY COLOGNE, ROCKY COLOGNE=S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, APPLICANT; PHILLIP H. SHAMILIAN ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED). Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and conditions for approval. Commission asked staff if it is possible to place a sunset clause on a use? CA responded yes. Commission had no additional questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Rocky Cologne, applicant, was present to answer any questions and submitted several photographs taken of surrounding parking lots during evening hours. Commission asked if applicant had any objections to a five year sunset clause, at which time the parking variance would be reviewed based on the parking conditions at that time? Applicant responded no. There were no further comments from the Commission or the audience and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 7 C. Bojués moved for approval by resolution of the parking variance with the following conditions: 1) that the classroom use shall be limited to 257 SF on the second floor at 1243 Howard Avenue with a maximum of one employee on site, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 16 and July 28, 2000 (82@ x 11" floor plans and site plan); 2) that the classroom use (traffic school) shall be limited to operate within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., two nights per week on weekdays only, with a maximum of eight students and one employee on site at any one time; 3) that participants in the evening classes shall be required to park in the public parking lots located between Howard and Bayswater Avenues; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees or students, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use parking variance; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s and City Engineer=s July 31, 2000, memos shall be met; 6) that the use and any improvements made to the building for this use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and; 7) the application for a parking variance for classroom use shall be reviewed by Planning Commission in five years, in November 2005, and renewed based on the parking conditions at that time. C. Deal seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: this parking variance supports a small business use in the downtown area and parking at present is not a problem in this area in the public lots between Howard and Bayswater Avenues in the evenings when classes will be held, so there is no detrimental impact. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with one added condition. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 9:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1509 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIRAYR KOUROUYAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MATTHEW BOLAK, ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED). CP Monroe summarized the project . Commissioner pointed out that the picture of the house on the cover of the staff report was not the same as the house presently on the site, was a building permit issued for the changes now in place. Staff noted that they would provide a building permit history for the site for the action packet; and commission could go ahead and provide design direction at this time. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Matthew Bolak, property owner and applicant, represented the project. He noted that the work on the house began as an interior remodel and discovered that the house was not properly built, came to the city for a building permit to fix and discovered that needed to apply for front setback variance and design review. Want to keep existing building and increase the useable space as much as possible by flattening the roof, adding light wells, put on stucco finish, add columns at front to emphasize entry. Commissioner comments on design: the addition is out of character with the building, matches nothing in the neighborhood, dormers were added without architectural consistency, design does not represent bungalow architectural style; the tall entrance does not fit the character of the building-too tall and thin; should use a traditional trim, with a lighter appearance, stucco mold; new windows are vinyl clad, not match others in neighborhood; the slope of the roof on the front dormer is not consistent with the roof of the house and the window in the dormer is out of character; the front steps are monumental, suitable for a public building, should be reduced; the rear dormer is not in character with the building, too tall and thin with a roof slope that does not match the house; the chimney on the side of the living room extends through the bedroom above, plans should be corrected. The front door looks out of scale, is it properly sized; the eave line on the dormer is shown incorrectly which also affects the roof pitch; should consider mullioned windows. Front entrance is grandiose, the top plate of the entrance needs to be lowered, entrance stair narrowed, with porch and railings added; dormer at rear looks like a box added to the structure needs to be blended. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 8 C. Vistica moved to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairm an Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 12. 1821 RALSTON AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NOEL F. CROSS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CARTER AND AMY BREK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (34 NOTICED). CP Monroe summarized the project. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Chairman Lurzuriaga opened the public comment. Noel Crioss, applicant and architect, represented the project. Worked on this project to match the existing house, put a hipped roof to the side and a gable at the rear, match the existing materials and windows as much as possible; addition is at the rear and not visible from the street, only neighbor to the left can see. Commissioner commented on the design: thank you, this project shows that matching the existing can be done, the roof pitch matches, the louvered fence is a nice amenity. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. C. Deal moved to put this item on the consent calendar for the December 11, 2000, meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to set the item on the consent calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:32 p.m. 13. 341 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES, SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK SOLINGER, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED). ZT Lewit summarized the project. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Chairman Lurzuriaga opened the public comment. Doron Klein, applicant and designer, represented the project. This project began as a remodel, demolition contractor inadvertently removed the entire house so had to resubmit as a new house subject to design review. For present submittal talked to neighbors and revised project, removed roof deck and addressed other concerns. Neighbors want single story house. Virtually all the houses in the neighborhood have attached garages; irregular shape of the lot would make it hard to have a detached garage on this site. Other variances are for conditions which were existing with the former house, want to use the foundation of that structure; can reduce lot coverage to what is allowed, did not have time to revise the plans for tonight=s meeting. Was trying to work with the neighbors who want a single story house. Jim Parkin, 333 Dwight, Constance Cohen, neighbors, spoke noting that the property is presently a mess and since this might be a long process something needs to be done to improve its appearance; CA noted that staff would work with the Building Department to see that the site is cleaned up while project review and stop work order continue; Planning Department should notify the Historical Society before a house is demolished so that they can go out and take a picture so that there is a record of the way things once looked; commission should closely review the landscaping plans for this house so that it conforms to the neighborhood, since the applicant indicated that he was not concerned about the importance of vegetation to the neighborhood. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 9 Commissioners commented on the design: why do you have a flat roofed area on a ranch house, generally the style requires sloped roofs; concerned that the existing foundation may not be adequate, especially for a second story, so could comply with code requirements; there is no exterior useable space left on this lot with the design, cannot favor a lot coverage variance, could resolve with a two story house; house takes too much of the lot, should increase outdoor space; on the parking variance, this is a new house the garage should be built to code requirements; there is no reason for a variance to the length of the garage, so much foundation work is being done that this can be made to comply; design has too many roof lines, too many different pitches the mix of flat and sloped roofs is a problem; this proposed structure is not Mission Spanish style, should show a Spanish tile roof; why is the garage so tall; why on the south elevation , left side, 10 feet to top of plate with a space; do you intend for your vent to be 32 inches square, that is very large; front setback exception is OK, the lot is unusually shaped, same for side setback; need to look at the overall design, it does not fit the neighborhood, there is nothing like this house in the neighborhood; if this much square footage is needed then the structure should go to a second floor; proposed heavy window trim should be replaced with stucco mold which is typical of the neighborhood; best approach here is not to save the existing foundation but to begin again; the history of building permits for this project is not clear, should be clarified for commission and reviewer; should note concerned about the neighbors but should be aware that zoning does not guarantee privacy, cannot favor variances but do support attached garage since that is the pattern in this neighborhood. Not advocating a second story, but if you want this much house on this lot it will have to be two stories because this is an extreme lot coverage variance request. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: given a lot of direction, but not ready for design reviewer, plans need to be redone; CA noted applicant is entitled to go to a design reviewer, it is up to him if he wants to redesign the project before doing that or after. C. Deal moved to refer this project to a design reviewer, noting that if he wished the applicant could redesign and request a second preliminary design review by the Commission before meeting with the design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga reopened the public comment. Mr. Klein, the designer, asked if the review process could be speeded up and they could be put on the first available calendar; Commission noted that the project could not be brought forward to the commission again until it had been revised and staff had plan checked it to determine the submittal was complete; if it is correct when submitted it will go more promptly to commission or design reviewer. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was again closed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer with the option of coming before the Planning Commission for a second preliminary design review on a revised project. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m. 14. 1109 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CATHERINE SHIU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED). C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from this project. He stepped down from the dais. ZT Lewit summarized the project . Commission asked staff about the 6 inch rise within the garage which resulted in the shortened depth for parking, could it be removed. Staff suggested that the applicant address this. Chairman Lurzuriaga opened the public comment. Catherine Shiu, property owner, represented the project. She was available to answer questions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 10 Commissioners commented on the design: should explore solutions to the 6 inch rise within the parking area of the garage and eliminate exception; the wood siding on the front should be repeated on the other sides of the building or removed and replaced with all stucco. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: design is OK but want to removed parking variance, level garage floor, if can do that it could go on the consent calendar; applicant could address problem and suggest resolution, could advertise for variance so if change is not possible could still be acted on. C. Keighran moved to place this project on the consent calendar at the December 11, 2000, meeting with corrections to eliminate the parking variance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to the consent calendar without a parking variance. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 ( C. Deal abstaining, C. Dreiling absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X.PLANNER REPORTS 5. SECOND DWELLING UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM - REVIEW ISSUES REGARDING AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR EXISTING ACCESSORY LIVING UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE AND DIRECT STAFF. This item was moved from the study calendar to Planners Reports. Commission discussed the subject broadly and how to best address preparation of a program and regulations. It was noted that it did not seem appropriate that such dwelling units could be sold separately; it seemed desirable to require the property owner to live in one of the units, it would provide better control; and properties with such units should be required to stay within current lot coverage and FAR requirements for the R-1 zone. Chairman Luzuriaga appointed a committee of commissioners made up of Cers. Keighran, Osterling and Bojués to meet and put together a draft for the commission. It was suggested that the group meet at least once before the end of the year to get started. Staff was directed to send a letter to the citizen who was especially concerned about this issue and inform him of Commission=s action. The CA indicated that he would do so. FYI - REVISION TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1515 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Commissioners noted that the applicant should be informed that he Abotched it@ with compliance with CBC and the design and should have been more aware of the CBC requirements; would have been concerned about the dormer added had it been at the front of the building because it would have been a visible piece of the design; staff should look out for double hung windows in bedroom areas, the emergency egress area needs to be 5.7 SF that means that the window becomes over 5 feet tall, most people do not seem the understand this; it will affect some windows in this design. It was generally felt that the extent of revisions to this project requested at building permit pushed the envelope of what could be approved in this fashion. Review of City Council regular meeting of November 20, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the City Council at their November 20, 2000, meeting which was their annual reorganization meeting. Jim Nantell was also sworn in as the new City Manager. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Luzuriaga at 11:00 p.m. MINUTES11.27