Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.13.07 PC Minutes APPROVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California August 13, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the August 13, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Brownrigg Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman; City Planner Margaret Monroe and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as mailed. Passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, asked if Caltrans and the JPP were contacted regarding the matter at the depot. She further commented regarding the signage notification method that appears later on the agenda as a subcommittee report, and encouraged adoption of the proposed policy. She stated that if the signs, if required, need to remain on the property during the appeal period. She requested that all cases that have not yet been before the Commission be subject to the new procedure. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2301 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FRONT PORCH ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES MCFALL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND RALPH AND LINDA WONDRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Zoning Technician Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 13, 2007. Commission comments: ƒ Thought it was a nice application. ƒ Provide material information on drawings for columns. ƒ There is a hardship on the property given it is sloping in the rear. ƒ House is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. ƒ In general, the Commission encourages front porches and there is a need for one in this case because of the weathering of the front door. ƒ Move the depth of the porch back to reduce projection into front yard, but retain a porch depth of six- feet. ƒ If the structure is removed in the future, then the Variance should become invalid. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 2 This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Chair Deal asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 3209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL BIERMAN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND RICHARD MURRAY, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 2b. 518 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SEAN MCKENNA, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1545 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF PARKING VARIANCE FOR USE OF AN EXISTING UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (BILLI CLINE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three (3) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Billi Cline, 1545 Carol Avenue, Burlingame, represented the applicant. She indicated that she had letters of support from nearby neighbors. Public comments: Dennis Barnard, 1541 Carol Avenue; Stephanie Shoffner, 1540 Barroilhet Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Anne Merrick, 1537 Carol Avenue all spoke in favor of the request, noting parking congestion in the area. Additionally, it was suggested that if the building envelope changes, the Variance would no longer be valid. Commission comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 3 ƒ The use of the parking space works now, but invalidate the Variance if the footprint of the property changes. ƒ The hardship supporting approval of the Variance is the oddly shaped lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, Sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved parking area in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20' covered parking space in the rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met; 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; and 4. that the Variance will be come invalid if building envelope changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 4. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FRANK AND ROBIN KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Appreciated that the applicant submitted an application for approval of the proposed change, prior to making the change during construction. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Terrones 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, Sheets A1, A2, A6, A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey (date stamped July 24, 2006) and Sheets A3 through A5 (date stamped July 16, 2007); and that any changes to building materials including window type, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that 6x wood knee braces and 2" x 4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 4 along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006 and July 30, 2007 memos, Recycling Specialist's April 24, 2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. 5. 1648 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND CABANA (MATTEO AND ALISA FERRARI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JERRY DEAL, JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 5 Chair Deal recused himself due to a conflict of interest and left the dais. Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Stuart Gunrow, JD Associates, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, represented the applicant. ƒ In response to proposed condition, applicant noted that the property owner doesn’t want to wait to have a pool installed in order to install a toilet in the cabana. Is willing to accept any conditions that would permit its installation without the pool. Commission comments: ƒ The plans should note that the non-conforming parking space is existing and will be eliminated with the new project. ƒ Asked if there will be a maintenance issue in the area between the proposed garage and the neighbor’s garage? This space should be eliminated or at least there should be no fencing between the garages. Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; commented on the proposal. Concern was expressed that if a toilet is permitted in the cabana without a swimming pool, the structure may be used for additional living space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Some Commissioners indicated that they would accept installation of the toilet in the cabana without the pool. ƒ Concern was expressed that the pool would never be built. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions, eliminating proposed Condition 3 as suggested in the staff report that would have permitted installation of a toilet in the cabana only if a pool is installed: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 31, 2007, sheets 1-5, G-1, and L-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 8 and April 17, 2007 memos, the City Engineer's April 19, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 18, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 19, 2007 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen, there shall be no shower or tub added without an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; 4) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 6 shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent, Chair Deal recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:49 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the dais. 6. 1141 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A TRELLIS (RON AND CAROLINE CANNOBIO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (81 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN COMMISSIONER CAUCHI INDICATED THAT HE HAD NOT VISITED THE SITE, AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT VOTE ON THIS MATTER. Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 7 Ron and Carolyn Cannobio, 1141 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, represented the applicant. ƒ Didn’t think they needed a permit for the trellis since it was being replaced in same location. Complaint seems to arise from white color. ƒ Have agreed to remove two feet and paint the side facing the neighbor green. ƒ Have secured signatures from supporters. Need to have shaded area for use of hot tub for therapeutic use (both handicapped). ƒ Are willing to plant landscaping to shield it if desired by neighbor. ƒ Contractor indicated that the applicant could obtain a permit for the construction if they wished. ƒ Pool and original trellis were likely built in 1959 or 1960. There was no evidence of permits when they purchased the property. Commission comments: ƒ Was the trellis built by a licensed contractor? ƒ When were the pool and original trellis built? ƒ Painting the portion facing the neighbor’s property green would likely reduce glare. Public comments: Horst Hardtke, 1133 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; spoke regarding the proposal. He believes the trellis looks like it belongs at a gas station. It is larger and taller than the prior trellis. The applicant complains when he turns on his light in his back-yard. Camellias on his property do not adequately shield his view of the trellis. Carolyn Connobio, 1141 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, noted that Hardtke’s property is low in comparison to her property. The prior trellis was finished in natural wood. Hardtke objects to white color, but they don’t want to paint the entire trellis green. They are cutting it back two feet as required by the Building Department and painting that side facing Hardke’s property green. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The neighbor was advised that his rear-yard light must have a shield blocking glare onto the adjacent properties. ƒ Photos submitted by Hardtke distort the height of the trellis relative to his property due to his location when taking the photos. ƒ Encouraged the installation of planter boxes, vines, or taller vegetation along the property line with Hardtke to provide additional shielding. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. Further Commission comments: ƒ The pool and addition were built in 1959; the trellis was probably built with the pool and replaced in same place. ƒ Special circumstances exist because the lot is only 75-feet wide. The lot may have been larger when the structures were originally built ƒ The lot has very narrow setbacks. ƒ Findings for the Variance can be made, assuming the two-foot reduction, painting the side facing the neighbor green and adding vegetation for screening. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with amended conditions to include revising the as-built structure so that it has a two-foot setback, painting the side facing the neighbor green, and adding vegetation to help screen the trellis from view. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 8 Commissioner Vistica stated that the contractor should have known that a permit was necessary. The trellis could be framed in such a manner to eliminate the need for a Variance. He will not support the motion. Commissioner Terrones agreed with Commissioner Vistica’s comments. Chair Deal agreed that a permit should have been obtained, but understands the applicant’s misunderstanding. He believed that if two-foot overhang was not present, the project would have been approved at the Commission level. He supported the motion. Commission Osterling noted that planting Bay Laurel would cover trellis and house; trumpet vines and/or wisteria would be another fast-growing and attractive screening option. Amended conditions: 1. that the left side setback variance shall only apply to the as-built trellis as shown on the plans date stamped April 18, 2007; and that the side setback variance shall become void if the trellis is ever expanded, demolished for replacement, or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster; 2. that no other building or encroachment permits shall be granted for work of any kind on this property until the building permit, if necessary, for the trellis has been finaled; 3. that in order to reduce visual impacts from the neighboring property at 1133 Balboa Avenue, the applicants shall paint the side of the trellis facing that property green, and shall install additional landscaping along that side of the property that will quickly grow to screen the view of the trellis from the neighboring property; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and the NPDES Coordinator’s March 19, 2007 memos shall be met; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a roll-call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent, Commissioners Terrones and Vistica dissenting.). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 7. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 9 presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Michael Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 169, Cupertino, represented the applicant. ƒ Described changes proposed for approval. Decisions regarding the changes that have been made were made during construction. Commission comments: ƒ Is architect in support of the design changes that were made? ƒ Was the architect involved in the project during the construction process? ƒ Has the architect worked with roof-truss systems before ƒ Is the architect licensed? ƒ Does the architect know the contactor? ƒ Not happy with the extensive changes made to the design. ƒ Was the circular driveway with two curb cuts part of the original approval? ƒ Was the property owner integrally involved in the changes? Michael Ma responded that it is difficult to say if he supports the changes at this time. He was not in the loop when the changes were made and was not involved during the construction process. The structural engineer reviewed and approved the truss system. Any design is achievable it is a matter of cost and time. He is a licensed architect. He dropped by site during framing and again near completion of the project. Mimi Sien, 3066 Hillside Drive, Burlingame, responded to the Commission’s questions of her: ƒ The circular driveway was re-paved at the existing location. ƒ During construction, all of house had to be brought up to code. ƒ The Building Division required that they put new framing in front; this required removal of portions of the existing wood siding on the front of the house. ƒ Decided to install stucco rather than replace the wood siding. ƒ Looked at neighboring properties; there are lots of stucco buildings in area; thought would be fine. ƒ Could have revised plans, but could not hold off on the work; needed to have the house enclosed. ƒ Feels it looks better now than with the siding. ƒ The Building Division would not approve the transom with the header as configured with truss system. ƒ Once the stucco installed, the iron rail would not look right with stucco trim. Additional Commission comments: ƒ There is a process in place to request changes, rather than making wholesale changes, and then requesting approval of changes once made. ƒ The applicant made every change to project that the Commission had indicated that she should not make. ƒ The project would not have been approved as currently built. It looks dramatically different than what was approved. ƒ What was submitted by architect was accepted by the City as a contract. The applicant broke the contract and performed role of architect on her own. ƒ The applicant agreed to the condition that requires project to be built per the approved plans. Public comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 10 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, noted that the applicant had attended an owner/builder workshop conducted by the City’s Building Official in April 2007. The process for amending project plans was explained during the workshop. The applicant should have known better than to make the changes without the Commission’s approval. Michael Ma (project architect) indicated that although the applicant has owned other properties in Burlingame, this is her first experience with the design review process. He indicated that she experienced hardships and difficulties during the construction process, and is willing to fix some elements to some extent, but cost will be a factor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:49 p.m. Further Commission comments: ƒ The architectural certification requested in Condition 5 of the approval needs to be reviewed if it has been received. ƒ Consider continuing this item until it can be confirmed that all inspections and certifications were conducted. ƒ The applicant’s actions changing the plans during the construction are a slap in the face to the City, staff and Planning Commission. Applicant blatantly disregarded Commission’s approval. ƒ Confirm that the circular driveway with two curb cuts was approved. ƒ Not building what was approved by the Commission is an affront to all those people who adhere to conditions of approval. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the matter, until a copy of the architectural certification referenced in Condition 5 is reviewed and it is determined if the circular driveway on the property previously existed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE PARKING RATE AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (DAVID LEWIN, GENERAL MANAGER, HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, APPLICANT; AND HMC BURLINGAME HOTEL LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-six (36) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Mark Fenton, Hyatt Regency-San Francisco Airport, 1333 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, represented the applicant. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:59 p.m. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the park and fly program shall be operated as described in the Hyatt letter date stamped April 1, 2005, shall be allowed to operate from this hotel under the terms described, any changes to the program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 11 2. that the park and fly program shall be allowed to operate at this hotel with a maximum of 30 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the designated valet parking areas; and any increase in the number of vehicles parked on site at any one time for the park & fly program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3. that the tent shall be permitted at this location as a temporary use for an additional 10 years (2016); 4. that the tent as installed shall match the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994, Sheet C-4T Tent Site Plan, Sheet 1, Tent Elevations and Plan, and Sheet A3.1 Hotel Elevations; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 28, 1994 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 6. that the Hyatt Hotel staff shall submit to the Planning Department, plans documenting all on site parking within 60 days of this (January 18, 1995) action; 7. that the tent and its use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 8. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memos of June 29, July 2 and August 20, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of September 4, 1984 and the Director of Parks' memos of June 25 and August 22, 1984 be met; 9. that the project be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped August 16, 1984 and parking garage as shown in the plans of October 1, 1984; 10. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and buildings shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; valet parking, patrons, visitors or employees may not be charged for use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city; the applicant shall design the parking structure so that one-half deck of parking can be added in the future if it is needed to relieve on-site parking demand; 11. that any future rental car use and storage of rental cars on-site operate according to a program reviewed by Hyatt and city staff and be brought to Commission for review prior to introduction of the use on-site; 12. that the project receive all necessary permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over this site including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration; 13. that in the future, as required, the developer participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to Southern Pacific, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or other intercity transit opportunities for employees as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; provide airport shuttle pick-up; 14. prior to construction of the on-ramp, install and maintain landscaping on the entire site; 15. provide on-site security services and patrol; 16. make improvements necessary to fire mains for adequate flow and pressure to meet fire fighting standards, install low flow water fixtures, put all underground utilities in non-ferrous pipes or encase/coat steel pipes; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 12 17. during construction provide all parking for construction equipment on-site and a supervised program for on-site and off-site parking for construction workers approved by the Department of Public Works; 18. design building of concrete with non-reflective window areas, incorporate energy efficient systems to match expected loads, provide natural ventilation in atrium area, incorporate passive and active building, site and mechanical systems; have a PG & E energy audit within 18 months of completion and implement all recommended cost effective conservation measures; 19. soil and foundation investigation by a California licensed engineer to determine foundations, structural protection within area between elevation 5' and 10', provide protection to Easton Creek to a standard acceptable to the City Engineer, recompact and fill site as required by city; 20. conduct a hydraulic engineering study to determine necessary improvements to Easton Creek to accommodate 100 year flood, coordinate creek improvements with site and roadway improvements, minimum floor entry of site 9' MSL, site should be filled to 10' MSL; protect Easton Creek from silt during construction using measures approved by the City Engineer; 21. drain site away from Route 101 and to Easton Creek, install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas, maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis approved by the city; 22. landscape site with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, follow procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 23. retain an acoustical engineer to determine design and construction measures to reduce noise during construction, place solid wooden fence around construction site as necessary to reduce on- site construction noise, project should comply with Title 25 requirements and interior noise level standards of the city, atrium cover design should take into consideration possible need to replace fabric cover with a more noise attenuating covering if city established interior noise levels cannot be attained after construction; 24. to retain traffic allocation the project will be developed on the following time frame: Date Submit final plans September 1985 Pick-up building permit January 1986 Final foundation July 1986 Final framing January 1987 Occupancy September 1987 25. that all employees shall be encouraged to park in the off-site parking lot during non-office hours, when all the parking spaces at the hotel site are full; 26. that up to 85 parking spaces shall be designated for valet parking, that the two parking areas suitable for valet parking use shall be the 32 spaces in the outdoor lot between the front entrance and Bayshore Highway and the 53 spaces at grade and out of doors in front of the parking garage on the Bayshore Highway side, and any change to the area used for valet parking shall require modification of this permit; 27. that the car rental operation at the Hyatt Hotel, 1333 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 7 am to 3 pm and 12 pm City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 13 to 6 pm 7 days a week (changed number of employees from one to two and increased hours by 14 hours per week), and that 8 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles on the first floor of the parking garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; 28. that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned or repaired on the Hyatt site; 29. that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to these operating limits shall require an amendment to this use permit; 30. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (June 1998) and every two years thereafter; 31. that all car rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 32. that the parking plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 5, 1997; Sheet A1.1 Site Plan, Sheet A1.2 Improvement Plan, Sheet A2.30(N) Parking Garage Level G1 & G2 Restriping Plan, A4.0 Control Lane Layouts, Sheet A2.31 (N) Parking Garage Level G3 & G4 Restriping Plan date stamped September 9, 1997, and Parking Revision pg. 1 and Parking Revision pg. 2 date stamped October 3, 1997; and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site or on the adjacent city property; 33. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 8, 1997 memo, Chief Building Official's September 15, 1997 memo, Senior Building Inspector's September 8, 1997, Traffic Engineer's and Senior Engineer's September 8, 1997 and October 6, 1997 memos shall be met; 34. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $2.00 per hour for the first hour, and $1.50 thereafter, any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 35. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided or site, their configuration and or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; and 36. that before charging for on-site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m. 9. 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE PARKING RATE AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (MICHAEL GALE, MARRIOTT HOTEL, APPLICANT; AND HMH SFO INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-six (36) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. Michael Gale, Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, represented the applicant. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:02 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 14 Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the parking lot circulation shall operate as shown n the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 26, 1999, Site Plan; 2. compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer’s memo of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide’s memo of April 5, 1982; 3. contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in the level of service at the intersection of one level; 4. maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; 5. development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; 6. contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the improvement of the City’s Sewage Treatment Plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; 7. pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates Traffic Assignment study for the project; 8. approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin-destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 9. provide signalization at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be necessary; 10. provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along El Portal Creek; 11. during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; 12. as part of the Title 24 survey, the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devises should be considered; 13. submit excavation procedures to protect public and private property and final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the City; 14. all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed in the City=s sanitary land fill as directed by the City; 15. receipt of permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 16. compliance with Mr. Edward Hope’s letter of March 19, 1982; 17. the project shall include a 14,000 SF ballroom/convention center in its first phase; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 15 18. the “footprint” as submitted by the developer shall be followed; 19. the project shall generally follow those plans date stamped March 31, 1982 and submitted to the Council; 20. that the car rental operation at the Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week, and that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 21. that 6 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles in the garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; there shall be no rental cars parked in the surface parking lot; 22. that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, washed or repaired on the Marriott site; 23. that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to the operating limits of the car rental use shall require an amendment to this use permit; 24. that before charging for on-site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage; 25. that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector=s September 9, 1997 memo, Fire Marshal=s August 25, 1997 and September 8, 1997 memos, Senior Civil Engineer’s September 11, 1997 memo, Traffic Engineer’s September 10, 1997 memo and the City Engineer’s September 22, 1997 memos shall be met and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site; 26. that storage in the parking garage shall be limited to areas permitted by the Burlingame Fire Department and not designated as parking spaces on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1&2); 27. that on-site security and patrol shall be provided; 28. that during construction all parking for construction equipment shall be provided on-site and a supervised program for on-site and off-site parking for construction workers shall be approved by the Department of Public Works; 29. that the hotel shall install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas and maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city; 30. that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet parking; 31. that any change to the operation of valet parking affecting the fee charge or the area used shall require modification of this use permit; 32. that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall not occur at this site (including “sleep, park & fly” promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $2.00 per hour for the first two hours, and $1.50 thereafter and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34. that 14 spaces remain on the site for the purpose of public access in the location indicated on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 16 plans date stamped February 19, 1999 (Sheets 1 & 2), and that these spaces shall be clearly marked as public access spaces and shall remain unrestricted (outside any parking control gating) and that no fee shall be charged for these spaces at any time; any revisions to these public access spaces require the permission of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prior to any alterations; 35. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 36. that this Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 10. ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: (NEWSPAPER NOTICE, SAN MATEO TIMES, 8/3/07) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE a. AMEND CHAPTER 26.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) TO ADD PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS TW AND ECN ZONING DISTRICTS b. AMEND CHAPTER 26.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS) TO ADD PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS TW AND ECN ZONING DISTRICTS Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. City Planner Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commission comments: ƒ Are pool enclosures counted towards open space? ƒ The ratio for allowable compact parking spaces is low. ƒ Should the reference to multi-family dwelling units be changed to multiple-dwelling? ƒ Wasn’t the requirement for maintaining the street wall on El Camino Real relaxed? City Planner Monroe responded that: pool enclosures are counted towards the open space requirement; it is not necessary to change the reference to multi-family dwelling units; the parking standards for compact spaces reflect current code standards, the use of compact spaces is an incentive to encourage affordable housing; the street wall requirement was relaxed everywhere but on the El Camino Real frontage; and the proposed revisions provide for the condominium approval to run with the map for a project. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:12 p.m. Commissioner Vistica moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an “ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING CHAPTERS 26.30 AND 26.32 TO MAKE CHAPTERS CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN) AND TROUSDALE WEST (TW) ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER CLARIFYING CHANGES”. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 17 11. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) AND EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN) ZONING DISTRICTS TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS. (NEWSPAPER NOTICE, SAN MATEO TIMES, 8/3/07) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. City Planner Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:16 p.m. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an “ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.40, AND 25.41 TO CORRECT HEIGHT LIMITATION STANDARDS TO MAKE CONSISTENT WITH NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE UNISTALL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITION”. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). This item concluded at 9:16 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 9:18 p.m. Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Will the entire house be re-stuccoed? ƒ Will trim around windows be foam with stucco? Prefer wood trim. ƒ Vinyl windows do not hold up over time and give the structure a tract house aesthetic. Prefer wood or wood clad windows. ƒ More detail and delineation of balcony railings is needed (for example, add wood base or wood trim). ƒ Interior side elevation has a lot of blank stucco space. Break down massing in this area of addition to help the design. ƒ Rear elevation is not as much of a problem; use similar treatment as that proposed to interior side and Kip Lane elevation. Add windows to liven up the rear elevation and break up massing. ƒ A lot of houses in the area are ranch style with a horizontal elevation. The proposed addition on this structure therefore looks somewhat tall. Address this, in part, by reducing the plate height on second floor to 8’-0”. ƒ Will the existing garage door remain, or will there be a new one? If proposing new door, recommend not using the same style that is there now. ƒ Add more “celebration of detail” to the proposed design. More enhancement is required. ƒ There is a general lack of detail and accuracy on the plans (for example, front railing and siding). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 18 ƒ Concern about the floor area and lot coverage. Would like to see a square footage reduced in anticipation of future modifications. Given proposed lot coverage and floor area, it would be difficult to add any additional space, like a rear deck, in the future. Public comments: Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame. Horizontal wood siding is existing finish and the predominant finish material on homes in the neighborhood and it would be out of character to replace the siding with stucco; replace the siding with similar siding on the sides facing the streets; the Monterey Pine trees at the corner naturally soften the affect of the proposed addition; the Commission should require protection of the trees during construction; recognize that people are often reluctant to speak publicly about a neighbor’s project and they quietly rely on the Planning Commission; the public can rely on the Planning Commission to maintain the character and consistency of neighborhoods. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Project should be sent to a design reviewer. ƒ If there is existing wood siding present on the home, it should be shown on the plans. It is an important component that should be preserved for compatibility with the neighborhood. ƒ Foam and stucco trim should not be used. ƒ Preserve the Monterey Pine trees; be careful during pruning; an arborist report may be needed. ƒ Revise drawings to accurately represent the existing conditions and the proposed revisions. ƒ Provide more articulation of the addition. ƒ Consider adding shutters. ƒ Reduce the second-floor plate height to 8’-1”. If the 9’-0” plate height was proposed to achieve high ceiling height in addition, ceiling could be vaulted instead. ƒ Include landscape plan; existing landscaping needs to be replaced with fresh materials; landscaping could soften the structure. ƒ Perhaps install ricking on front porch to match the existing chimney. ƒ Perhaps put family room below grade to eliminate stairway and reduce height of addition. Commissioner Auran moved to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:41 p.m. 13. 709 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (TERRY MARTIN, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRAD KLAAS, PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Staff was asked to clarify a note on Sheet A.6 referencing a “use permit dormer exception”. Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 9:43 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 19 Terry Martin, 45 East Main Street, Suite 13, Los Gatos represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ The application is fairly sound. ƒ Add window type (wood interior/clad exterior) to plans. ƒ Show detail of the base of the rear deck on the plans. ƒ The plans show an optional column or knee brace on the roof overhang over door. Make a choice and indicate on the plans. ƒ Show correct existing conditions on the plans. In particular, show windows correctly on plans. ƒ Left side elevation, keep with style of entryway, not sure if the proposed design (including oval windows) is compatible. ƒ Would like to see more vertical windows and less square windows. ƒ There is a problem with the second floor being 9-feet, especially when the existing floor 4’-0” above grade; the Commission has kept second floors to 8’ 1” in many instances; the ceiling could be vaulted if the plate height is lowered. ƒ Sliding doors dimension is not shown correctly. ƒ Call out materials and sizes, including material and size of belly band, posts, vents, pickets, knee braces, corbels, etc. ƒ Match existing exposed rafter tails on second floor. ƒ The garage may not be able to have eaves on the left and rear, due to the proximity to the property line. Could install an extension of the first rafter tail. ƒ A gable vent may not be permitted if too close to property line. ƒ The garage door looks good. ƒ Clarify whether the existing material on the fireplace will change. Plans should show what is existing and what is proposed. ƒ Divided light windows should be installed on addition to match existing windows. ƒ A bit concerned with the massing; a bit back-loaded. Would like the addition to engage the front of the house more. ƒ What is the rail treatment; clarify. ƒ Vents at gable ends look a bit small and should be larger. Public comments: Brad Klaas (property owner), 709 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, strongly objected to suggested modifications on second-floor plate height. Doesn’t feel that the Planning Commission has the authority to restrict plate height. This is not negotiable. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, referenced a situation a few meetings ago, where the applicant brought forward a 9-foot plate on top and bottom floor; the Commission gave the same direction. In that instance, there was a bit of a compromise made; however, it was a new house. This is an existing house; doesn’t feel that applicant would lose much with vaulted ceilings. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 10:08 p.m. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Action Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:11 p.m. 14. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USE AND FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING FOR NEW, FOUR-STORY, 66-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 20 ARCHITECT; AND THE YERBY COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER;) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 10:12 p.m. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 700, Burlingame, represented the applicant. A market study has identified a need for this type of use in area. Have met with an operator for the facility; has been designed with this input. Have considered surrounding uses in the design. Chair Deal and Commissioners Terrones, Osterling, Cauchi and Auran acknowledged, for the record, that they had met with the applicant’s representatives and the project architect in advance of tonight’s meeting. Commission comments: ƒ A shadow study would be important to determine the effect of potential developments on outdoor space on this site, as well as the effect this building will have on the houses behind it. ƒ A visual simulation should be required. ƒ Provide an analysis of parking requirements; particularly guest parking. ƒ How will the Fire Department access the property in an emergency? They may be there frequently for this type of facility. ƒ This use is necessary in the community. ƒ Design is nicely detailed; ƒ Because project is on California Drive, study what can be done to create one- or two-story elements along the front façade to reduce massing. ƒ Provide commentary on how flexible the construction system is for conversion to other usage over time. If inflexible to other uses, would like to know that now. The most sustainable buildings would be built to last 100 years or more, and be adaptable to other uses. ƒ Concern regarding traffic backing onto California Drive due to the gated entry to the parking. ƒ Applying the R-3 zoning works in many ways, but the front setback proposed is not characteristic of what’s happening on California Drive. It is also unique in that the properties have residential uses behind. ƒ Consider buffering the homes in the rear by moving the project forward on the site. Also look at one and two story approach in front, consider a porte cochere. ƒ Access to garage needs to accommodate delivery vehicles; the circle drive could alleviate some of the potential impacts. ƒ Is there a design solution that maintains a street wall. The 10-foot side setbacks may be flexible. ƒ Create a stronger connection between interior activity space and common open space. ƒ Perhaps too much repetition in relationship of design to fire station and train depot. ƒ Most interesting façade is at rear of building; perhaps carry treatment around building. ƒ Concern about air quality during construction to eliminate dust emissions and impacts on other uses in area. ƒ Perhaps plant coastal redwoods along back of property to provide growth during construction period (plant in advance). ƒ Indicate where kitchen and laundry vents exit the building. Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 10:42 p.m. Public comments: Toni Montgomery, 741 California Drive (Blue Ribbon Cleaners); Bob Frudenverg, 1109 Palm Drive; Katie Treu, 745 Neuchatel Avenue; Betsy McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Harold Coffee, 25 Amber Drive (owner of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 21 1210 Oak Grove Avenue); Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Keith and Lisa Tyree, 724 Neuchatel Avenue; all of Burlingame; and Darlene Wood, 4125 Blackford Avenue, San Jose; expressed concern regarding the impact of construction upon the neighboring dry cleaner use (particularly impact of dust/dirt); expressed concern regarding having people with dementia living in a facility on California Drive; the Fire Department already impacts available parking and traffic patterns on California Drive, their trucks are often lined up in the street; the existing sewer system is not adequate to support the use and already backs up into the street in the winter; would like to see new sewer line installed; garbage trucks will not be able to maneuver the driveway into the property; not enough room for delivery vehicles; concern about the height of the building and the shadow effect on adjacent properties; a petition was submitted in opposition to the project; noise of the project’s operations should be analyzed; the unusually tall building is out of context with the area and the quaint European neighborhood; aesthetics of neighborhood will be severely impacted; views of the Eucalyptus trees along California Drive will be lost from the neighboring residences; needs a better analysis of parking impacts; appears proposed parking cannot possibly be adequate during or after construction; how will bicycle and pedestrian traffic on California Drive be impacted by the project; circular driveway will impact pedestrian traffic; will bring down property values; and neighbors’ privacy will be impacted; should bring down height to three stories; specify use – is this a “british bedsit” or a convalescent home? Dale Meyer, project architect, clarified that the height of the building is 51’ 4”. The proposed operator of the facility also operates a facility near the police station on California Drive. Only one resident at that facility has a vehicle. Most people do not have vehicles and are 80 years old. Most people do not check in voluntarily. Parking to be used by staff and visitors. Parking count from operator; 1.5 people/hour visit. 8-9 people visit per day. There are some service people (nurses, doctors, etc.) that do arrive daily. Circle driveway at front will accommodate quick deliveries to reception area just inside front door; underground area is designed to accommodate larger delivery trucks (Federal Express, etc.) and garbage trucks. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Impacts on bicycle traffic should be analyzed. ƒ Evaluate adequacy of sewer system ƒ Expand noticing to everyone living on Neuchatel Avenue and ensure that the property owner to the left of the project site is noticed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 11:18 p.m. There was no motion made, as this item was an environmental scoping hearing. The item concluded at 11:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS Subcommittee Assignments: Chair Deal deferred discussion of subcommittee assignments until the next regular agenda. Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee – Review of Policy for On-Site Noticing: City Planner Margaret Monroe reviewed report on the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee’s review of the proposed on-site noticing policy. Commission comments: ƒ Need to address posting on buildings that don’t have ground to drive the sign into. ƒ Some members indicated opposition to the proposal; others felt that it adds another layer of noticing that could address instances where interested parties aren’t normally notified. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 13, 2007 22 ƒ Developers should be encouraged to talk to the neighbors. Action on the item was deferred until all members of the Commission are present to participate in the discussion. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Review of Actions from City Council Meeting: There was no City Council meeting since the prior Commission meeting. Other Items: Community Development Director Meeker indicated that this was City Planner Monroe’s last Planning Commission meeting as she is retiring. FYI: 1255 Bernal Avenue: Requested Changes to a Previously Approved Design Review Project No action. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Vice-Chair