HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.11.08MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
November 8, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coffey called the November 8, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
. PPROVAL OF AGENDA
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY ITEMS
Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey
Commissioner Dreiling: Commission extended congratulations to Martin and Debbie
on the birth of their son.
City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank
Erbacher; Planner, Maureen Brooks
The minutes of the October 25, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as
mailed.
J
It was noted for the record that Items 9 through 15 are Action Items. The order of
the agenda was approved.
There were no public comments.
APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION AT 924 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (SHANE SPIEGELMAN AND LYNN
HAWTHORNE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from this action because of a business
relationship with the applicant. The commissioners asked: noted one bedroom is about 9.5 feet by 9.5 feet, do other
cities have a minimum bedroom size or is there one in Burlingame. There were no further questions from the
commission and the item was set for the consent calendar at the meeting of November 22, 1999.
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1535 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LUIS
MORGAN, JPS HOMES, APPLICANT AND GREG MITCHELL- PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: the applicant should address the hardship
.ding for the side setback variance; would like additional information on the window detail are they planning all the
windows to be plain glass without mullions, mullions would help the scale of the structure; is the applicant addressing
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
providing more landscaping at the rear, if so needs to submit a plan; are the small windows on the left elevation glass
block; the applicant should describe what will remain when the demolition is finished and therefore why the need for
variance; staff should clarify the present height of the structure and that of the proposed project; in terms of design
,dch side of the house "acts on its own", since all the siding is going to come off why could not the four sides be unified
with similar materials; design reviewer noted in one place that there would not be much additional impact as viewed
from Skyline but in another place noted that the remodeled structure would be very visible and have a large impact from
Skyline, please ask for clarification. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing at the
meeting of November 22, 1999, providing all the information requested is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 831 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-2. (RANDY GRANGE,
TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND JIM BALEIX AND ED RYMSHA, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. The
item was placed on the consent calendar, for the November 22, 1999 meeting.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN FROM SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 33 PARCELS BOUNDED BY ROLLINS ROAD,
TOYON AVENUE, LINDEN AVENUE AND LARKSPUR AVENUE; AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARCEL
MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-STORY, 12-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 949-965 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3. (RONALD
A. PERNER, APPLICANT AND W.J. BRITTON & CO.- PROPERTY OWNER)
.. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report for both the planning approval and maps and the commissioners asked:
this is the first large proposal on this block, have the applicants considered reducing it because of the proximity to the
single family houses behind; no windows on the sides of the structure make it odd looking commercial; concerned about
the lack of guest parking, can park on only one side of Rollins in this area; there is very little storage within the units,
where will the residents put storage, concerned because do not want the decks to become storage areas; the van
accessible parking space does not look as if it will work because of the near by column in the way; concerned about the
design resembling a box; plans were not clear, could not find the balconies/decks on the elevations; the absence of
windows on the sides of the building give it a commercial appearance; this project is proposed at the maximum 35 feet
allowed, ask the applicant to provide the height of the other buildings on the block and of the houses behind fronting
on Linden; what is the height to the top of the elevator parapet; what is the square footage of storage per dwelling unit,
need to add more; metal awnings and poles make the project appear cold, reconsider; does the city have a requirement
for guest parking, where should guest parking be put, it cannot be put in the public right-of-way; how does the applicant
justify two driveways for access/egress instead of one, is it safer, Rollins Road is a busy street; deliveries to this site will
be a problem, there is no place for a truck to stop, parking is a problem and the traffic is heavy on Rollins Road, what
does the applicant plan to do; the large boxy design of the building does not respond to the context of the neighborhood;
would like to have the applicant get comments from the neighbor to the rear; greatest need is parking, meet code but
just minimum in other similarly sized project have 3 guest parking spaces; what was the rational for putting the
' *ones for the units at the rear on the sides of the building instead of on the rear of the building. There were no other
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on November 22, 1999, if all of the requested
information is provided to the staff in a timely manner.
. &PLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO
APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1411
CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B-1 (JOSEPH KARP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: am unclear on the size of the access
easement, the width of the building at the front is 36-10" and at the rear is 31'-6" remainder of site does not seem to
work with easement dimensions, please clarify easement size; concerned about parking, how will the city benefit from
the applicant providing the easement when the city needs to provide the back up area for the applicant to get any
parking; applicant does not know the number of employees, could they take up all of Lot B-1 and then the public would
not be able to use the lot; present plan removes all landscaping, want to see landscaping incorporated into this project;
if the city did grant this project and received the access easement, what would happen if the city sold parking lot B-1,
would we have a building without any parking; what is the size of the office building at 1422 Chapin, what were its
parking requirements, and how were they met; clarify the effect on Lot B-1 of the encroachment permit granted to the
Garden Center, where will the display cases be situated; need additional information on the plans, show existing parking
lot configuration, landscaped area removed, new area becoming parking; encourage the applicant to research use of
"uni-stall" parking in this proposal, would it make it possible to make up missing parking space and add landscaping;
concerned about parking right up against the building, how prevent damage, more efficient to provide a landscaped
buffer area, may need to reduce building area to achieve; can the variance for parking go with the building and not with
the land so that the parking lot is not encumbered permanently; what is the height of the adjacent buildings, especially
the Garden Center; why was glass block used on the north elevation of the building instead of regular fenestration.
ommissioners questions continued: concerned about using city property to enhance development, mentioned policy
used for Saks project, did not favor this concept then; how big is the building description, says 8289 SF plans say 8189
SF which is correct; Sheet Al notes 36 parking spaces provided where 27 required, do not agree with counting the city
parking lot; Lot B-1 has 9 parking spaces now, when make perpendicular plans show 13 why staff report say 10; can
this office space be used by real estate tenants; do a study which shows parking and structure on -site so can see
comparison, could get parking on grade with two stories of building above, would like to see parking layout and building
square footage; this use of city parking lot allows a bigger building than if it stood alone; the parking studies referred
to in January and September 1998 were done when 1420 Burlingame Avenue was vacant and before Molly Stone
opened, there has been a marked decrease in available parking in this area since Molly Stone opened, applicant should
address; applicant should respond to the City Engineer's comments especially note that the city can make the lot
perpendicular parking without the applicant's help as well as responding to numbers 2, 3, 4 in the memo; what was the
circumstance of the dedication of 25 feet at the front of the project site for widening Chapin Ave.; need to be more
explicit about the rational for each variance; concerned about the lack of landscaping; when a project asks for 5
variances there is often something wrong with the project, how can you have a successful project without 5 variances.
There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on November 22, 1999,
providing all the information was submitted to staff in time for preparation of the staff report.
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A NEW GROUND SIGN AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2,
SUBAREA D. (BILL GIFFORD. APPLICANT AND JOE PUTNAM- PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: how tall is the pole sign in place now; is
`he new sign proposed to be at the same height; how will the sign be illuminated; what is the reason for the 2 foot
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
opening at the bottom of a ground sign. There were no further questions and the item was set on the consent calendar
at the November 22, 1999, providing all the information is provided in time for the staff report.
.PPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 778
BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4. (O. MASON HURST, II, ALAMO RENT -A -CAR, INC., APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: how many cars will be brought from the
airport for maintenance, are they included in the 400 which will be stored on -site; what is the expected time frame for
increasing from 10 car rentals a day to 100 car rentals; is it possible to have a guaranteed monthly fee to the city based
on 100 cars rented a day. CA Anderson noted that the 1 % in addition to the sale tax on the contracts written in
Burlingame was a voluntary contribution suggested by Alamo; what were the number of daily rentals before January
1999; what is the number of deliveries of new cars to the site over a given time period e.g. daily, weekly, monthly; what
is the landscaping requirement for this site, do they currently meet it; is the storage of cars the highest and best use of
this site; ask applicant to provide a table comparing the 1994 operation under that conditional use permit with the one
proposed now, including number of cars on -site, number of contracts written, number of cars maintained and number
of cars stored, etc. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing
on November 22, 1999, providing all the information requested is submitted to staff in a timely manner.
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA OF SIGNS AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BAY
PARK PLAZA ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER)
rP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: what is the size and height of the Forbes
gn on the other building on this site; what is the size and type of face on the Forbes sign, did it require a sign exception;
does the applicant have to make this sign so large, would he put up a temporary sign which is 75% of the proposed sign
so the commission could judge the size, seeing on drawing is one thing, the reality often looks much bigger; the Forbes
building has one sign, Crossworld is requesting 2, why not request one at a more visible location; concerned about the
height of the letters. There were no further questions from the commissioner and the item was set for public hearing
on November 22, 1999, provided the needed information is provided in time for preparation of the staff report.
ACTION ITEMS
REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES FOR
EXISTING 5 BEDROOM HOUSE, LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR AN 80 SF SECOND STORY ADDITION AND 231 SF FIRST
STORY ADDITION TO REMODEL AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REPLACE
A DETACHED CARPORT WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1610 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT
AND RHONDA HOCKER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 25,
1999
Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from
'ie commission.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. The applicants architect, Michele Woodruff -Wilson, 1800 Bear Gulch Road,
Woodside, submitted a letter from Frank Pagliaro, a neighbor across the street in support of the project, he noted that
.ie proposed garage is consistent with the neighborhood and asked for approval. There were no further comments from
the public and the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: existing carport is an eyesore, can support new garage on side, unfortunate cannot incorporate
2-car garage, but there is no room, support new garage, cannot support increase in FAR for the sun porch, don't see a
hardship, want to improve aesthetics, but house is already over FAR, new garage does increase FAR, but is needed, but
to add a sun porch is not a hardship; notion of 4 variances puts a flag up that something is not quite right, this is a nice
solution for the parking; design reviewer recommends approval, in terms of the architecture, agree, but it takes more than
correct design to make a good project, there are issues to be addressed with respect to excess FAR; swimming pool in
the wrong place does not constitute a hardship for increasing FAR; justification for parking and declining height envelope
variances are based on existing conditions, difficult to make same findings for sun room.
C. Deal moved approval of the variance for setback for a one -car garage, for declining height envelope and for floor area
ratio for the garage, and denial of the floor area ratio variance for the second floor sun room addition, by resolution, with
the conditions in the staff report, with the added condition that if this structure were torn down and a new 5-bedroom
house built, then a two car garage shall be provided and all setbacks shall be met. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
On the motion: variance for one -car garage is justified because it is based on an existing condition, house is now 5
bedrooms, very little area left to place garage, there is no alternative to the 6" side setback for garage; the declining height
envelope variance is for replacement of an architecturally improved roof encroachment that existed before; commissioners
noted that by approving this, they will not have an opportunity to see the change to the rear elevation, not necessary to
�o back through design review, applicant has done a nice job with the architecture, trust that will continue the quality
with this change; look at it differently, this is an architectural treasure, taken it in right direction, see FAR variance
differently, house is now nonconforming in FAR, if 1 SF is added would need a variance, would be willing to support
FAR variance for sun room; 80 SF added to rear would have no impact on neighborhood, contributes to architectural
design; solidly in favor of design, removal of the sun room will enhance it even more; are we granting an aesthetic
variance, findings require a bit more than that; can a condition be added that the variances are granted based on existing
conditions, if existing condition changes the variance does not continue for example if pool is removed or structure
substantially remodeled. CA Anderson advised that such a condition has been developed for the side setback based on
previous commission discussions on this issue, states that the reason variance is granted is based on existing conditions
on the site, and does not carry on if existing structure is demolished or substantially removed; the motion was amended
to include a condition that the other exceptions granted would not continue if existing structure is demolished or
substantially removed.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 6, 1999,
Sheets 1, and 3 through 9; 2) that the left side setback variance is permitted only for construction of the garage, all other
portions of the structure shall meet the side setback requirements; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first
or second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official's September 20, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's September 20, 1999 memo shall be met; 5) that the
variances for declining height envelope, floor area ratio, side setback and for number of parking spaces are being granted
',ecause of a pre-existing condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to correct or
.emove as part of remodel; however, this condition could probably have been corrected if the structure were demolished
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
and replaced; should the existing dwelling be demolished, the variances approved for declining height envelope, floor area
ratio, side setback and for number of parking spaces shall automatically expire, and the owner may apply for a new
-iance or may improve the property so that it conforms to the Zoning Code requirements for declining height envelope,
.,00r area ratio, setbacks and parking. In this case, "demolishe(f" means removal of greater than ten (10) percent or more
in square footage of the exterior walls than was approved in the design review application; and 6) that 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 approved by a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE
AT 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R 1. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI NADEEV,
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Bojues stated
that he will abstain from this item because he lives within 300' of the property. He stepped down from the dais.
Commissioners asked: what the allowable area is for a two -car garage. CP Monroe noted that the maximum area for
a detached garage is 600 SF, the minimum needed for 2 cars is 20' x 20' interior dimensions, about 400 SF. There were
no further questions from the commission.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Andy Harader, architect representing the applicant, stated that he would like
to reiterate the changes made since study: the roof height was lowered, the roof ridge leveled to match neighborhood,
the roof pitch was lowered, the upper level mass was minimized, balcony and columns were removed, windows were
installed to light upper hallway, changed to a hip roof, added landscaping, used wood casement windows to match
ighboring structures to harmonize with the look of neighborhood, no variances requested, all issues addressed;
submitted 5 letters in support from adjacent neighbors, at addresses 1132, 1140, 1160 and 1170 Vancouver and 2028
Carmelita; did a survey study, angle of substantion is less on this house than on many houses in neighborhood; though
issue raised was mass, the new setback is 10' greater than exists now, will enhance the look of neighborhood.
Commissioner questions: project has been through design review several times, each time applicant changed some aspects,
but house is still not compatible with neighborhood; need help to understand what happened, how were things addressed,
what thought processes went into design, seems like a series of knee jerk responses; is top of roof flat or is it 4/12 pitch
across, shown different in site plan, there are no flat roofs or concrete tile roofs in area, project is a programmed response,
given a lot of direction, project is still not there yet.
Applicant response: there is house recently constructed in neighborhood that is reflected in this design, windows similar,
has addressed specific issues of design reviewer, dealt with the scale, style of house, dealt with setbacks, considered how
it will look from side yard; noted portion of roof is flat.
Commissioner comments: since we saw this at study it is a whole lot better, closer to what we're looking for, but think
that if it were to be worked on a little more, could get closer to style of neighborhood; this style comes from newer, less
expensive developer type house, in this neighborhood looking for more historic style; beauty is in eye of beholder, but
there are things still unresolved on this plan, inconsistencies in roof plan, and with one roof to the elevations, should be
corrected, in terms of mass and scale, very close to good project, attention to detail would help; reference older
architectural style which is more eclectic, don't look at more recent 1980's styles.
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
In opposition: Sheila Reed, 1112 Vancouver Avenue, Erin Przybocki, 1104 Vancouver, James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver,
Mike Buettner and Vicky Laury, 1115 Bernal; our home is one of few which has not been remodeled, concerns are with
-ivacy new large windows in living areas opposite our bedrooms; home built in 1924, Cape Cod style, moved here
.,ecause of charm of neighborhood, proposal's modern style clashes with older homes, new home would tower over
adjoining homes and windows intrude on living areas of our house, would like revision, agree with commissioners, should
make home compatible with neighborhood; as is, will stick out like sore thumb; addresses submitted of those in favor are
from far end of block; new houses in area should not serve as model; concerned about bulk; does not conform with
neighborhood; back of house will face directly into our house, concern with privacy.
Applicant response: in one case, people are accustomed to convenience of no growth, house will be an improvement,
can't appease everybody, can add trees, vines, shades to address privacy concerns. There were no further comments from
the public and the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: suggest applicant and designer look at neighborhood, it is a distinct neighborhood, don't want
to see stamped out homes; can't tell somebody that you can't have a second story, but should have applicant work with
neighborhood regarding alignment of windows; floor plan could change to change overall appearance on exterior, location
of the house and garage are fine; very evident what is consistent with Easton Addition architecture; Cape Code, Tudor,
Bungalow; trying to make sure project is compatible, cannot support; there is great improvement from first to second
proposal, most of commissioners questions addressed, it's getting there, flat roof with tile does not match neighborhood,
look at materials; small lots can't guarantee privacy, but window placement can be more proportionate; instead of stucco,
use wood siding or stone; main concern was with mass and bulk, have seen improvement; are inconsistencies in drawings,
which will affect several parts of exterior and make it difficult to build what is shown.
C. Vistica moved denial without prejudice of the project. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
On the motion: appears applicant is changing elements, but not changing architectural approach, house still doesn't fit
in neighborhood, designer needs to focus on materials, presence of home.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion was passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C.
Bojues abstaining and C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE
PARKING AREA FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1009 BURLINGAME AVENUE,
ZONED R-3. (FRANK PANACCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER
13 1999 AND OCTOBER 25 1999
C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant which exceeded $200 and would abstain from this
item. He stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission
discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions from the commission.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. The applicant, Frank Panacci, 1664 Foothill Park Circle, noted that they are
asking for a variance for parking maneuvers, variance for landscaping because of required width of driveway, this is a
narrow parcel, hard to develop a proposal without variances; project is close to public transportation, regarding parking
maneuvers, two are affect, these stalls would be for guests and deliveries, one can exit in 3 maneuvers if you back into
*he stalls..
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
Commissioners asked what type of window and trim is proposed. The applicant responded that windows would be either
wood or wood clad trim.
uI opposition: Steve and Ann -Tina Barisone, 1007 Burlingame Avenue, own and live in apartment building next door to
site; concern with the large garage openings on east side of building, noise and fumes would be funneled between the two
buildings, noise already gets funneled there, would increase; have living rooms and bedrooms that face in that direction;
concerned with building height and articulation of architecture, would like it to fit the decor of the rest of the street, be
compatible with neighborhood; other apartment buildings are like cottages, this building looks like a commercial building,
it could be changed to conform, could be 2-story. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was
closed.
Commissioners asked: have the code requirements for garages changed. CP Monroe noted that existing garages next
door are nonconforming because they back out onto the street, current coded does not allow backing out for multi -family,
must exit in a forward direction.
Commission comments: gave direction to mimic apartments next door, would have been an asset, could ask for a variance
to back out on to street; has an urban feel with garage in front, could be two stories above but should follow those lines,
this proposal mimics El Camino apartments with cantilever, would like to get away from that; would like to see more
articulation on east and west elevation, doesn't blend well with existing structures, could extend redwood siding; do not
have problem with parking variance, there is a hardship since the lot is only 35' wide; would rather see maneuvering on -
site entering street in forward direction; neighbor's concern with open wall should be addressed, doesn't have to match
adjacent two buildings, this architectural solution is close, will work with more articulation, suggest break in material to
break up east and west elevations, like to see something with heavier texture such as shingle siding, substantial overhangs
with braces; see this project as maximizing everything with minimum parking, not concerned with maneuvers as much
, with number of parking spaces, no parking for delivery vehicles, important that landscaping be provided to code;
parking meets code, wouldn't be expecting a lot of deliveries for 3 units, parking is sufficient, maneuvers can be justified
by narrowness of lot.
C. Luzuriaga moved denial of the project, without prejudice with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
On the motion: would love to see project mimic ones in neighborhood with garages backing on street, if not, add more
detail to structure, enclose garage to avoid cantilever look, current application is not in format to support; still feel
strongly about landscaping, should meet code.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion was passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C.
Deal abstaining and C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
BUILDING AT 508 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (ROGER WONG, SJ SUNG & ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND SJ SUNG, PROPERTY OWNERI
A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
-nd Planning Department comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
I staff from the commission.
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing on both the condominium permit and the tentative condominium map. Roger
Wong, architect, 1246 - 38th Avenue, San Francisco, noted that as a result of the study meeting, major revisions were
,ade to the design; provided exhibit to illustrate design, photographs of existing block showing existing one-story
_-sidential unit and neighboring taller multiple family buildings; are replacing one story residence with 3-unit residential
condominium between 2 boxy apartment buildings; street is a commercial/residential mix, design ties elements of the two;
had asked why we hadn't proposed bigger trees, chose redbud to provide color accents and considered height of tree
because of existing power lines.
Commission questions: noted that in design, incorporated elements of residential and multiple family, what are those
elements and how incorporated; would like to see more storage, could some be provided in garage.
The applicant responded that the design is more contemporary, is valid because buildings in this location do not have
strong historic fabric, tried to mimic massing, scale and proportions of adjacent buildings rather than shapes, architectural
features; open to idea of storage in garage, but concerned that would encourage parking spaces to be used for storage
and car repair within garage space, if can allow per code will consider.
CA Anderson noted that the CCR's already deal with the issue of storage and car repair in parking spaces, and that could
also be added as a condition.
In opposition: Phil Kaulfield, 10 Clarendon Road, concerned with privacy at his single family house, now flanked by two
3-story apartment buildings, afraid will create an amphitheater in back yard. There were no further comments from the
public and the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: dramatic improvement over last submittal, for storage, can only be put above hood of car, might
; a good place to put it; feel has done adequate job of addressing neighborhood, this is not single family design review,
not asking for variances; architect said this doesn't have particular style, is correct, but it does work, this is a heavy traffic
corridor, modern is appropriate, applicant did address previous concern with roof balconies and removed; when R-1
adjoins R-3, larger buildings will be adjacent.
C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, as
follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
October 13, sheets T-1, C-1, L-1, A-1 through A-10 and Tentative Condominium Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped
October 27, 1999); 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area and/or floor
area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning
Commission; 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 56.94' (33'-10"
maximum building height) as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Peninsula Avenue (23.11'),
and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing
proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point
it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure to the highest point on the roof shall not exceed
the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 29, September
30, and September 20 1999 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 16, 1999 memo and the Parks Director's August 18, 1999
memo shall be met; 5) that one (1) guest parking stall (9'x20') shall be designated at the rear of the site and marked on
the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, used for any kind of on -site storage including vehicles, or
enclosed in any way, but shall be owned, posted, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium
association and signs directing visitors and delivery trucks to the guest parking shall be posted by the driveway and
marked on the pavement as approved by the City Engineer; 6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate
occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 7) that the developer shall provide the initial
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual whict
shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties of
iarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,
utcluding but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 8) that the on grade parkin€
garage and stalls shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association_
to provide parking to residents of each unit at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of
any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or
utilities; 9)that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the
required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements
before a building permit is issued; 10) that if a gate system is installed across the driveway, there shall be an intercom
system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guest access to their site by pushing a button inside
their units; 11) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and 12) that this project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Commissioners asked staff if there can be storage above parking spaces, and if a sump pump is required. CP Monroe
noted that the minimum clearance above a parking space is seven feet, not a lot of room for storage area and CE has been
concerned with such storage making it hard for some vehicles to be parked in the stalls. CE Ehrbacher noted that there
is no underground garage for this proposal, and no sump pump is required.
On the motion: code does not allow storage under stairs, not enough room above parking; this is a better project than
;fore, no variance requested, in favor of project.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report.. The
motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
C. Luzuriaga moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Condominium map as submitted. The motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) vote.
APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND
PARKING AT 1237-1241 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (ANIIR SHAHMI ZA, APPLICANT AND
LAP -KIT AND CHO-RAE CHEUNG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT
'eference staff report, 11,08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
. nd Planning Department comments. Twenty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked
Ful
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
staff if disabled accessible requirements could be met within the units of this project, staff responded that they could be
met at the time plans were prepared for the building permit since meeting them would not affect the footprint of the
•iilding. There were no more questions of staff.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Amir Shahmirza, 10 Rollins Road, Millbrae, represented the project. He noted
that all the dwelling units could be made disabled accessible and this was required because of the elevator. He went on
to note that they felt that they had resolved all the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. The key
issue was bulk, they had maximized the setbacks where 9 feet was required provided 16 feet on the north side and 10 feet
on the south side; 16-8" at the front and 2 P at the rear so the allowable width of the structure is 86' and they propose
81', and the building has 29% less volume than would be allowed under the code, for these reasons they felt that they have
addressed the bulk of the building; 24 parking spaces are required they are providing 27 and they have increased the
parking on the street by eliminating one driveway; they evaluated the sewer problem which the neighbor has and they will
help solve it, although the study showed that there was enough capacity in the existing line to accommodate their project.
Commission discussion with applicant: where would delivery trucks stop since there is no space on the street. Applicant
responded that there is a 16 foot wide driveway adjacent to the neighbors driveway, for a total of 35 feet, it would also
be acceptable to the applicant if a space on the street was designated for deliveries; commissioner noted wanted a space
on -site which would not block the driveway or sidewalk, that was the reason delivery access was mentioned early on in
project review. Still not addressed. Seems to be some change in the project which affected its volume but not its
appearance -what was done; pushed the building back to add space between the property line and garage wall for planting,
reduced the rear setback to compensate, adjusted the foundation wall of the garage to provide some "corners" for planting
trees; the building then is the same size, just shifted on the site; yes. Did change the outside and broke up the north
elevation. Asked several times for you to compare the proposed 12 unit residential condominium project to putting a
condominium on each of the two lots, you responded by comparing project to two apartment buildings (one on each site)
lowing a total of 14 units for the two sites together, this is not what asked for since condominium requirements for open
space etc. are greater so density would be different, would still like to have this comparison because feel that combining
the lots allows an intensification of the number of units which can be placed on the site; applicant responded that
condominium is preferable because fewer people generally live in owner -occupied units and would still have the issue of
bulk with two buildings; commission and council asked for additional landscaping but only moved front wall of building
small amount; yes; but moved garage wall more, before it was 8 inches from property line now it is 2'-4", and there is
another 1'-6" to the inner edge of the sidewalk.
Speaking in support of the project: Charles Wilson, 815 San Diego Road, Berkeley, landscape architect, and John
Kokas, friend of the applicant who has lived in area many years; responded to questions about the potential health of the
proposed trees; three large trees are proposed between the sidewalk and the garage, the proposed species will do well
in the deep soil area, trees are also proposed to be placed next to the building in the jogs in the parking garage where there
is deep soil; will these trees do well? they will grow like any street tree, the roots will extend under the paving, it is not
uncommon for trees to be planted like this. Am not concerned about deliveries, the driveway from the street to the garage
is long enough to get off the street and still leave room for another vehicle to get by, two buildings one on each lot will
look more massive than proposal. Commission clarified that issue was not increasing mass by combining lots but
increasing the density (number of units) by combining the lots; applicant responded; do not see that the project will
impact traffic and parking to any extent, people who live in this area bought knowing that it was a high density area.
Speaking in opposition: John Taylor, 839 Crossway, Shane Daugherty, 1251 Capuchino: own apartment next door,
problem with sewer, even recently, don't think it will take 20-30 more toilets; the new sewer line mentioned at the last
-neeting on Capuchino and El Camino does not go through to Lincoln so will not help this project; CE Erbacher
Aentioned that after most recent back up did TV study of line, looked to be in good shape, the capacity is there but the
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999
problem is that the line is flat so at times of low flow grease collects, glob of grease problem in last back up; would an
8 inch line help, no the larger the line the flatter the bottom and slower the flows, so would accumulate grease more easily;
-,)uld backflow devices be installed; CE don't know; to CE is 15 foot driveway wide enough for a FedEx truck and a car
_J pass, don't think so because both will have to maneuver. This building is too big for the neighborhood, because it is
zoned R-3 does not mean that it has to be 3 stories; he and neighbors prefer condominium to rental, but opposed to
project size; there is a project on Paloma with a below grade parking area that is full of stored stuff and no cars, CA noted
can include prohibition of storage in CC and R's but city does not police to be sure using area for parking; traffic will be
a problem, can the city take site for a local park.
Amir Shahmirza, applicant responded, saw chairs and other things in parking at other sites they will try to avoid this
happening; feel that this project is a plus for the community and neighborhood; can promise that the neighbors will be
proud of what is built. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: generally in favor of increasing density in areas close to retail, but this is an extreme attempt,
this is the same project denied not long ago, same size, same bulk relocated on the site, too large then same now; have
a problem with the deliveries issue, need to deal with it directly not block the driveways, hard to support; did reduce the
basement some and prepared a sewer report, but deliveries have been an issue identified from the beginning and not
addressed, the mass is to great -need to drop a couple of units, this will be the only building on the block that size;
applicant did not respond to the direction of either the Planning Commission or Council, both directed that there was too
much mass, they did not address concerns, cannot support. Two apartment houses on this street only two stories, across
the street single family residences, this does not fit in the neighborhood, does not need to be so big, moving it back inches
will not work need to reduce the bulk, parking and traffic are a problem on this street. This section on Capuchino has
not been developed yet, this project will take all the capacity, the area is built up, its is a one-way street, no parking now,
the area is impacted, do not see necessity of having off-street deliveries can put up with blocking driveway for short time.
C. Deal moved to deny the project without prejudice for the reasons stated in the public hearing and by the
commissioners. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on the motion: does this mean that can resubmit more or less as it is, we've been through that with the project
before; CA noted that if deny city planner will need to determine that the resubmitted project has been substantially
changed from this project before brought back to Commission. C. Deal agreed to amend the motion to a denial. C.
Bojues, the second, agreed to the amendment.
Comment on the motion: have a hard time approving a three unit residential condominium on a substandard lot with
variances and then deny a project on a double lot that meets all the standards on properly zoned land; the project does
impact the single family houses but the area has always been zoned R-3 and will have some impact on these houses
eventually; need more dwelling units in this area to benefit the merchants and close to transportation; this project provides
more parking than all the other apartments on the street; deliveries can be accommodated, will vote no on denial.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C.
Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
CE Erbacher noted that the commission also needed to act on the recommendation to Council on the Tentative Map for
the project. He noted that the map had been included in the public hearing on the project.
12
City ojBurlingamePlanning Commission Minutes November8, 1999
C. Deal moved to recommend denial of the tentative map and condominium map for the project at 1237-1241 Capuchino
Avenue. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the map.
—he motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Dreiling absent) voice vote.
APPLICATION FOR FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT
51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (MANSSUR AFLAK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed the staff report for the final map at 51 El
Camino Real. He noted that construction of this project was complete and the CE recommended approval of this map.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved to recommend the Final Map for the residential condominium at 51 El Camino Real to the City
Council for approval. C. Vistica. seconded the motion. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote.
APPLICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE USE, REZONING FROM THE C-1, SUBAREA A ZONE
DISTRICT TO THE C-1, SUBAREA B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
A REAL ESTATE OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 320 - 350
PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (PRIMROSE PLAZA PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
A Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions
of staff.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Mike Wood, 232 Jerry Lane, Hillsborough, representing the building's
management group, spoke noting that a bank has been at this location for 27 years, now they are following the trends in
banking and reducing the space they occupy in the building, the real estate use would like to expand but they too are non-
conforming on the first floor. The building and site are immediately adjacent to area with the proper zoning and General
Plan designation for this use change. The zoning change is more consistent with the use of the building since it was built
in 1972 and the zoning has been changed since. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica noted The General Plan Amendment, the site is adjacent to area of the requested land use and zoning
designation and request was consistent with the current use of the building and the zoning for B-1 was more appropriate
with the use, so moved to recommend the Negative Declaration, General Plan amendment and the rezoning from Subarea
A to Subarea B-1 to City Council for their consideration; and moved approval of the conditional use permit with
conditions as stated in the staff report for the 2000 SF expansion of the real estate use on the first floor of the building,
acknowledging the corresponding 2000 SF reduction in financial institution on the first floor, both actions by resolution.
The conditions of approval were: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped October 5, 1999, Sheets P-1; 2) that the real estate office may not be open for business
except during the hours of 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 9:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. on weekends,
with no more than 28 employees on -site at any one time; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October
1999 memo shall be met; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
J98 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1999
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Negative Declaration, General Plan amendment,
and rezoning to City Council for their consideration and to approve the conditional use permit for an increase in real
+ate use on the first floor of the building. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) vote.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe briefly summarize the actions taken at the City Council meeting on November 1, 1999,
C. Deal responded to the letter from a number of residents on Davis Drive, asked to put the matter of basements
and calculating FAR on the next commission agenda for discussion. Commission concurred.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Coffey adjourned the meeting at 11.44 p.m., in memory of Senior Engineer Syed Murtuza's father, who passed
away last week.
M111.8
14