Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.04.27REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 27, 1998 7:00 P.M. Chair Key called the April 27, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Key Absent: Commissioners Mink and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES C. Galligan moved approval of the minutes of the April 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting with a correction on p. 7, line 24, "a prior business relationship" . C. Deal seconded ann the motion carried on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted Items #10 and #11, 51 El Camino Real, are continued to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 526 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT MACOMBER JR., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: it appears that practically every wall will be changed by this remodel, except the garage, why not demolish the entire structure and build according to the code; do they have an estimate of the increase in cost of demolition/reconstruction vs. the proposed project. There were no further questions and the project was set for public hearing on May 11, 1998. -1- City of BwGngame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, 34-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND TOP TOYO LOTUS CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE STORY, 34- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND TOP TOYO LOTUS CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commission asked: how close to the property line is the parking garage at the back; need more information about the rear parking area, is it underground, does it have proper fire exiting; the two parking spaces outside of the garage are for disabled accessible spaces, therefore, in reality there are only two guest parking spaces available and they are both inside the garage, not enough guest parking for 34 units on El Camino; project plans do not show any storage areas for the units and there is little storage incorporated into the units themselves, where can more be provided; where will the hot water heaters and furnaces be located; concerned about single access into/out of project at El Camino, prefer the two driveway alternative with each driveway being one way only; what were the reasons for not using the access onto Almer Road; no provision has been made for a loading zone or place for delivery vehicles or moving vans to stop, where will trucks go; the feasibility of placing bicycle racks in the garage should be investigated so people do not have to take them up the elevators; would like to see the minutes for the previous residential project reviewed for this site; would like the project returned to study rather than taken to action, a number of issues to review; question the traffic study, the trip generation numbers for 34 units seem very low, demographics of who would live in this type of unit should be determined and incorporated into trip generation estimates; could additional guest parking which is ungated be put at the rear off Almer; the Chair of the Beautification Commission has asked if the over head power lines in front of the site on El Camino and on the Almer street frontage could be undergrounded as a part of this projects requirements, could this issue be addressed. The Commission concurred that the project would be returned to them on a study agenda with an environmental determination. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MORTGAGE COMPANY) WITH FRONTAGE ON CHAPIN AVENUE AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1. (NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC., APPLICANT AND CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. The item was set for public hearing on May 11, 1998. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE STORAGE FOR HERTZ CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND SEVEN SPRINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the Commission asked the following questions: when did the car rental storage use at this location begin; why did they not apply for a conditional use permit before they began the use; is Hertz using any other sites in this area or in Burlingame for car rental storage; how are the cars parked within the designated area; where are the keys to the parked cars kept; the physical condition of Adrian Road is very poor, the increase in traffic caused by this use does not help the road's condition, how are the cars delivered and picked up, one at a time or by car transporters; where are the contracts for the rental of these cars written, is there any revenue to Burlingame for this use; how will this use affect the required parking for the tenants who already have more employees on the site than striped parking spaces; will Hertz pay for maintaining the street; if the use is intended to be short term there should be a condition on the permit limiting the use to a short term; how will security be provided to the cars, will animals be used for security. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing on May 11, 1998, provided all the answers could be compiled by then. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR EXISTING SIDE SETBACKS AND THE EXISTING GARAGE DIMENSION FOR A REMODEL AND A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2133 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND DOUGLAS AND DEBBIE MCKEEVER, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Luzuriaga noted that he lived within the noticing area for this project so would abstain from any action on the project. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Doug McKeever applicant and property owner commented that he took the plans around and spoke to his neighbors about the project and presented a petition in favor signed by the neighbors; he has lived in Burlingame 9 years, his wife most of her life, have two small children and need more living space; they have two cars and both fit in the present driveway, which will not be changed, could get into garage but the doors are hard to open; existing house is an eye sore to the neighborhood, hope to remodel so that it will blend in; the present living room was an old addition and not fit to use; architect could not be here this evening had a meeting conflict. Commissioner asked how wide is the existing driveway, plans make it appear about 12' wide, no it is about 22' wide, there is no -3- Ofy of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 proposal to make it wider because it exists. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the left side setback needed is the location of the existing house, it was the intent of the new construction requirements to provide an opportunity for commission to review; would have to remove a lot of house to achieve the required 5 feet, and 5 feet would be more than many houses; the garage is 17'-6" clear inside and the ordinance allows an 18 foot interior clear existing garage to meet the two car off site parking requirements, the 6 inches on the width does not make this structure unusable for two covered off-street parking spaces, if make 6 inches wider would have to remove small patio next to garage; the applicant is removing an existing shed behind the garage which is a benefit to the property; have a problem with the front setback variance the porch proposed is out of scale with the project, particularly given its close proximity to the street, if it were set back more it would not be a problem, but the 16' height to the ridge of the porch is too much; could the height of the porch be reduced; to be in keeping with the house it would need to be lowered to about 10 feet the bottom step (not top of curb), if from top of curb the height would be 13 feet to the ridge; there is no structure on the block with a porch out of proportion to the scale of the house; commissioners discussed alternatives to the porch roof. Commission continued: from site visit felt project would be positive for street and neighborhood; the porch roofline breaks up the roof lines of the living room and increases the depth away from the street, favor all three variances; have problem with invading the setback area in the front, increases the prominence of the porch, which accentuates its height, does break lines of roof but could be done more artistically, if grant front setback need to reduce height of porch. C. Galligan made a motion based on the reasons stated noting approval of the 5 foot side setback because requiring 7 feet was not practical and would not increase the benefit to the neighborhood, and to the dimension of the garage because 6 inches on the interior dimension would still allow use of the structure for required parking, and approving the front setback variance with the reduction of the height of the porch roof by at least 2 feet, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: the commissioners discussed whether the applicant should return to the commission with a revised elevation of the front of the house or staff should be delegated the review of the porch change based on the conditions of approval. The commissioners also discussed whether 2 feet was an adequate reduction noting the porch is 11 feet wide, making it a small part of a big project, not so big as to require resubmittal to the commission; propose to reduce the height of the porch ridge three feet, still lots of room above the door but reduces the impact on street scape, since closer to sidewalk would fit the scale of the neighborhood better, on Poppy the entrances are small. The maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion to reduce the height of the porch by 3 feet and required that the roof be pitched not flat, the second agreed. The conditions of approval -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 would be as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 5, 1998, sheets A.1 through A. 5, except that the porch height is to be reduced by 3 feet and that the porch roof shall be pitched not flat; 2) that the left side property line shall be surveyed to verify the existing first floor setback; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's February 23, 1998 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Key called for the question. The motion to approve the side setback and parking dimension variances and the front setback variance with the added condition that the height porch roof be lowered 3 feet was approved on a roll call vote 4-0-1-2 (C. Luzuriaga abstaining, Cers. Wellford, Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (DAVID GREENSTEIN, APPLICANT AND LORENZ KAO AND LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. Commission asked how would we monitor number of deliveries per night, by complaint. C. Galligan noted that he has had a previous business relationship with the property owner and would abstain from this action. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dan Greenstein, 1108 Burlingame Ave, Rosti's manager, commented that he had nothing to add to the staff report. Commissioners asked where drivers would wait for pick up, really on site 8 to 10 minutes not 2 to 3, they drive own cars and will park at metered spots or in the area, would have 3-5 part time people for delivery but only one per shift would actually drive car to deliver; used to contract this service but pay 25 % of price of meal to delivery company, cost too high. On -site visit looked at parking, gate at alley was locked, trash containers in alley, told reason gate locked so that non -customer people not enter patio area from alley; dangerous to driver and others to back onto California at night from alley. Applicant noted that drivers do not want to park in alley, he is a new manager since November is not aware of problems with patio since it has been raining since he came. Commission asked applicant for solution, he felt that drivers should park in metered spots, off Burlingame Avenue, felt that parking on Burlingame Avenue was bad for his business; Fire Marshall noted that the exit gate cannot be locked, must have panic hardware on the inside for required fire exiting. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that he was troubled with parking of the delivery vehicle but did not find the one car to serve the restaurant delivery, a problem, it could double park for 2 to 3 minutes to pick up delivery or some small compact could use area in rear alley where it could turn around, moved for approval with conditions in the staff report and by resolution. There was no second and the motion died. -5- CSty of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 C. Deal noted that this delivery service would heavily impact Burlingame Avenue, would create a problem getting the food to the delivery truck beyond what was appropriate, given the number of restaurants in the area; may only be using one vehicle an evening but it would make 10 trips and would have to park some place; part of the reason that restaurants are there is to draw retail activity, if they affect this, they diminish the avenue as a whole; if this restaurant were on another street the story may be different; so moved to deny the amendment to the special permit for food delivery service for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: no problem with concept of home delivery service, but applicant has not given any solution to delivery issues; CA Anderson noted that if applicant is obliged to come up with solutions he must hire traffic engineer, not city responsibility; in choosing a business location each place has a consequence, Burlingame Avenue has walk by traffic, but area is impacted, not an appropriate location for delivery service; backing from alley onto California is not safe, do not need a traffic study to evaluate; this is a code enforcement item, it was written in the original use permit that an amendment was required for delivery service, it was not allowed initially and this should be no surprise. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 3-1-1-2 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Galligan abstaining, Cers. Mink, Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO A NEW COVERED PORCH AND SIDE SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1424 BENITO WAY, ZONED R-1. (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND DAVID J. AND TANYA E. MITCHELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked about the status of the 2'-3" side setback, it is an existing condition, do not require survey if condition is existing and not being increased. There were no further questions from commission. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, suite 408, representing the project noted that all three variances are for existing conditions; he submitted picture of the proposed house superimposed on a photo with the adjacent houses to show relationship of the new with the existing and demonstrate that the new house would not be taller than one of its neighbors; has a letter of support from the neighbor next to the 2'-3" setback, neighbor on the south side did review plans, but did not write a letter; made house step down on both sides to reduce bulk as it approached neighbors; existing garage is detached with no setback, new moved over so about 10 foot setback on south side; not changing existing first floor wall so impact on neighbor on north side from side setback and high roof outside declining height is the same. Commissioner asked how the 2'-3" existing setback was determined, applicant noted that he 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 verified it with a survey as a part of building department requirements; house on one side is not on a fifty foot wide lot and project sensitive to both neighboring properties, not practical to move the house on the shortest side, other side has 14 feet now and will have 9'-4" when done, to move the house over and balance the setback on both sides is not economically feasible, new garage is set back 60 feet to minimize the impact on the street frontage, relocation of the garage increases the rear setback to almost double what is required. The extension of the living room appears to have caused the garage to extend several feet closer to property line, applicant noted that they had an existing fire place to work around; commissioner noted that the existing fire place will have to be replaced because they cannot extend the chimney enough, applicant noted that the owner can go to gas and reduce need for taller chimney by using a direct vent, point is that it is not a big deal to remove the fireplace. Dave Mitchell, 1424 Benito, and Jim Cody, 1416 Alvarado, spoke: concern is the new section (garage location) into the rear yard, did not want the neighbors windows blocked by the new garage; concerned about how addition affects view from rear of house, commission shared picture prepared by application it indicated that the addition will not be higher than house next door, then not opposed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted the exceptions asked for were because the project qualifies as new construction, enacted that regulation so could review such additions, in this case the lot is wider than usual and the house is also wider from the front, the architect considered this and placed the garage back so it will not be prominent from the front he also set back the addition from the front of the house; 2'-3" side set back is substandard on this lot, but can not see taking the setback back to the 7 feet required; could take back to 3' but not seem worthwhile; did provide a couple of feet more than required on the other side; the porch is in proportion with the rest of the house, the declining height exception is an existing condition, to remove it would be detrimental to the property and unfair; on the basis of these findings he moved approval with the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: the 2'-3" setback looks as if it is on property line, directly at the edge of the neighbors driveway; the amount being added to this house is so much it is as if he is adding another house on the lot; all the mitigation done is to the second story, it is not prudent to approve this size house on this lot. The configuration of this lot is atypical for this neighborhood, house probably built first then subdivided; city has some responsibility, difficulty is size, second story is inset, not impact neighbor on north more than existing, does not look as if it belongs in some other town. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion to approve. The motion was passed with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 6, 1998 Sheets Al, A2, A3, A4 and A5 and 81/2" and 11", date stamped April 7, 1998; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, on -7- City of Bwlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 a 4-1-2 (C. Luzuriaga dissenting, Cers. Wellford, Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE; AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WITH A WORKROOM WHICH WILL BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND WHICH WILL CONTAIN A TOILET AT 949 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL J & THERESA GARRETT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked about the required setbacks for detached duplex development. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from discussion and action on this item. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Garret, 949 Chula Vista spoke: family is expanding so put house on market, could not find anything of equal value, need more space and need a work space. Asked why a toilet in the work room, commented that work as a pipe fitter at the airport, come home 3 or 4 times a day, pretty dirty because work in mud, not want to track it through the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the variances are for the residential structure the use permits for the accessory structure, not think there is justification for a bath room in the garage, there are hose bibs for cleaning boots and rest rooms on the job site, concern about how the next owner will use; could have utility sink in garage, toilet will be a cause for code enforcement in the future because of the second unit potential; not feel that the 3' side setback exception is a problem, the addition is proper and it will remain in harmony, not cause a problem with adjacent neighbor; am concerned that currently cars parked in driveway and gate between garage and cars is locked, if four bedroom house need 2 car garage, proposed is size of two car garage, but provides only one covered parking space, will not be able to convert later to two covered parking spaces; want 2 car garage and leftover space can be used as bathroom; no problem with bathroom, mixed feelings about garage, requiring two spaces when changes to primary building are minor, but do feel structure should be used for parking; best to approach by building motions. C. Galligan moved to approve the side setback variance for 3 feet where 4 feet is required because existing setback is short and addition is consistent with existing building line, will not create a significant impact for the neighbor, and it is a common sense design, with the conditions in the staff report pertinent to the side set back variance, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstain, Cers. Wellford, Mink absent). C. Galligan noted that he did not want the garage to dominated the footprint of development on the lot, by forcing a variance if another bedroom was added or, in the future a duplex created, El City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 so prudent to address the garage issue now, project needs a two car garage and have ability to provide, move to approve variance for 43.4 % lot coverage and require the accessory structure to be built as a 455 SF two car garage with the applicable conditions in the staff report so amended and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Mink, Wellford absent). C. Galligan moved to approve use of the remaining space allowed for the garage not needed for the two required covered parking spaces to be used for a small toilet and sink. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chair Key called for a roll call vote; the motion failed on a split vote, 2-2-1-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Key dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Commission discussion: feel that a utility sink/hose bib should be permitted within the garage at whatever location would not obstruct parking use, but a full bathroom should not be permitted; problem not enough square footage left after provided 441 SF for two covered parking spaces to install a sink and toilet. Chair Key moved to allow a utility sink in the remaining 14 SF of the garage area not needed for required parking. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: asked if without this motion can't they do what they want with the garage; CA Anderson noted that the applicant might want to ask for additional lot coverage; why do we need to see this again; CA Anderson presently there is no design for this project as approved before the commission, commission can delegate to staff the appearance and configuration of the garage, it is up to the commission; prefer to have them come back with a redesigned structure which includes a toilet and sink. Chair Key called for a vote on the motion to allow a utility sink in the remaining portion of the garage amending, with consent of the second, the motion to let staff review the changes to the design within the approved parameters so no resubmittal to the commission is necessary and with the understanding that at least the minimum dimensions for two covered parking spaces must be provided. The motion passed on a roll call vote 3-1-1-2 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Mink, Wellford absent). C. Galligan moved that the recreation use of the garage accessory structure be denied. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. The motion passed on a 3-1-1-2 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Mink, Wellford absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Key called for a five minute recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:33 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1523 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (I. PING HO, APPLICANT AND I. PING HO AND JANETTE SU, PROPERTY OWNERS) In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mr. Ho, applicant and property owner; Don McKenna 3797 Lavender Common, Fremont; Frank Young, 93 Greenlock Lane, Pleasanton, commented on the project: he bought the house 20 years ago, has children in the local public schools, he and his wife want to build their dream house, he is an architect; he has seen the changes in Burlingame and wants to do the same. This is the plan that best fits the site, have canvassed the neighbors and they are in favor 3 to 1. Have heard concerns about loss of privacy next door at 1519, project has no view into rooms next door, would add trees in side yard; building too large, not the biggest, others bigger, not only two story on the block, 8 years ago second story addition two doors away, single story addition prohibitively expensive because of steep slope at the rear, big retaining wall, cut big pine trees, not consider; loss of view from neighbors deck on north side, rear of project set back 17-20 feet from deck, not significant loss of view, will plant trees in side setback if neighbor wants; not in keeping with style, there are many styles of buildings in the neighborhood, not altering style because no single style exists, but might be willing to make changes given what the neighbors say; project will not adversely affect property values, because it represents a substantial investment. Chair Key interrupted to point out that the only item before the commission is the view issue, testimony should be kept to that point. Applicants representative continued: loss of hill view, proposed building just a few feet taller than building across the street, will block view of power utility line, can see hills only because of added second story on their house, Mr. Ho did not object to their addition, not fair for neighbor to object now; 1527 and 1518 raise similar concern with earlier development, but commission up held right of 1531 to do addition. Speaking in opposition were: Shelly Schmidt -Strain, 1526 Los Altos; James Ergun, 1518 Los Altos; Marylou Ergun, 1518 Los Altos, Ron and Loris Moorbrink, 1527 Los Altos; Yolanda Bonilla, 1519 Los Altos; Herb Hartwell, 1514 Los Altos; Jeff Bopnia, 601 Lahey Street, Redwood City: live across the street, grandmother signed petition in favor, but I feel this project is so big that it is out of proportion to existing homes; will block large amount of view from any part of windows across the street, loss of whole west view of ridge; street is on a hill, only one or two lots on each side are flat, the other two story houses can move into the hill, not here; there is not enough front setback does not match others; my house is almost directly across street at top of hill, will block view of hills, can look out bedroom and see hills now, will not be able to if this project is built; when added on to our house did it so that we took advantage of view of hills, major windows on view side, when this house is built we will only see house; live in house next door to north, will not loose view of western hills, will loose view of blue sky and trees from bedroom, house is out of character with block, a "monster home" 4,400 SF next to theirs of 2000 SF, no way this can improve property value, did approve addition to home on the right side of property, home was large but second floor moved in, away from property line, now that it is occupied by two families with five or six cars, impact is great on parking, schools, density; now the same thing is happening on the south side of my property, on my deck all I will see is house; neighbor on the south side of the project, will lose view of trees and sky to some -10- City of Bur&ngame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 extent, but extended kitchen 10 years ago and will lose all privacy in kitchen and dining room where I spend 95 % of my time when I am home; new bedroom windows will allow view directly into my bedroom windows, this should be considered; will loose a little view, neighbor will loose more, but house is too big the only comparable one that size in the neighborhood is at the bottom of the hill and built on a down slope; grew up at 1519 Los Altos, issue of privacy a big one, know cannot address now but will it be taken up later; added to our house eight years ago, everyone was noticed at that time, not one complained, look at all the people here, no one came in favor except the applicant. The applicant's representative commented: we canvased the neighborhood and of the neighbor's we could reach, 3 neighbor's were in favor to each one opposed; Mr. Ho did not complain several years ago when other neighbors added to their homes, he will reduce the roof height by one foot by lowering the elevation of the second story, he will also design the roof section on the north to reduce the view obstruction. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the issue before the commission is a Hillside Area Construction Permit which only addressed obstruction of distant views, dramatic evidence has been presented that there will be a loss of distant views here; view is not just of the bay, but the hills, anyplace; on site visit looked at the view from the second floor of 1522, there will definitely be a lot of view lost, also from the first floor of that house, from the porch of the adjoining house I could see there would also be a loss of view, this is not a contest of how many neighbors will vote for a project, there will be a loss of view from inside homes on the block, I do not believe that lowering the roof height one foot would make a difference; move to deny the request for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comments on the motion: this does not mean denial of the project, the applicant can still have a second story, but now he will have to pass through the design review process and can come back with a project that complies with that process; the project is out of scale now, but could be corrected through that process with the neighborhood; the reasons for the hillside permit was to address views, the commission and council have been working very hard over the last 60 days to address the issues of design, that process does not address privacy but it does address bulk. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the Hillside Area Construction Permit. The motion was approved 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 23, 1998 MEETING AND CONTINUED TO MAY 11, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes and April 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 23, 1998 MEETING AND CONTINUED TO MAY 11, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. At the applicant's request, both the condominium permit and the tentative condominium map were continued to the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FROM ONE TO FIVE AT AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY BUSINESS AT 340 LORTON AVENUE, #203, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (GINA LAROCCA, APPLICANT AND DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. CP noted an inconsistency in the hours of operation being requested and suggested that the commission clarify this point with the applicant. The commission had no questions on the staff report. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Gina LaRocca, the applicant, commented that she worked originally by herself but there was an increasing demand for physiotherapy, she needs a bookkeeper, need to be open 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. to get the paper work done, need additional therapists to help; latest patients on site are 5, 6, or 7 p.m. people come after work, need to be there at convenience of patients; most clients walk, no parking problem now hope this will continue; want to hire other employees from the community so that they will care too and be within walking distance; patients often park in the CalTrain lot and enter the building on that side; parking is a problem at lunch hour and on Friday and Saturday evenings; Commissioner asked what hours would she be open, original was 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., but indicated seeing patients at 9 a.m. now; CA Anderson noted that applicant needed to state clearly what hours she wanted since this permit would cloud the title of the property and affect other users later; the applicant noted Monday -Friday 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday and Sunday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: when look at floor plan submitted showing other tenant of the offices they are all the same, one or two employees, except the contractor's office which has four who are generally out in the field, this request is for five employees plus patients in 374 SF; applicant clearly does well in this business but this is not the right place for it to expand; 374 SF not much space for two therapists to work at the same time plus patients waiting and leaving, very intense -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 use compared to the other tenants; agree this is an over use of this office it is one person per 75 SF, need to move to a place that can handle the volume. C. Galligan moved to deny this special permit amendment because it represents an over use of the available space, hours of operation, number of employees and impact on parking. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. The motion was approved on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE (DELI, BAKERY & COFFEE) AT AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. (MOLLIE STONE'S MARKET, APPLICANT AND WEIMAN SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. CP Monroe added to the staff report that the condition on policing for trash should be amended to include 50 feet on either side of the property and the adjacent public parking lot at Burlingame Avenue and El Camino. Commission asked if the pedestrian ramp to the public parking lot on Burlingame Avenue at El Camino would be open, CA Anderson noted that arrangements had been made with the property owner of the Lucky site so the ramp is now open. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dave Benette, 100 Shooting Star, Foster City, co-owner of Molly Stone's spoke: Lucky's lease will end and Molly Stone will commence work on October 1; he has reviewed the conditions and they are all right with him, including picking up trash in the parking lot through their lease agreement; they have made a 30 year commitment to the community. Commissioner noted that hours of operation requested are 7 a.m to 10 p.m., would you want 24 hours later; in real life they will do a survey of customers to determine best hours, might want eventually to do whatever Safeway does, but right now close all stores at 9 p.m.; Commissioners continued that if hours are changed from what requesting you will have to return to have the permit amended; commissioner asked if the ATM would be retained, yes, as a machine, no people working from it. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated that the request for take out for deli service, bakery and pre -prepared foods is a typical use in a modern supermarket, there is adequate parking on site to support these activities, and the service will be an asset to the community, have no problem with allowing 24 hour operation now and would amend the conditions to reflect that, then applicant can be open whenever he wishes, with other conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1998, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Landscape Plans; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's March 16, 1998 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 16, 1998 memo, the City Engineer's March 16, 1998 memo and the Streetscape Manager's March 24, 1998 memo shall -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 be met; 3) that the store may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week without amendment to this permit; 4) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, two trash receptacles, one to be placed inside the door to the store, and one of the type selected by the Burlingame Avenue streetscape study to be placed on the sidewalk along Chapin Avenue at a location as approved by the City Engineer; 5) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along El Camino Real and Chapin Avenue, and within 50' of the property the store is located on in each direction; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT USE AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED O-M. (EDWARD KHOURY, APPLICANT AND ROSBERG DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 04.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked if all restaurants in the area were non -conforming; staff responded no, there are two types of food establishments in the O-M district, destination and incidental (those part of office buildings or warehouse areas to provide for the employees at the immediate or nearby locations) . This is an incidental use because it is a part of another building, not free standing as a destination restaurant is required to be. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Ed Khoury, 1669 Bayshore, applicant, noted originally applied for a building permit and was informed of restriction on hours; was satisfied, got building permit and began tenant improvements; after working late on the site and on Saturday several times saw that there were a lot of people in the area who needed service at those hours; this is not a full sit down restaurant, lot of people from the hotel (guests and employees) just want a quick sandwich; lot of people work in the area after 5 p.m. and want to take food home or get a cup of coffee, will have gourmet salads to take out; do not want to be open 24 hours; used to own Renaldo's in Burlingame Plaza, want to provide same service to the bay side people. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted applicant is only asking for additional hours to be a benefit for the area, do a lot of work in this area and there is no place, except a full service restaurant, to eat; Marriott employees work odd hours, market will dictate what hours he will work; move to approve extended hours subject to the three conditions in the staff report with an added condition that a trash receptacle be required at the door and that the applicant be responsible for policing the area for trash daily 50 feet on both sides of his tenant space and in the parking lot. The motion was seconded by C. Key. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1998 Comment on the motion: problem is what is being proposed, regulations address allowing food service within an office area so office users do not need to cross freeway to get food so we allow an accessory use or allow a full service destination restaurant; commission was careful to keep hours defined strictly to breakfast and lunch service; not doubt that there is demand in the area for longer service; if approve this, all the other similar food services will want the same hours, it will change the policy; the second issue is the fast food concept, if approve this at this location, will invite Burger King, Mc Donald's and others into this location, this is not the place for that type of food establishment; agree we are being asked to approve something in between, more comfortable if code defined a third type, need to consider reviewing ordinance rather than extending hours; CA Anderson observed that the ordinance is written in a confusing manner where it permits the use with criteria then allows exception to the criteria as a conditional use; it was observed that a grocery store, which has no seating, but could have deli, is allowed to be open longer hours than an incidental food service in this zone; the question is how much latitude should be allowed; was allowed in office building in this zone to encourage the use in the area away from manufacturing; we are seeing a change in this area office hours are no longer 8 to 5, there is no place to go after 5 if not want a full service restaurant; we are not granting an exception, do not think a fast food use would survive at this location; this use will serve Marriott workers and tourists. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the amended condition that the applicant be required to provide trash collection 50 feet in either direction of his place of business and in the parking lot and a trash can inside the door to the business. The motion failed on a 2-3-2 (Cers. Galligan, Deal, Luzuriaga dissenting; Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). C. Galligan moved to deny the request to extend the restaurants hour's beyond the limit set in the zoning code. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 4-1-2 (C. Key dissenting, Cers.Mink and Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe briefly reviewed the actions taken at the April 20, 1998 Council meeting. - Progress Report Regarding Design Guidelines and Implementation Ordinance 1591 CP Monroe noted that the interim ordinance establishing design review adopted by Council by urgency on April 20, 1998 requires that the Planning Commission approve the City Planner's appointment of design reviewers. Because the ordinance became effective on April 21 and we already have two or three applications which need reviewing, it was suggested that commission review the initial list of possible designers and that the City Planner would return at the next meeting with one or two more names. Since most of the operative time of the interim ordinance will be over the summer vacation months and many of the potential candidates do design work in Burlingame, it seemed that four reviewers would be needed to insure that there would be enough to avoid delay of projects. Tonight the City Planner was looking for two reviewers to -15- (sty of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 27. 1998 begin the process. The names suggested were Cathy Nilmeyer, Jack Matthews, and Jerry Winges, all are licensed architects. Commission discussed the issues noting that in their inquires they had heard only positive things about Cathy Nilmeyer and Jerry Winges, they heard that Jack Matthews was very busy and his available time might be limited. They also thought that we could begin the process with two architects and decide the additional number at a later meeting. Chair Key moved to approve Cathy Nihneyer and Jerry Winges as contract designers for the design review process. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). Commission discussion continued: concern that the reviewers would not be aware of how the commission expected the design guidelines to be applied, and the design guidelines are not complete; noted that the subcommittee should continue its work, three aspects need to be addressed and have further recommendation: process, design guidelines and revisions to the zoning code regulations so that the code better fits the design review process. With some discussion the Chair appointed C. Deal and C. Luzuriaga to a subcommittee to continue work on, and make recommendations to, the commission on the design guidelines and revisions to the zoning regulations. C. Coffey and C. Galligan were appointed to a subcommittee to do further study on the appropriate design review process and make recommendations to the commission. It was decided that each subcommittee would have one member meet with the designer reviewers at their regular monthly meeting. Since it was after 10:00 p.m. the commission did not discuss the rules of procedure, they will be placed on the next agenda for discussion. ADJOURNMENT C. Galligan moved for adjournment in the memory of Dave Chetcuti, the Millbrae police officer who died in the line of fire on Saturday. The Chair asked for a moment of silence in his memory. The motion to adjourn was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. MINUTES4.27 -16- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary