Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.07.27REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 27, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the July 27, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, V istica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES Chairman Deal called for approval of the minutes of the July 13, 1998 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. There were no objections and the motion carried on a voice vote 7-0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JAMES C. & RYAN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PC Monroe reviewed the project briefly. C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from any action on the project because she is related to the applicant. Commissioners asked if this item could be brought to action on the consent calendar. CA Anderson noted that it would be possible if staff prepared the findings for the height variance, the commission found them acceptable and there were no comments from the public. C. Coffey moved to place the item on the next consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Key. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would also abstain from any action on this item. Chair Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the next consent calendar. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Keighran abstaining). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1117 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND ANTHONY AND ROSALIE SPITERI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PC Monroe reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: could staff include an 8 'h"x 11" reduction of the previous project plans; landscape plans should be provided since there are none included now; should a declining height exception be required since the existing building extends into the declining height plane; what exceptions would be required if applicant were to ask for tandem covered parking; plans show no overhand on eave, there are building code reasons for overhangs, applicant should respond how he has addressed these CBC concerns so that he can build as shown or modify plans accordingly. Item was set for hearing and action on August 10, if the information is submitted in time. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 632 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1. (ELMO J. NOVARESI, APPLICANT AND RONALD J. & MARCI E. MARTINUCCI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PC Monroe reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: on the variance application for side setback item "b" there is an error in the reference to 3', item should be readdressed; on sheet 2 section A there is a dimension noted as "per planning grade" what does that mean; the plate height is 7'-6" which is unusual, the windows will look very low, why this plate height; the fire place shown on the plans has a large angle in the flue, need to have a cut sheet from the manufacturer to show that it can be built to code requirements, if it cannot it will need to be moved and will change the appearance of the house; construction on this site is loaded to the rear this will have an impact on the house to the rear, why was more of the addition not placed at the front of the house; item b on variance findings for covered parking space indicates that applicant only needs one parking space, he should clarify, since two are required; front elevation appearance seems heavy because of where the front wall of the second story falls, how was the decision made to put it at the shown location; applicant should add story poles to outline the new second story so that it will be clearer to neighbors and commission. Item was set for hearing and action at the meeting of August 10, if the submittal are completed in time. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED DOUBLE CAR GARAGE AND WORK/STORAGE AREA AT 33 ARUNDEL ROAD ZONED R-1. (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: this is a small house which requires one covered parking space, why asking now for two covered parking spaces and storage area, it seems over sized for the rest of the property. C. Vistica noted that he lives within the noticing area of this project and will have to abstain from any action. The item was set for -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mimaes My 27, 1998 public hearing and action at the meeting of August 10, 1998, providing all the information has been received. APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1417 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BRAD CLARK, APPLICANT AND PATRICK M. & LAURA F. SOMERS, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the project and the commissioners asked if this item could be placed on the consent calendar. C. Coffey moved to place this project on the consent calendar for the meeting of August 10. The motion was seconded by C. Key. C. Key disclosed that she used to live in the neighborhood and, at the time of the second story moratorium, had spoken to this property owner about how that and the eventual regulation might affect him. The motion to place the project on the consent calendar, subject to public noticing and the Planning Commission removal at the time of the hearing, passed on a 7-0 voice vote. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A COMMISSIONER. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 344 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TRICIA KAIN HAGEY, APPLICANT AND DIANNA M. & CONRAD B. HERRMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (44 NOTICED) and APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1316 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LANCE & JEANE BOSSCHART, APPLICANT AND MICHAEL D. & GRETCHEN BARBER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) There were no comments from the public regarding the consent calendar items. C. Coffey moved to approve the consent calendar; the motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: it was noted that the project plans for 344 Occidental include an error regarding the pitch of the roof which need to be corrected; also the design reviewer noted that it would be a good idea to add landscaping between the two driveways, would like to see the applicant add the landscaping but will not make it a condition of approval. Chairman Deal called for the vote on the consent calendar. The motion of approval passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1911 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR CALENDAR July 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 415 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1. (TODD & S. J. ROBINETTE TRS., APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Todd Robinette, 415 Concord Way, spoke, he noted that it had been a long process to get to this hearing, they began in February, got caught in the moratorium for second story additions, then went through the new design review process with two revisions; the house is not really five bedrooms now, one room is an area left over when the stair to the second floor was installed, use as an office, it is less than 100 SF only 7' wide; need a five bed room house with an office; the existing garage is 360 SF if you remove the furnace and toilet, same as currently require for two cars only problem is that the dimensions are off, it is 16' wide and 24' deep, he has done all that he can to comply, cannot afford to move elsewhere, need space and commission's help; know the woman who wrote the letter she lives in a two story house, don't know why she would object. Commissioner asked about the garage, it appeared to be full of storage; applicant noted that the new addition would include more closet space and storage area within the house, he anticipated that the second refrigerator would stay in the garage. There were no further comments on the project: and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that he felt that the applicant had done as much as he could to comply with the bulk at the front of the house, he needs a family room; so moved approval of the variances for lot coverage and parking for the project by resolution with the 3 conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. On the motion: would like to add a condition that any further expansion to the project should be required to have review by the Planning Commission for parking adequacy. Sympathetic with the long review process, done all that was asked to do, but objectively a 3000 SF house on a 5000 SF lot does not seem right; adding lot a mass at the front of the lot which have been opposed to; need to be objective, in time some other people will live here, there is no long driveway to accommodate future parking demand only one car can park in the garage, and there is a need to store bicycles and other things as well; too much house on too small a lot, house spans the entire lot. Find house unique, it sits back further than other houses on the block, no problem with expansion to the front because others are closer to the street, this one will only have what other houses have; lot of mass at front, not see much amenity, no planter boxes; parking a problem, when visited site the garage door was open, lots of storage there, can't put two cars in, furnace in the way; not much parking on street either, all this mass without parking, -4- City of Burlingame Pk-dng Commission Minutes July 27. 1998 have to vote no. Agree, applaud fact try to do a good job; but good job based on needs inside the house, also need to address issues of the rest of the neighborhood; could accommodate second car in garage if removed toilet and storage, could make garage wider, would increase cost but the benefit to the neighbors would be greater; mass and bulk not too difficult to deal with but the 29 SF over lot coverage could have been easily removed and it would still be a nice project for the family. Looked closely at the neighborhood many houses still have one covered off street parking space, do not find it necessary to move furnace or refrigerator; family growing, understand economic and social factors of Burlingame, trying to meet our city requirements as best he can within the project. Continued discussion: will support motion, agree on bulk and mass, at study no one asked about the bulk of the structure, not like to see a new concern added at action.; made all the changes asked by the reviewer; applicant notes that the staff made an error and he only needs an 18' garage and his is 17'-6", not the case this project is adding a bedroom and the code requirement is for an interior measurement of 20' garage or 18' if it is an existing condition, existing is 15'- 8" interior; city counts every room which can be used for sleeping, it does not need to have a closet, when go from 5 to 6 bedrooms need to have 20' x 20' interior dimension garage, need a variance; take issue with the storage in the garage, ask the city to give but applicant not willing to give any; would like to add a condition to the action that the garage area not be used for storage of anything except for the furnace, entire area kept clear for parking; the space outside of the 20' depth can be used for storage, but the parking area should be kept clear. The toilet in the garage is outside of the 20' area needed for parking so can remain. Conditions should be amended to require that the parking area 15'-8"' x. 20' within the garage shall not be used for any storage including a refrigerator or other household appliances except the furnace, the remainder of the area in the garage may be used for storage so long as it does not encroach upon the area retained clear for parking use. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the addition of the condition to the motion on the floor. Further on the motion: think it is clear that this is the maximum size of house for the size of the lot with only one legal parking space, on street parking is already impacted, house has 5 to 6 bedrooms, not a problem now but will be in the future as kids grow there were be more cars, this will impact parking for several blocks around. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the variances with the amended conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 17, 1998 Sheets 1-4 showing both bay windows on the front of the house in a rectangular shape with similar roof lines; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the parking area 15'-8"' x 20' within the garage shall not be used for any storage including a refrigerator or other household appliances except the furnace, the remainder of the area in the garage may be used for storage so long as it does not encroach upon the area to be kept clear for parking use; and 4) that the -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27. 1998 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 4-3 vote (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, and Vistica dissenting). APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT AT 1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LOUIS ARATA, APPLICANT AND ANN PAVAO KRAEMER AND WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (63 NOTICED) CE Erbacher presented and amended the staff report, noting that he had placed at each commissioner's desk the criteria from the code which are to be used in taking action on this item. He also noted that the action was categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioners asked at what point does the commission consider the impact of the lot split on the trees on the lot; CA responded can condition approval on protection of the trees; he noted that one concern that the commission can address is if the site can be developed without variances to the city's development codes, applicant needs to address this and show it can be done without variances. Saw three trees, integral to the lot; CA noted can ask applicant to show how the project might fit within all the constraints on the lot, including the trees; this application is for division of the lot not for development, CA noted that once allow a lot to be created have to allow some development which conforms in use to existing zoning to occur, if it is divided must approve some development on the lot even if it means removal of some trees, the applicant needs to know what the restrictions are up -front; can the future house cantilever over the creek, CE noted staff suggests a 10' setback from the 100 year flood line to insure bank stability and protection for the future structure, if the bank and foundation are properly engineered for stability then structure could be placed within 10' of the 100 year flood line, structure could be allowed to cantilever creek if engineering proper. Who owns the 10' wide strip of land between Cortez and Balboa, CE don't know ownership of this specific easement; can commission place a limit on the size of the future dwelling, CA only if have a compelling reason, not heard anything to limit size of house but reasons for limiting placement seem present; what other regulatory agencies have jurisdiction, CE State agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game and Federal agency, Army Corps of Engineers, have permit authority only but they do not have approval authority; who defined the 100 year flood line, city did a study in 1990 which established the line; who will decide how to protect the trees, CE can condition an arborists report which would define the steps to protect and save the trees, this report would have to be approved by the city. If development requires :removal of a tree, will it be removed, reforestation ordinance does not address trees within footprint of structure, just requires replacement of two to one removed, will need arborists report and condition to protect existing trees; can the 100 year flood line be moved by installing a retaining wall, yes but need to do in such a way that it will not cause any impact on adjacent property, CA can ask applicant to show his proposed house design/proposed concept by condition so can see the bulk and if it can be designed within zoning limits; can this conceptual design include the general location and footprint of future structure, CA yes maximum extent of what is developable. There were no further questions. W Cuy of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July Y7, 1998 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Louis Arata, civil engineer represented the property owners and project, he noted that the property owner was concerned about the redwood near the front of the property, it is in the front setback the three oaks are in the flood setback so none will be affected by development of the site; owners see these trees as a benefit to the site, do not want to remove them; average setback on the block is 18'-3"; applicants do not intend to build a house at this time so don't know the type of house but they will not put in anything that requires a variance; owners are willing to make a deed restriction not to remove the trees in order to build on the site and to remove them only in the event of a natural catastrophe. Commissioner asked why the 44 inch oak in the middle of the lot is not shown on the tentative map, is this tree a part of the map, yes; commissioner noted that there are four oaks on the lot, applicant noted that they were willing to preserve that oak tree also. The applicant noted that some of those opposing this division lived on lots which had been subdivided previously, not ask for exception these lots are 50 feet wide and are the same size as others in the neighborhood except the one neighbor where there is a substantial amount of creek on his lot. The tree in the middle of the lot hangs over the area which is potentially buildable, owners would do trimming in order to build but keep part of tree, want to be able to trim. CE noted that condition #3 addresses a 10' setback from the 100' flood line to the future building/structure for bank stability, if want to go closer have to do engineering to stabilize the bank and structure, owners accept that condition. Lana Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa; Robin Sommer, 1012 Balboa; Shannon Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa; Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez; Jack Phelan, 1028 Balboa, Ed Gotfredson, 1008 Balboa, Jonathan Harris 1037 Balboa; all spoke in opposition to the project. They noted concern about the trees, surprised that they could lose a tree on the plans, feel better with an arborist report and a geologic report, the creek bank slope is steep; how can we protect ourselves from the new owner of the lot doing what he wants; 1984 this reach of the creek flooded am concerned about this happening again, if division is approved then have to give permission to have a structure on the lot; animals also live on this lot, not enough study has been done, ramifications not identified and addressed, parking is a problem on the street, like the sense of space and want to retain it; not see a way to accommodate another house and keep the trees, trees and creek a huge part of growing up in this neighborhood, can't build a house with an oak tree in the center, if approve need lots of guidelines before they can build, need to get to the point of knowing how much of the tree at the center of the lot will be affected; opposed, my lot has always been a lot and a half although only been there 4 years, lived on Laguna and neighbor built a big house next door, moved here for serenity, will loose trees behind house, how can they build without damaging the trees; where will they put the driveway without infringing on the existing house, parking is a big problem now have lived there for 30 years; almost impossible to build on this site; concern that once approved the lot will be bought by a developer who will chop down all the trees. Mr. Arata had no comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: most of Burlingame is flat lots, but have seen developers build around problems on sites in other communities, could cantilever over creek, can be done; can split the lot if it meets code and if it can be developed without variances, this is a property right; -7- City of Barlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 commission wants to see trees kept too, redwood tree is not replaceable; everyone is concerned about preserving the natural beauty of the site, neighbors and owners; C. Key noted she would like to add a condition that the applicant prepare an arborist's report and that the redwood and four oaks be preserved, this should be a condition of any new development, report should address how to protect during construction and how to maintain after and she then moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to council for approval with the added conditions. Motion was seconded by C Luzuriaga; On the motion: agree dividing lot is an inherent right as long as it meets all criteria established. CA Anderson clarified that condition #3 establishing a 10 foot setback is not a zoning requirement but a requirement of the City Engineer having to do with insuring slope stability, could be modified by City Engineer if applicant documents with a soils report that proposed development within that area can be supported; condition #2 addresses the fact that the structure needs to be 1 foot above flood level, could this cause a problem with protecting floor joists, should this be higher, CE noted that condition #2 should be replaced with new condition #4 that was handed out. Agree that based on code site can be created; agree on placing a condition requiring an arborists report, not need soils report until application to building department; do feel that on this lot when trees noted are saved that there is not much building area left; not want a long, narrow house, want to see developable envelope to show what can build without a variance, cannot vote for division without seeing this; giving a lot of leeway in creating lot not want to have argument later about having to grant variances because city created lot; would like a site plan showing parking, driveway, front entrance, floor elevations for first and second floor, want to avoid a pyramid within the trees; would ask to continue action to have time for applicant to provide more information. C. Deal moved to continue action to the next meeting or when applicant has needed additional information. The motion was seconded by C. Bojuds. On the motion: footprint of the proposed house is not enough, have to go to whole design or deny lot split is not fair; may not get enough information and give applicant wrong idea; add a condition that no variance can be granted, CA noted that this would bind future commissioner and council members and therefore is not valid, if it is impossible to develop that is a different problem. Issue is not only the footprint, it is the first and second floors, will make money, need to see now what they can put on the lot; disagree, applicant asked for approval to divide lot, major concern is trees. To ask to design house, when has not sold land and not contracted with anyone to build, too much, have lots of regulations in the code that will restrict development on this property. Like idea of preparing plans as described, too early to approve without more information, a lot of neighbor concern, show neighbors and planning commission what possible on site, could get more agreement; not design whole house, diagram, show envelope and masses and bulk down to the creek. Discussion continued: there are two motions on the floor one to continue and one to amend; CA noted that should act on the one to continue first, if passed then, after public hearing, act at next In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27. 1998 meeting on motion on the floor to recommend with amended conditions. CE noted that in the past the city has required applicants to show the site, outline to show how new site could be developed within code requirements without burdening future buyer. Favor continuance to allow applicant to present a proposed design for a first and second floor envelope, sections to show how proposed development would relate to the property, no floor plans are needed, show parking, placement of garage, any proposed decks and retaining walls which might change the 100 year flood plain. and how the trees will be kept. Have been convinced that obliged to protect trees, need evaluation to see roof location, side of house, potential cantilever over creek, envelop/outside of structure(s); need building envelop, site improvements, parking, parking access and sections to creek as well as floor placement; like more information before decide, for the benefit of the applicant need to know if can build on lot or not. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the item until the applicant has responded and provided the additional information requested and the item can be set for public hearing again. The motion was approved 7-0. The first motion made is still on the floor, the public hearing will be opened at the subsequent meeting and the public hearing renoticed. Commission took a break from 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, EXCEPTIONS TO FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AND COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND VARIANCE FOR A PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (72 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked: should the fifth condition be amended to preclude the parking space in the front setback from ever being enclosed, it presently implies that all parking is enclosed; is a date palm an approved tree, do not know, if you wish to change you may require different tree. C. Deal opened the public hearing. Kendell Peterson, 162 Carmel Avenue, El Granada, represented the project, he indicated that the project had been thoroughly reviewed before and that they were back before the commission at the commission's request to provide an additional guest parking place in the front setback. Behzad Aflak, 22 Clark: Drive, San Carlos, representing the property owners spoke he noted that the project has had a lot of processing previously, commission requested that they file for this variance to add parking, they would not like to have any more delay, have done what was requested. Robert Louth, 1520 Carol Avenue spoke noting that there is considerable landscaping shown at the front of the project; what about the rear; commissioner noted that a part of the original action noted in the minutes of that action was that evergreen trees be placed along the rear 21 0# of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 meeting on motion on the floor to recommend with amended conditions. CE noted that in the past the city has required applicants to show the site, outline to show how new site could be developed within code requirements without burdening future buyer. Favor continuance to allow applicant tole present a proposed design for a first and second floor envelope, sections to show how proposed development would relate to the property, no floor plans are needed, show parking, placement of garage, any proposed decks and retaining walls which might change the 100 year flood plaine. and how the trees will be kept. Have been convinced that obliged to protect trees, need evaluation to see roof location, side of house, potential cantilever over creek, enveloploutside of structure(s); need building envelop, site improvements, parking, parking access and sections to creek as well as floor placement; like more information before decide, for the benefit of the applicant need to know if can build on lot or not. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the item until the applicant has responded and provided the additional information requested and the item can be set for public hearing again. The motion was approved 7-0. The first motion made is still on the floor, the public hearing will be opened at the subsequent meeting and the public hearing renoticed. Commission took a break from 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m.. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, EXCEPTIONS TO FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AND COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND VARIANCE FOR A PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (72 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked: should the fifth condition be amended to preclude the parking space in the front setback from ever being enclosed, it presently implies that all parking is enclosed; is a date palm an approved tree, do not know, if you wish to change you may require different tree. C. Deal opened the public hearing. Kendell Peterson, 162 Carmel Avenue, El Granada, represented the project, he indicated that the project had been thoroughly reviewed before and that they were back before the commission at the commission's request to provide an additional guest parking place in the front setback. Behzad Aflak, 22 Clark Drive, San Carlos, representing the property owners spoke he noted that the project has had a lot of processing previously, commission requested that they file for this variance to add parking, they would not like to have any more delay, have done what was requested. Robert Louth, 1520 Carol Avenue spoke noting that there is considerable! landscaping shown at the front of the project; what about the rear; commissioner noted that a part of the original action noted in the minutes of that action was that evergreen trees be placed along the rear 91 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 meeting on motion on the floor to recommend with amended conditions. CE noted that in the past the city has required applicants to show the site, outline to show how new site could be developed within code requirements without burdening future buyer. Favor continuance to allow applicant to present a proposed design for a first and second floor envelope, sections to show how proposed development would relate to the property, no floor plans are needed, show parking, placement of garage, any roposed decks and retaining walls which might change the 100 year flood plain. and how the trees will be kept. Have been convinced that obliged to protect trees, need evaluation to see oof location, side of house, potential cantilever over creek, envelop/outside of structure(s); nee building envelop, site improvements, parking, parking access and sections to creek as well a floor placement; like more information before decide, for the benefit of the applicant need to ow if can build on lot or not. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vot on the motion to continue the item until the applicant has responded and provided the additio information requested and the item can be set for public hearing again. The motion was app ved 7-0. The first motion made is still on the floor, the public hearing will be opened at the su equent meeting and the public hearing renoticed. Commission took a break from 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A SIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, EXCEPTIONS TO FRONT SETBACK LANDS APING AND COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND VARIANCE FOR A P NG SPACE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONE R-3. (KENDALL G. PETERSON, Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP an ommission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and stu meeting; questions. Thirteen conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissi%datep ked: should the fifth condition be amended to preclude the parking space in the back from ever being enclosed, it presently implies that all parking is enclosed; is a i an approved tree, do not know, if you wish to change you may require different tree. C. Deal opened the public hearing. Kendell Peterson, 162 Carmel Avenue, El Granada, represented the project, he indicated that the project had been thoroughly reviewed before and that they were back before the commission at the commission's request to provide an additional guest parking place in the front setback. Behzad Aflak, 22 Clark Drive, San Carlos, representing the property owners spoke he noted that the project has had a lot of processing previously, commission requested that they file for this variance to add parking, they would not like to have any more delay, have done what was requested. Robert Louth, 1520 Carol Avenue spoke noting that there is considerable! landscaping shown at the front of the project; what about the rear; commissioner noted that a part of the original action noted in the minutes of that action was that evergreen trees be placed along the rear W City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 property line to create a screen between the adjacent properties. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: the staff report does not correctly represent the conditions of approval as they were amended in the previous action; the conditions should be taken from the Planning Commission minutes of May 11, 1998. C. Coffey moved approval of the exception to landscaping in the front setback (reduction to 54.8 %) and a variance to put a guest parking space in the front setback based on the findings at the May 11, 1998, Planning Commission meeting and the fact that the applicant returned to the commission at the commission's request to provide more guest parking because of the absence of parking on El Camino and that the unusual shape of the ]lot does not allow such parking to be placed at any other location and meet the city's maneuvering requirement; that a condition should be added to the May 11, 1998, conditions that will not allow the guest parking space in the front setback to be enclosed and that no palm trees shall be placed in the landscaped areas, by resolution with the findings as stated in the May 11, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 20, 1998, sheet CAI (Site Plan, Location Map, Topo & Demolition Plan, 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans), CA2 (Landscape Plan, Roof Plan, CA3 (Elevations -East & West), CA3.1 (Front Elevation, Sections & Perspectives) and Tentative Map (date stamped March 16, 1998) as amended by Revised sheets CAI (Plot Plan, Location Map Topo. & Demolition Plans, 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans) and sheet CA2 (Landscape Plan Roof Plan) date stamped July 7, 1998 with 54.8 % landscaping within the front setback, no designated common open space, and one paved compact guest parking place within the front setback 10 feet x 18 feet (minimum dimensions); 2) that the landscape plans shall be changed to show the removal of the three date palms and to have these three trees replaced by three trees of equal long term value which will do well at the location and are not in the palm family as approved by the city's Senior Landscape Inspector; 3) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50 % of the lot area and any increase in the proposed 33 % lot coverage will require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 4) that the liquid amber trees shown on the landscape plan shall be replaced with 36 inch box evergreen trees and the screen of vegetation along the rear of the private yards shall be replaced with a continuous screen of the same shrubs using 20 gallon container plants, and the location of the evergreen trees installed shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector to insure that they are placed with sufficient separation from all parts of the structure; 5) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 72.55' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (38.85'), and that the top of each floor, final roof ridge and front, side and rear side setbacks for each floor 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/setback at any point, it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height and setbacks of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height and setbacks shown on the approved plans; 6) that the conditions of the Senior Landscape Inspector's February 25, 1998 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 20, 1998 memo and the Senior Engineer's March 13, 1998 memo shall be met; 7) that two guest -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27 1998 parking stalls shall be provided, one compact stall (10' x l8') in the front setback and one parking stall (I I' x 20') in the carport under Unit A, both shall be marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stall in the front setback shall not be enclosed and no door shall be placed on the space under Unit A; the condominium association shall install and maintain pavement markings and signage on site which directs drivers to the guest parking stalls; 8) that one (1) guest parking stall (11'x20') shall be designated in the carport under Unit A and one (1) guest parking stall (10'xl8') shall be designated in the front setback, and these two guest stalls shall be marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; 9) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 10) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 11) that the on -grade parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking 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; 12) that appropriate directional signage to the covered and uncovered guest parking space shall be installed and no guest parking sign shall exceed 2' x 3' with a maximum height of 3'-0" above the adjacent grade; all directional signs shall be maintained by the condominium association; 13) 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; 1.4) 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 15) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: favor as long as the condition about Palm trees is added, suggest motion that the three date palms at the front be change to any tree which is approved by the city Senior Landscape Inspector and is not in the palm family, condition amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion and by the second. Like to thank the applicant for returning to the commission with this parking solution, additional parking is much needed in projects along El Camino since there is no on -street parking and the neighborhood streets become impacted, feel this is a better project for the parking. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve the landscape exception and the parking in the front setback. The motion was approved 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR YOGA CLASSES AT 1816 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1. (ROBIN SCHMIDT, APPLICANT AND FRANK J. & L.I. VENTURELLI, TRS., PROPERTY OWNER) (18 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the commissioners. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Robin Schmidt, 15700 Gum Tree Lane, Los Gatos, represented the project and stated she was there to answer questions. Commissioner asked if she would be limiting herself in the future with the hours of operation she suggested in her application; she noted that she was sure the hours would be all right for the first year, after that she did not know; it was noted that she would have to return to the commission if she wished to change the hours later. She suggested that the hours could be extended to Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., that should cover all her expected options in the future. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved approval of the special permit for yoga classes based on the fact that there was plenty of parking on the site and on this side of Magnolia because most of the stores which extend to this side have main entrances on the El Camino side where there is a lot of parking; with the conditions in the staff report and the added condition that the hours of operation be extended to Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the yoga studio shall be limited to 1090 SF at 1816 Magnolia Avenue as shown plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11,1998, Site Plan and Floor Plans (8 1/2" x 11", 8 1/2" x 14" and 11" x 17"); 2) that the yoga studio may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays with a maximum of one full-time and one part-time employee and 25 students for a maximum of 27 people on site at any one time; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's June 15, 1998 memo and the Fire Marshal's June 15, 1998 memo shall be met; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, number of employees or number of students, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 5) 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 was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as amended. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. -12- Clay of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT (MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON ROOF EXCEEDING 5 % OF ROOF AREA) FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY AND ANTENNAS AT 1480 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL AREA. (RICH HILDEBRAND, CELLULAR ONE, APPLICANT AND PACIFIC BELL, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. Why was this item brought right to action, staff noted that it appeared to be uncomplicated; what is the height of the apartment building on Bellevue and El Camino and the office building on the comer of Primrose and Donnelly; staff noted that they were about the same height as the PacBell buildings. There were no other questions from the commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Richard Hildebrand, representing Cellular One, spoke; they are installing this equipment room at the location on the goof where PacBell had equipment which they have removed; plans show that the existing elevator penthouse is taller than the proposed equipment room; this new structure will be behind the existing penthouse and will be masked by the larger structure; were unaware of the 5 % roof coverage requirement, came in originally for the antenna permit which does not require commission review; will paint the equipment room to match the building. Was asked, any idea how far down Burlingame Avenue you would have to be to see this room, can see from the southwest corner of Burlingame Avenue and Primrose, but it is placed 17 feet back form the wall and lower than the existing penthouse, a lot of mechanical rooms in the area much closer; what color, the antenna's come gray, when attache to a building, as in this case, paint the color of the building. When you did evaluation did you look from high rise multifamily building at El Camino and Bellevue which has a clear view of this site or from the office building at Primrose and Donnelly, these buildings are similar in height to the roof of the PacBell building; no did not look from these sites, the added equipment room is further back on the roof, in the middle, than the existing penthouse, so will be screened; why are the antenna placed on that corner of the building, because of the azimuth required for reception, azimuth is based on interference with other signals from this and other sites in the area, location of antenna do comply with city's antenna ordinance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga noted that reviewed application, not look at roof color but gray proposed for antenna will blend well, the application is a misnomer, it is a small box on the roof for mechanical equipment, it is set well back from the sides of the roof and will not be seen, so move approval of the conditional use permit for height by resolution with conditions 1-3 in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minna- July 2z 1998 Comment on the motion: as it stands must vote no, do not have enough information on the impact on two tall buildings within the block and how their views might be affected; CA Anderson noted that the current roof coverage is 22.6 % and this increases it to 23.7 % . Chairman Deal called for a vote on the special permit for height with conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 6, 1998 Sheets CVR, Al, A2, and A3; 2) that the 219 SF cellular telephone facility with a maximum height of 11'-10" as measured from the adjacent surface of the roof shall not be occupied and shall be painted to match the existing building:; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCR'.EASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 345 LORTON AVE., #104, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. (M. URBAN, M.D., D. BECKER, M.D., Y. KOSS, M.D., & N. MAVIS, M.D., APPLICANTS AND BOB A. & CAROL J. TESSLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (106 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM JULY 13, 1998 Reference staff report, 07.27.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department continents, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Vistica noted that he would abstain on this item since he received a notice for the application. C. Vistica left the meeting at this point. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Dr. Dan Becker, 3300 Shasta, San Mateo and Dr. Nancy Mavis, 650 Mavis Avenue, San Francisco, represented the project. They noted that they were unclear on the procedure or they would have been here at the last meeting; original permit allowed two therapists and one support staff member to work full time, five days a week, they want to add one person for a total of four therapists none of whom work full time, the average is less than half time, so do not feel are intensifying the use; have added two hours to the total work day for the office, this would dilute the intensification since they all work different hours and are never all there at the same time. Do you foresee an increase in hours in the next few years, no work full time at Mill -Peninsula have no more time; am starting a practice in Sonoma so my hours will decrease. Dr. Urban works on site the most 30-35 hours, Dr. Koss only one day a week because he is also employed full time at another agency; this schedule is going to be pretty stable; we do not use a receptionist, schedule appointments ourselves; we focus on individual therapy no groups, am in teen practice may occasionally have parents in with teen. Looked over schedule, seems pretty intense level of activity on Wednesdays, a potential of 29 patients plus four doctors, rest of week is pretty light. Am not there before 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Dr. Koss gone by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday; do patients complain about parking, -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 there are plenty of public lots in the area and not all patients drive to appointments, feel this use has less parking impact than previous use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved approval of the special permit amendment to increase the number of employees and extend the hours of operation at a health service use at 345 Lorton Avenue, Suite 104, noting that while the hours of operation would be extended all the: employees would work part time, there are public parking lots in the area which will accommodate the parking needs, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga Comment on the motion:' believe that this is an intensification with the extension of hours, should limit hours during the peak parking demand hours (lunch time) during the day; would add a condition that office hours be limited to no patients between noon and 2 p.m. This would help the adjacent businesses, it is the same requirement the city placed on Donnelly Square and other applicants. Chairman Deal reopened public hearing. Asked applicant about limiting counseling hours between noon and 2 p.m.; CA Anderson noted that under current permit they are open between noon and 2 p.m. with two therapists on site; applicant noted would prefer to retain the right for two therapists to see patients between noon and 2 p.m. as is in the permit now. The public hearing was closed. Comment on the motion continued: noon to 2 p.m. hard time to park downtown would probably be self regulating, patients would have difficulty, willing to limit to two doctors as is now. Maker of the motion noted should amend condition #2 to indicate that only two doctors should see patients between noon and 2 p.m., second agreed. Will voted for motion but think that the number of patients affected will be too small to matter to parking in the area; this applicant came to city to amend permit voluntarily not code enforcement, not see reason to make this restriction. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditional use permit with the amendment to condition #2; the amended conditions of approval are: 1) that the psychiatric office shall be limited to 944 SF in Suite 104, at 345 Lorton Avenue as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 22, 1998 (8'/2" x 11 "); 2) that the psychiatric office shall have four employees or doctors and shall be open from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of two doctors seeing patients between noon and 2 p.m.; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, :hours of operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall required an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was approved on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes IX. PLANNER REPORTS July 27. 1998 CA Anderson reported on appeal of 530 El Camino Real project to the City Council and on the fact that the issue of charging for appeal hearings would also be on the; next agenda. Commission discussed with attorney how to handle questions at study and how to express their concerns about the facts of the project presented. CA noted it was a fine line to walk, but tc remember that neighbors might have issues at the public hearing that commission had not anticipated and that may result in raising concerns not identified at study. ADJOURNMENT C. Deal called for a motion to adjourn, there were no objections and Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. MINUTFS7.27 Iffel Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary