Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.09.14REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 14, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the September 14, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR STUDY ITEMS Commissioners Coffey, Keighran, Key., Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Commissioner Bojues City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the August 24, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were corrected to read: "C. Key moved approval for the project at 1434 Columbus with conditions in the staff report and eselutien. " The minutes were then approved. The applicant for item #16, 999 Howard Avenue, requested a continuance. The order of the agenda was approved. There were no public comments. APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KIERAN P. & NOREEN H. O'SULLIVAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe described the project briefly and the commissioners had no questions. C. Key suggested that this project be placed on the consent calendar for action.. The commissioners agreed. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on September 28, 1998. -1- City of Burlingame Planting Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1260 BERNAL AVENUE., ZONED R-1. (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND RICHARD MEDEGHINI, AND WILLIAM R. AND M.A. MEDEGHINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe described the project and the commissioners asked: what is the definition of "new construction" in the California Building Code; a 3754 SF house on a 5264 SF lot is over FAR, why do the applicant's need all that room plus a 13' rear setback exception; are there other options which do not require a rear setback variance, would like to see the rear setback for the second floor at the 20 feet required; see a minor hardship on the property because the corner of the lot is clipped but the size proposed is disproportionate to the amount of hardship, explain hardship justifying request; place story poles on the site to show the width and depth of the second story addition so can evaluate the impact on the house on Easton; want written response from each neighbor regarding their review of the proposed plans; what is the history of how the porch came to be enclosed, look at old assessor's records; the site plan shows a side setback of 3' on the interior side, the floor plans scale 2.5' on that side to property line, provide survey to show actual existing setback; cannot accept exceptional circumstances as submitted by applicant, redo; plans do not show the elevation to establish the point of departure for the declining height envelope, show on plans. This item was set for public hearing at the meeting on September 23, providing that all the responses are submitted to the Planing Department in time. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 3-STORY, 15-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI, PROPERTY OWNERS) and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map to merge the lots, noting that this was the time for the Planning Commission to make comments on the negative declaration document since it was in its 20 day public review period. Members of the audience should be advised that they too can comment to the Planning Department on the Negative Declaration if they wish. Following the public review period and preparation of the response to comments there will be a public hearing on the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map. -2- 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Commissioners commented: the landscape plan does not seem to address the sides of the building and project adjacent to existing development, it appears all the landscaping is on the front of the building, what is planned; there is a very dense and beautiful hedge between 516 and 518, which property is it on and how will it be protected during construction; there seems to be a lack of storage area within the dwelling units, this should be increased in all units to avoid abuse of the on site parking; the north elevation appears to be inconsistent in its design in terms of what happens above the parking garages, visually the openings and windows above do not appear to work together; staff report indicates all parking is covered, there are 4 uncovered spaces provided which abut property line, can this interface be treated better, provide solution with landscape plan; a landscape element is shown inside the building at the entry, how will this work; this site is near city hall and the newly renovated library would like to see it appear more "historically correct" with raised relief in the stucco and similar window, and roof treatment like the public library; feel the facade of the building facing Primrose is confused with the semi- circular windows and the angled roof, would like to see divided light windows characteristic of the library; think choice of materials stucco and aluminum windows is very narrow; when combine lots the orientation of the setbacks change, would like to see how present setbacks relate to the new ones (provide diagram) and would like to see how this correlates with the existing setbacks on the two street frontages affected; concerned about the mass of the project. This item was set for public hearing before the planning commission when the response to comments are complete. The neighbors will be noticed of the public hearing. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. Chairman Deal noted that there are three items on the consent calendar, 1346 Desoto Avenue, 1450 Columbus Avenue and 1470 Vancouver Avenue, he then asked if anyone on the Commission or in the audience would like to call any items off the consent calendar. C. Vistica commented that item #6, 1450 Columbus needs more work regarding the design and the drawings are not quite clear, he would like to see 1450 moved to the regular calendar for public hearing. Chairman Deal noted for the record that he would be abstaining from any discussion or vote on 1346 Desoto Avenue. DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1346 DeSOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JOSEPH & JENNIFER L. ADDIEGO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). C. Coffey moved approval of 1346 DeSoto, noting the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-1-1 voice vote, (C. Deal abstaining and C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1450 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (HUGO ARENAS, KASTROP GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND RICHARD J. & JUDITH H. GROGAN, PROPERTY OWNERS). C. Vistica move to continue 1450 Columbus to the next meeting for action. Commissioner comment: applicant is seeking direction would like to take this item tonight; intent of design is fine, little to schematic no structural input to go with design. in this case design may result in a lot more remodel construction than applicant anticipates to execute design, would increase cost, if continued would be a way for applicant to know up front what the costs and alternatives may be. The motion died for lack of a second. The item was moved to the action calendar as the first item. DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REVISION TO AN APPROVED PROJECT WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES J. SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). C. Coffey moved approval of 1470 Vancouver Avenue, noting the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-1-1 voice vote, (C. Luzuriaga abstaining and C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR C. Deal noted that the audience should be aware that at the applicant's request the public hearing and action on the proposed self -storage facility at 999 Howard has been continued. There will be another public notice when the item is brought back to the commission. Moved from consent calendar to regular action calendar for a public hearing. DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1450 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (HUGO ARENAS, KASTROP GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND RICHARD J & JUDITH H. GROGAN, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no commission continents. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Hugo Arenas, architect, and Richard Grogan, property owner spoke for the project. Do not understand why moved from consent calendar; project not rejected, headed in the right direction, but concerned that structural loading shown -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mimaes September 14, 1998 is in center of rooms, if span wall to wall would need to install new trusses, may be all right but it would be a lot of work to do and increase the cost, the plans are too schematic at this point to tell; structural engineer work with told could do without affecting exterior walls, vertical loads are on interior walls, will provide a continuous footing, feel that structural issue is taken care of; if you feel comfortable, its OK. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved approval of the design review at 1450 Columbus, applicant has done a good job to blend the second story with the existing character of the first floor and has retained the 1920's look inside and out, he has provided a two car garage so the parking issue is addressed, he has done a nice job with the landscaping, action is by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 3, 1998, Sheets A-1 through A-4; 2) that any changes from the approved plans to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, changing exterior materials and windows or modifications to the first floor exterior walls before or during construction shall be subject to design review; 3) that the exterior colors and materials of the second story addition shall match the exterior colors and materials of the first story; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 10, 1998 memo shall be met; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 10, 1998 memo shall be met; 6) 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 seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: good design job, would like to see more period homes; commend applicant for not asking for a four bedroom house, is building what he :needs. C. Deal called for a voice vote. The motion was approved 5-0-1-1(C. Luzuriaga abstaining and C. Bojues absent). Appeal rights were advised. REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TO SELL JEWELRY AT 1111 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (GARY KOLODZIE AND JULIE CASTRO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners had no questions on the staff report. -5- City of ftrAngame Planning Commission Minutes Sepiember 14. 1998 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Julia Castro resident and home occupation holder at I I I I Bayswater spoke: do not sell jewelry from the house; lot of people come to the house, relatives, friends from high school; if you want to revoke permit it is your choice; angry about letter from the city revoking the permit, it is the neighbors fault, they want to know what is going on inside her house, she does not care what is going on inside their houses; she does not want to sell jewelry any longer because people do not pay her and it makes her husband angry. Commissioner asked: you do not want to sell anything; only if they call and pay cash, would like to keep permit if you would let me. Her sister was there recently, she gets her mail delivered to 1111 Bayswater and comes to pick it up. Speaking in support of revocation: David Pollitt, 1109 Bayswater, treasurer of the Homeowners Association of the condominium. He submitted written testimony and noted they are aware of violations of the permit at 1111 Bayswater feel that Jennifer Jewelry has violated terms of permit, she signed the permit that she would not have sales at 1111 Bayswater. There are three residential condominium units in this building, the property is zoned R-4 (multiple family residential) they have been residents since 1992 and have been subject to a number of violations of this permit: heavy foot traffic from the street to 1111, up to 10 people a day, looking into the windows of other units, asking for Julie; unknown people found in the common back yard waiting for Julie; have seen customers, people exchanging money and packages on a regular basis, see envelopes under the door mat; neighbor at 1105 have seen Julie come out to the street to give people things, people park across driveways and in other people's driveways to come into the building; she is conducting a retail/wholesale business and we believe she is in violation of the Municipal Code and the permit should be revoked. Her violations affect our quality of life. Eva Pollitt, 1109 Bayswater and Mary Alexander, 1107 Bayswater spoke in support of David Pollitt's comments. Others who commented were: John Wiegand, 1110 Bayswater, live across the street, President of the condominium association, 18 units, support revocation, concerned by the traffic level, no personal knowledge of the retail transactions but see the traffic, concerned about the residential character of the area, its is zoned residential and want to protect; concerned about the future precedent created with continuation of this permit with its apparent violations and what that would mean for this and other neighborhoods. In rebuttal Ms. Castro introduced her friend Maria Tobra who noted that she has know Ms. Castro since 1976 she is a nice lady and she visits her often, does not see a problem. Ms. Castro then introduced her husband, Gary Kolodzie, who noted that she would be willing to have her permit limited but would like to retain it so that she can continue to try to collect from those who have not paid her in small claims court; commissioner asked if had a license at time of sale would not that cover her for collections; CA noted it should but small claims courts operate a little differently from others, if the issue is a business license she could continue that from a post office box until the collections were made; how long before the small claims court cases are W City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 settled, don't know; does she have a business license, think so. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: C. Vistica noted that there were plenty of violations of the conditions of the permit noted in the staff report and testimony. C. Key moved revocation of the home occupation permit to sell jewelry at I I I I Bayswater, the applicant can have a business license from a post office box in order to pursue the small claims court collections. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: the purpose of the hearing was to decide whether to revoke the home occupation permit, it was not to provide an arena for other issues. There has been enough discussion to support the violations of the conditions of the home occupation permit and there have been complaints by neighbors which was also a condition. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to revoke the permit. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G. STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, 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. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Peter and Jane Stevenson, 508 Howard, represented the project noting moved to Burlingame for the style and character of the neighborhood, as family grows want their house to be consistent with the style and character; concerned with maintaining a good relationship with neighbors, not want a negative impact; regarding variances for parking, looked at a lot of alternatives, concluded that design presented really was the best for all concerned, the front setback exception is an existing condition, all the houses on that side of the street have the same front setback; parking variance, garage wide enough for two cars, do store a vintage car inside, but not easy to get into, it is 27 feet long and can get car into; we do have an automatic garage door opener, it was installed about a year ago; considered building out toward the front on the garage but all the houses on the block have a similar look and it would change that; the project is 33 feet outside the declining height envelope, garage ceiling is 7'-2", need to raise ceiling height to habitable as move to rear, not like appearance of 18 inch second story setback required to meet declining height; responded to design review, added windows as recommended and altered their location, added landscaping, will replace common side yard fences and share costs with neighbors; went to neighbors to review, they signed a letter -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 endorsing request so it is consistent with them. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: went to site and spoke to applicant who has put a lot of thought into the design, front setback is an existing condition and it would be a hardship to move the house back to the 15 feet, main concern is the parking; currently able to park Z cars but have an 8 foot door, looking to the future may not have one small and one large car, they have the option of providing tandem parking they could move the garage forward or too the rear; the toilet in the garage could be relocated since they are adding a full bath on that level and then move the office and bedroom portion of the addition back 2 feet; neighbor is concerned. about sun and shadow change, all this could be done and retain a good sized back yard. A lot is possible to make parking better, the existing two side -by -side is a hardship, tandem is possible without altering the design a lot, the rest is a good effort and consistent with the style of the house, the declining height exception is a small area. If this project were not "new constriction" what would the parking requirement be; one covered and one uncovered. C. Luzuriaga commented that this is an unusual case where after the addition was started realized that not want to live in mess again for second phase so did it sooner, if phased as applicants originally planned they would not need a parking variance; willing to grant parking variance. Declining height exception is dictated by the existing garage ceiling height so am willing to grant, and the front setback is an existing condition consistent with the other houses on the street, this street is unusual because all the houses on this side are so similar in architectural style and have the same front setback, for these reasons and the reasons cited by the other commissioners and in the record he would move to approve the front setback variance, parking variance and declining height variance by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 17, 1998 Sheets 1-4 and Existing Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations Sheets 1 and 2; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit amendment for the proposed addition the property owner shall submit a landscape plan listing plant materials, container sizes and irrigation to the Senior Landscape Inspector for approval and these approved plants and irrigation shall be installed prior to scheduling the final inspection and issuing the! occupancy permit on the work on the house; 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. The motion was seconded by C. Key. On the Motion: discussed the alternative of a tandem garage, it would not be compatible with the neighborhood and in the past have found that tandem garages do not work well, most often they are not used for parking because it is not convenient. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the three variances. The motion was passed on a 4-2-1 (C. Keighran and Vistica dissenting, C. Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE AT 2810 TIBURON WAY., ZONED R-1. (JOHN L. STEWART, AIA, APPLICANT AND MITRA MORSHED-BERGLOFF, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, 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 from the commissioners on the staff report. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Marvin Bergloff, 945 Harenti Point Drive, they divided the permit, already have a permit for the downstairs conversion and interior work; they have six children, two of them have special needs and need a room where toys can be left out; the lower area was an illegally converted laundry room with outside access only, another reason to do the conversion was to correct the illegal work; he needed to install a new laundry; could remove the rear deck and reduce lot coverage to 40.8 percent, this was the same as a plan previously approved years ago but never built, this plan included an extension at the end of the house for a bedroom; thought about increasing the ceiling height in the master bedroom to 10 feet but owner next door felt was too high and reduced to 8 feet, this would extend the ridge from the garage over the bedroom, at the same height. Architect noted that addition would not block views, only one side, the left, increases to 10 feet, several houses as you go up the street have already made this same addition. Commissioner asked, now live in Redwood Shores do you intend to move to Tiburon Way, yes like schools in Burlingame better; what special needs are involved, two mentally handicapped children; children range in age from baby to 15 years. Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Way, representing the property owner at 2810 Tiburon, commented when hillside area construction permit was adopted in many cases there was no view blockage, but in this case the story poles tell the story, the view from his bedroom is obstructed and to a lesser degree the view from the living room, see past the tree at the end of the street to the side of the new roof; last June asked applicant to change the end of the roof to a hip, had no further conversation with applicant until this application was made, roof not changed, so appealed. Not opposed to the application, applicant needs space, want to object to the height of the rear roof, can lower 18 inches to 20 inches without affecting the inside dimensions of the room. Commissioner noted roof pitch on plans is 4:12, if went 3:12 would reduce the height 11- 12 inches, is that OK, yes; instead of gable end could also use hip which would slant back and not interfere with view. WE M City of Burlingame Pkgning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Applicant responded: have discussed pitch of roof with architect, since house now 4:12 to change part to 3:12 would not match, the transition would look odd and would save only 10 inches in height; when dropped from 10 to 8 foot ceiling went to gable so that he could take advantage of the view on that side of his house, if he goes to hip he will loose view; also hip costs more to build than gable. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission continent: paid attention to letter from Mr. Berkoff, the new room is designed to take advantage of the view, story poles demonstrate that view from house above will be lost, about half of view, problem is that if approve request will give applicant view that is being taken away from neighbor; have a problem with a 44 % lot coverage; goal is to protect long distant view, view is blocked does not matter that view is of eucalyptus trees that screen water tank, trees are a view; a good neighbor is willing to work with neighbors, could add on other side of house, lot coverage is too much can be reduced but would not like to see the front porch changed. C. Coffey noted that he agreed that there is an easy remedy to the view blockage issue, would not like to see the rear deck go, the contributes to the house and does not affect the neighborhood; would move to approve the hillside area construction permit with the added condition that the roof pitch of the new addition be changed to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof be approved by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the proposed revisions to the structure only the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bcju6s absent) vote. C. Coffey moved for approval of the side setback variance and lot coverage variance for 44.2 % based on the commissioners comments and facts in the staff report and record and that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: must vote no, feel lot coverage variance should be reduced to 40%, reduce the mass of the bedroom and keep the deck if they wish; if approve 44 % lot coverage does it go with the property and increase the potential for house size increase in the future, yes; can address lot coverage just for deck with condition. C. Luzuriaga requested an amendment to the motion adding a condition that the portion of the lot coverage caused by the deck, 4 %, be limited now and in the future to deck and that the house shall never be enlarged or the deck covered or enclosed to use this area. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment and the revised conditions for the project: 1) that the project shall be amended from what is shown on the plans submitted to the; Planning Department and date stamped August 14, 1998, Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 with a maximum roof ridge height of 21'-5" as measured from average top of curb [elevation (=7'-3")], to include that the roof pitch on the new additin be reduced to 3:12 and the gable end replaced with a hip roof; Cuy of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 2) that the 4 % of lot coverage created by the deck shall never be enclosed in anyway or added to the house and the deck area shall never be enclosed; 3) that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 4) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the side setback and lot coverage variances with conditions amended. The vote was 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting, C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE-STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1424 EL CAMMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS). and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE-STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA K. SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, 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 does it meet city requirements to have two of the required eight parking spaces uncovered, yes; storm water is being carried to El Camino, does El Camino flood in this area, no but water has to drain someplace to the east off El Camino, there is a drain at Hillside to Mills, in a heavy rain storm with lots of infiltration will still get some flooding east of El Camino in area where this water will go, city is undertaking a city wide storm drain study which will give us a better understanding of specific places which flood in the future, the applicant ,already has permission from CalTrans to drain to El Camino; will Interceptor project on California Avenue help, will reduce infiltration which will help but not solve the problem. CA Anderson noted that, since the applicant did not submit them for review before, a condition should be added that the city attorney shall review the CC and R's before a building permit shall be issued. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing on the condominium permit and the tentative map. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408, representing the project commented that they had considered the commission's comments at study and looked at the design again. They have made the following changes: the studied the front elevation considering the suggestion that the guest parking be placed at the front and concluded to keep it at the rear because the design change to mask the large cantilever would inhibit the access to the parking spaces; if parking -11- City of Bwlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14. 1998 is placed at the front then one of the spaces would have to be in the front setback and that would add a variance and also reduce the landscaping at the front so that a variance for landscaping would also be required, they can install signs to direct guests and deliveries to the guest parking spaces at the rear; the structural engineer reviewed the cantilever and said that it was OK to do it the way it was shown, there are several other buildings in town with equal cantilevers. Commissioners asked applicant: how is the long narrow public open space next to the trash container intended to be used, this design includes more public open space than the last, some trees will screen the trash container area, did not have to submit landscape plan at this time; can you shift building to the rear of the lot in order to place parking at the front, added column to reduce visual impact of the cantilever, it would block the back -out of guest parking spaces at the front whether they were in the front setback or just at the front of the ;tot; how hard will it be for a guest to turn around if the two guest parking spaces at the rear are occupied, it would take a number of maneuvers; where are the water heaters and furnaces located, in the attic space of each unit; what does the dashed line mean on the plans, it represents the required setback lines. There were no further comments from the applicant. Other members of the public spoke: Sarah Langford, 1431 Capuchin Avenue, Pat Heley, 1427 Capuchino, have been at the other hearings on this project, commend reducing the project from four to three units, concerned because of the drainage problem on Capuchino where surface water from other developments fronting on El Camino sheets off into the :rear yards of properties fronting on Capuchino. This site is the last left on this part of El Camino to absorb surface water property owners at rear need to be given some consideration. Owned ;property behind for 30 years never had water in the backyard, will pump to El Camino take care of all surface drainage; where is the sewer line, existing sewer is parallel to Capuchin and El Camino at the rear of the sites facing El Camino, have problem with blockage from tree roots, since cleaned no problem. Dale Meyer, representing the applicant, commented they have noted the comments of the neighbors and will do what Public Works requires to mitigate the drainage. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have a lot of difficulty with the project, guest parking is not comfortable at front or rear, put too much building on the site, built to most of the setbacks, is bulky have three very large dwelling units so have to deal with an extreme cantilever; at study asked for documentation of how the cantilever would work, did not supply, applicant talking to the structural engineer is not adequate documentation; not sure this is the right project for this site; appreciate alternative plan but it shows pavement at rear with parking at front, if reduce footprint of building can put in parking which is useable for deliveries without a front setback variance; there is no place for guests to park off site at the location, available guest parking is critical, would prefer extra guest parking space next to two at rear, better than extra open space provided; have no problem with variance in front setback for guest parking; good that reduced -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mirages September 14, 1998 from four to three bedroom units, but bedrooms very large could reduce size and reduce bulk and mass of the structure would be better; the cantilever is extreme, from El Camino see long drive and cantilever, will be an eyesore, could add any number of structural solutions to reduce visual impact i.e. roof with tile, trellis, planting, of long wide driveway. Commission discussion continued: this is a big improvement over previous application but being "typical" of other projects is not a good basis for judging this project; would like to reduce impact of cantilever with addition of an arch, concerned about parking if put a front and eliminate the screen on the cantilever would make it look worse from El Camino; do not like to barter, need to do it correctly, its still too massive reduced the number of units from 4 to 3 but only reduced the building by 10 percent; reduced the number of dwelling units but not the mass, trellis sounds like a good solution but it won't work with the parking; not mind two parking spaces at the front but reduce the width of the building and change the entrance, take out walkway in side yard and exterior access to storage; need column at front don't want it removed just reduce the bulk and the cantilever and it will work. Chairman Deal moved to continue this item for redesign. CA Anderson suggested that it might be better to deny without prejudice since the commission has given pretty clear direction. Chairman Deal then moved to deny without prejudice the project and. tentative map for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: all systems serving to make the sump pump operable, including a back up emergency generator, and the pump itself should be redundant so that no flooding will occur on neighboring properties. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE AT 1201 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC, APPLICANT AND 1201 HOWARD AVENUE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, 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 from the Commissioners. Commissioners noted that condition 2 indicates that this medical office would be open on Saturday, the applicant indicates that it will be open Monday through Friday, condition should be corrected, staff noted correction. -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alex Podell, 1201 Howard Avenue, representing the property owner stated this chiropractor is a use they would like to have in the building, the use is compatible with the adjacent retail, real estate office and is similar because it is like a personal service use where others have a similar high turn over in parking uses; the chiropractor is a less intense use than the freight forwarding company in the suite which had 4 employees; since the temporary library has been closed there is plenty of parking in the area. Greg Cameron, 100 El Camino Real, potential tenant spoke. He noted that they have appointments every 20 minutes for the first hour and two each for 20 minutes in the second hour etc. for their 7 hour day, if they have an emergency they have a patient use the extra 20 minutes in the second and subsequent hours. Have been in the area at 100 El Camino Real a long time, 25-30% of the patients live in the area and many walk to appointments, many elderly use public transportation so not use a parking space. Greg Cool, Foster City, Greg Cameron has been in Burlingame for 16 years, this site is 2 blocks from his current site, area now is 2 people in 3000 SF, the new site reduces the office size and has access to better parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey commented that he feels that the parking is available in the area in the public lots in this area to meet the needs of the service provided, feels that the use will have less impact than the previous freight forwarding use, the previous tenant, it would not be detrimental to the public or neighborhood; it will fit into the neighborhood's commercial mix; so move for approval of the one space parking variance and the special permit for health services in the 1047 SF, suite IOTA by resolution with conditions as stated in the staff report and with a change to condition 2 to allow the health service use to be open Monday through Friday; the conditions are amended as follows: 1) that the chiropractic office shall be limited to 1043 SF in Suite IOIA, at 1201 Howard Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 11, 1998, Sheets Al through A3; 2) that the chiropractic office may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesdays with a maximum of 5 people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 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. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 ( C. Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14. 1998 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE TO ADD A SECOND STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE A .RETAIL USE AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DBA GREEN BANKER, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Allan Coon, 535 Silven Avenue, San Bruno, architect represented the project, he noted that the request to add a residential unit and get a parking variance was market driven, have been negotiating leases with some high quality users jewelry, art galleries, want to know what security is provided and want more than a security guard, better maintenance if the provider lives on site also. The unit is so large because there is no yard space provided, it is a noisy location and need to include an amenity to address; clock tower was included because this is a transportation hub and it is logical location to have a time element; the squares on the upper part of the structure are the clear story windows which let light into the retail spaces below; feel have designed with the least impact and competition with existing neighborhood. Commissioners asked applicant: no section is provided, not clear how you get to the ground floor; are the columns between the building and the parking lot, how do they work; four columns are at the base of the clock tower and repeat along the parking lot, the clear story windows step back from the column line and there is an open atrium 8 feet wide to allow skylight for additional light into the retail spaces; the columns have not changed from the original (without residential unit) to new plans (with residential unit). Have a problem with your need for a residential unit, have tenants throughout city without on security living on the site and cleaning the parking lot; site located on a busy section of California Drive, no on street parking, restaurant in old train station will further impact available parking, you meet the parking requirement for retail, what is the need for adding a residential unit which causes a parking variance; the market demands residential provided security be provided given the number of potential users, proximity to the freeway, dark alley at rear, it is prudent to go beyond the public services offered by the community and tenant could also provide additional services, merchants don't seem to maintain their sites too well and this would be helpful. 'There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Think that the clock is inappropriate, it is what you incorporate into a building with great prominence like the Ferry Building, if not on such a building it looks inappropriate; clear story windows not appropriate, should echo the fire station, the design does not come off; am aware we presently have no design of commercial buildings but can look at design in this context; agree that parking is tight in this area and adding a parking variance will -15- City of B-hngame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 not do any good; do not favor a dwelling unit in this location. Agree about residence on top of retail at this location, no need for security, maintenance firms and security services are available, residential use would need 2 parking spaces and area is densely developed not need more cars. No problem with mixed use, would increase pedestrian life on Broadway, if do add then need to provide adequate parking, have a large site here, could build less building and more parking; building needs different design if you are going to include residential uses, do not see hardship for variance. Favor mixed use but one unit over large retail is not much mix, if want residential need to fix parking, the dwelling unit appears to be an after thought, its a poor location for a dwelling unit, very noisy. C. Vistica moved to deny the request for the special permit for residential use on the second floor and for a two space parking variance because no hardship exists on this property, the site is big enough that the parking problem could be fixed; the request for the residential unit is denied because there is no necessity to provide live-in building security person and for the reasons stated by the commission and in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the special permit for residential use in a commercial zone and for a parking variance. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. (HOWARD ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND JOHNSON LEE_ AND HUANGE LI-CHEN. PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked in the applicant had agreed to the conditions, staff noted that the conditions in the staff report had been made available to the applicant and he has not contacted staff about them. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Joel Howard, 724 Clarendon Avenue, spoke he felt he responded from study with the things the commission asked for. Commissioner's asked if he would want to move equipment on Saturday; applicant suggested that Saturday be added to the conditions. Do the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, does your business begin early in the day; applicant noted that he would prefer to begin earlier in the day, 6 a.m. and end the day at 6 p.m. The applicant concluded that he would appreciate an affirmative vote. Chairman Deal closed the public hearing. C. Keighran moved to grant the special permit for the outdoor storage use at 970 David Road with the additional condition that the site be enclosed on three sides with opaque fencing, leaving the wrought iron gate and fence at the front is acceptable, and further amending the conditions -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1998 for requiring full paving of the site including appropriate drainage, hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and amending the days of the week in which equipment can be moved on and off the site to Monday through Saturday, the hours of operation to apply to those days by resolution with these amended conditions: 1) that the project shall operate on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 2, 1998, Site Plan, except that three sides of the site shall be enclosed with opagque fencing (the wrought iron gate and fence may be retained at the front setback and the entire site shall be paved and properly drained to the street as required by the City Engineer; 2) that the construction equipment and vehicle storage facility may not be open for equipment removal or parking except during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 3) that a maximum of two employees shall be on site only to drop off or pick up equipment, and no work shall be performed at the site and no structures on or off foundations shall be permitted on the site, and there shall be no utilities extended to the site; 4) that all employees shall park on site, there shall be no visitors to the site; 5) that all equipment shall be washed and/or maintained or repaired off the site and in no case shall equipment be washed, maintained or repaired within the public or railroad right-of-ways or any adjacent privately owned parcel; 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. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the use permit with amended conditions. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, AND PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR AN 85,786 SF, THREE- STORY BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT FOR USE AS A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY AT 999 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2. (JOHN R. HANSEN, BURLINGAME STORAGE PARTNERS, APPLICANT, AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 09.14.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twenty conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Deal noted that the applicant for this item requested a continuance of action for an indefinite period at the beginning of the meeting. This item will be renoticed when it is brought again for action before the commission. -17- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes PLANNER REPORTS September 14, 1998 REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. CP Monroe review briefly the actions taken at the City Council meeting on September 9, 1998. - REVISIONS TO PISCES RESTAURANT PROJECT AT 1190 C'ALIFORNIA Commission had no comments on the memo regarding changes 1.0 the Pisces restaurant project at 1190 California Drive, zoned Unclassified. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting by acclamation at 11:10 p.m. MIN(TCES9.14 -18- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary