Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021405PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 14, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the February 14, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg and Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 24, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The presentation by Sustainable San Mateo County was continued to the March 28, 2005, meeting. To facilitate the meeting because just a quorum of the Commission was sitting and a member present was ill, the order of the agenda was changed to place the action calendar first, followed by design review and finally the study items. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented on her neighbor's construction which was exempt from design review and the need to extend the residential design review process to more projects, so neighbors have input on the project earlier in the process; would benefit neighbor relations. Commissioner clarified that the project which did not go through design review was located at 1449 Balboa. Rick Demming, 729 Lexington Way, submitted letter to be included in the record for his project which was on the study calendar, listing additional hardships for the variance. There were no further comments from the floor. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE REAR FENCE (KURT STEIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. CA noted that there was a request to take 149 Occidental Avenue off the consent calendar. Chair Osterling moved 149 Occidental Avenue to the first item on the action calendar. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 2 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 8. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE REAR FENCE (KURT STEIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report February 14, 2005, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kurt Steil, 911 North Amphlett, commented that he built the house as speculation. The buyer asked him to move the fence at the rear of the garage back an additional 4 feet to increase the flat area in the backyard, as currently approved there is 11 feet of their property behind the fence, with the currently proposed relocation there would be 7 feet instead of 11 feet of their property behind the fence in the creek, in any event the fence would still be on the property at 149 Occidental; the new buyers have made the relocation of the fence a contingency of the sale of the house; the owners on Chapin Lane of the property behind 149 Occidental would like access to the rear 11 feet of 149 Occidental since they have installed irrigation and planted this area and need access to maintain it; the buyer’s attorney and the attorney of the property owner behind are close to agreement, the developer is staying out of it since he does not want to bound; he is requesting a continuance of this item until the two attorneys have arrived at a mutual agreement, hopefully the next Planning Commission meeting. Commission asked applicant: Did the owner behind ask for an added buffer at the rear of 149 Occidental which included the flat area? Yes. Would the applicant need new plans to show the fence at the location agreed to by the two attorneys? Yes. Feel that this item can be placed on consent if the attorneys and potential buyers and property owner behind reach agreement. David Igard, 150 Chapin Lane, property owner behind. Want this issue resolved, thought reached agreement with the previous action, fence located 11 feet from rear property line on 149 Occidental, now developer is reneging; he and neighbors at 146 and 156 Chapin Lane supported the original project because of the location of the fence; their concern is the impact on their privacy and preservation of the creekside setting; think an appropriate compromise is possible but not without a written agreement. Commission asked, it is unclear why you object to him moving the fence within his own property. Problem is the large house built and the need to preserve the natural sense of the creekside setting, submitted pictures of the creek with the old fence, set back 11 feet, from their side they want to hide the fence and screen the view of the new house. March 8, 2004, letter from the neighbors details the issues. Commission asked if the top elevation of the fence changed whether it was 11 feet or 7 feet from rear property line? The issue is not the height but the ability to plant landscape to screen the fence and the problems behind it, they reclaimed the area along the creek, built walls and landscaped, thought the area was theirs. What are the pictures of? They are pictures of the previous fence which was 1.5 feet further away than the one originally approved (at 11 feet); greater issue is that the side yard fences have been built already but not the rear, so fear they were planning on seeking a change to this fence location all along. Applicant noted that the fence was up before could get a final, not hiding anything; reason Igard's want fence 11 feet back is so that they can access the flat area to install plants and maintain them, trying to take over part of this property which is not theirs, new owner does not want people at rear of property looking over the fence, if fence back 4 feet further it would block the view of his property more. Have neighbors irrigation system on his property, if not work out City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 3 developer will remove. Is it safe to move the fence down slope? Fence will still be located on flat area above creek when 7 feet behind property line. Igard, goal is to reach agreement with developer and buyer through a binding agreement, think that is in everyone's interest. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted it is in the best interest that they figure this out among themselves and come to compromise, concerned about someone else on another's property to do maintenance, can see why new neighbor is concerned; move to place this on the action calendar when a compromise has been achieved. Motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: No problem with relocating fence as applicant proposes, fine as long as they keep the fence off the slope, new location adds several feet of valuable area to the back yard, if need a taller fence put it down slope or on the other side of the creek, need to respect property owners rights. C. Keighran amended motion to place this item on the consent calendar if a compromise has been achieved and to place it on the action calendar if a compromise is not achieved. Second C. Auran agreed to the amendment. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when an agreement had been agreed to or on the regular action calendar if no agreement is achieved. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (C. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 9. 3028 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ED WEBB, FORMAT, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANGELINA BRUNO, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report February 14, 2005, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff was asked to read to criteria for a hillside area construction permit into the record. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Angelina Bruno, property owner, and Ed Webb, architect, 248 LaVilla, La Jolla, represented the project. Ray and Barbara Forest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke in opposition. Commission had no questions of applicant. Neighbors, lived on La Mesa 30 years, feel project is obstructive to the area, should have a shed roof, will see a stark building blocking view of green belt; the height at the rear to the front does not flow with the hillside, is 35 feet tall, design is stark and not necessary. Live to west of 3028 Hillside, look down on; not disagree with the benefit of remodel, problem is the height of the middle section of the proposed project, now the house is nestled into the canyon, remodel will make it stand out; fire hydrant serving this area does not work, will it be fixed, if not this will increase the risk to other residents, this site is next to Mills Canyon wildlife area, want to keep the natural setting. Applicant noted: fire hydrant has not worked for a number of years, city decided not to fix, told that could use the fire lane in the Canyon for access or come down from the street above, house will be fully sprinklered, tried to mitigate roof, put fake shakes on it, roofing material is what will face the neighbor. Commissioner noted visited properties on both La Mesa Court and Lane, house has a strong vertical element, there is a better way to blend the house into area, add more hip roof, move it up the slope like the houses on La Mesa. Applicant noted vertical element is there to provide view, could reduce some but the house is designed within the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 4 current parameters. Neighbor noted that Fire Department would not take equipment on fire road below, cannot go down road to cul-de-sac, its too steep; will need to drag hose. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: visited Fishers, looked out kitchen window, proposed roof would cut heavily into the distant view, feel that there is a loss of view, also two conflicting stories about the Fire Department, need clarification. CA noted that the reason the house is required to be sprinklered is so that it is not dependent on a fire hydrant. Agree that there is a view blockage. C. Keighran noted agree from site visit although do not feel that the view from the Forest home is blocked, the vertical element of this house is unnecessary, but the Freeman view is blocked, think house does need remodeling, concerned about the view obstruction on La Mesa so move to deny without prejudice to give the applicant the opportunity to revise the design so that it blends better with house and addresses the view blockage from the Freeman house on La Mesa. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (C. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2515 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALFRED AND PINKY PONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if staff requires existing elevations drawings to be submittal with the plans. Staff responded that yes, it is a listed requirement of submittal given to all applicants. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, Darosa Associates, 475 El Camino Real #308, Millbrae, project designer was available to answer questions. Commission asked why there were no existing elevations provided, disappointed these were not part of plan set. Mr. Darosa explained that there were no changes to the front elevation, and there were pictures provided of the house. Commissioner noted that new trees proposed are Redwoods to match the existing trees on-site, however in years to come this will create a dark and shady property, should consider making a different selection of trees, use street tree list. Commissioner asked if the new windows will match the existing windows or will they all be replaced. Mr. Darosa explained that some of the windows in the house have recently been replaced with new windows already so the new windows will match the existing windows. Commission clarified that all will be double glaze vinyl frame windows, and the applicant confirmed that all will be double glaze vinyl frame windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Provide existing elevation drawings for all elevation; • Select a different species than the proposed Redwoods for planting on-site to avoid creating a dark shady property in years to come; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 5 • Add more detail to the drawings and provide elevations of all side of the house, existing and proposed-side by side arrangement. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: this is a modest addition; proposal will match existing style of the house. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 11. 1414 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICK SANDOR AND LISA GOOZE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PHIL HYLAND, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Phil Hyland, JPH Design, 585 Quarry Road, San Carlos, was available to answer questions, noted that owners were not available to attend meeting. Proposing a new house, pretty much the same footprint, but new garage will be pushed back to the rear of the lot. Commission asked staff if there really was only one covered and one uncovered space required for this new house. CP Monroe noted that there were four bedrooms proposed, therefore only one covered space is required, two covered spaces are required for five or more bedrooms. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 12. 1309 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS AND PEGGY PEDERSEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Chris and Peggy Pedersen, property owners, 1309 Mills Avenue, were available to answer questions. Jeanne Mehran, 1305 Mills Avenue, nice from the front, concerned with North elevation seen from her house, they are bordered by a one story house on one side and a two story house on the other side, sun comes in from side of one story house and the addition will eliminate the sun and sky view they have; there is one portion of addition that has a two story wall straight up that is not set back at all, what will the roof be made of? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 6 Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, responded that the roof will be composition shingle which is typical for this style of house now a days; there is a driveway on the neighbors side, and this property is only 50 feet wide and also has a driveway on the side, so the buildable width of the property is only about 36-37 feet; there is one place that is two stories, with a dormer; cutting back two feet won’t change the effect of the shadow on the adjacent property; when you build a two-story house there is some impact on sunlight. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: nice job, preserving character of the existing house, nice example of a bungalow restored and remodeled; nice job of mixing old and new. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:06 p.m. 13. 270 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (YAT-CHEONG AND ANN AU, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Yat-Cheong, property owner, 270 Chapin Lane, was available to answer questions. He stated that he was very happy with plans that Jerry Deal prepared. The new two- car garage will fit well with the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: fine design, will blend well with existing. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (C. Brownrigg & Vistica absent) The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 14. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GILL AND JANE YEE, TRS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff if there was a limit on tree planting and regulations for tree trimming developed for the hillside area, thought this was brought up by City Council. CA Anderson noted that there has not been a formal policy adopted yet, but that staff can work with the Parks Department and the City Arborist on a condition of approval. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 7 Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Gill Yee, property owner, 2707 Martinez Drive, has been a resident of Burlingame for 25 years, has done nothing to his house, there is a lot of construction work going on in the area, now he wants to improve his property. Mr. Yee passed forward letters of support for his project to the Planning Commission. Commissions asked if this project was o.k. with his three uphill neighbors. Mr. Yee responded that yes, the three neighbors above him are o.k. with the project, but he has an agreement with the neighbor directly next door. Commissioner clarified that this is the neighbor at 2711 Martinez, because the letter from this neighbor says that approval of the project is pending City approval and provided that it doesn’t block his bridge and bay views, need to install story poles to determine if project will meet neighbor’s criteria. Mr. Yee noted that in response to the neighbor’s concerns he has worked on three revisions with Jerry Deal, his designer. There are three houses under construction for additions and remodel right now, he has lived in a construction zone for a year now. He is the only single story house on his side of the block, wants to improve this house. Got six letters of support from neighbors, tried to talk to everyone, but didn’t get them all. Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, 1228 Paloma, Burlingame, project designer, noted that the written document from the neighbor is not a good document. The neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive provided a document with a line that he thought the project should not cross (shown in red), he said if Mr. Yee adds to the inside side of the line it is o.k., just don’t go to the left of the line. If you look at the left elevations, the left hand portion of the second floor is one foot within the line demarcated by the neighbor. Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive, Burlingame; Lena Hwang, 2716 Martinez Drive, Burlingame, speaking on behalf of her parents; Hera Kostekoglu, 2708 Arguello Drive, Burlingame: lives in back and up hill from 2707 Martinez, has lived here since 1962. Went to the Planning Department because it seems like they are asking for a large variance. There is a second story on the house below and the neighbor next door is doing a big remodel, think they need story poles, not sure what this project will do to view, may impact uphill neighbors. It is a nice design, but doesn’t fit in with the other houses in the neighborhood, nothing else around like this; first notice they got about this project was blue card from the City, didn’t see plans before, concern with addition, don’t know what 8 foot increase will do to the view, all four bedrooms windows are located at the front of their house, father likes bay views, wish neighbor talked with them before, tall trees located on 2707 Martinez that are already a huge impact on the view; does not live within effected area, but there is a lot of remodeling going on in the area, bought in this neighborhood twenty years ago because of the hillside ordinance that protected views, concerned that if this project is approved it will set a precedent and other projects will be building in the area resulting in loss of views in this neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission clarified to members of the public that the request for height is not a variance, which requires that the Planning Commission find an exceptional hardship on the property, but a special permit which gives the Planning Commission the discretion to approve. Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Need story poles surveyed at proposed envelope of addition, will give better perspective of addition, concern with impact on distant views; • Applicant should explore trimming the existing black acacia and eucalyptus trees on the property to possibly offset the impact of the addition on views; and • Can staff provide addresses and phone numbers of neighbors that spoke tonight so that when the story poles go up the Planning Commission can view them from inside each neighbor’s house. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 8 Comment on motion: story poles will be a benefit to surrounding neighbors, a lot of construction in this areas, not opposed to addition on this property but concerned with impact on distant views. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and the story poles are up and documented. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg & Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1329 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; YANNA ABECASSIS AND MATTHEW MALONEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He left the Council Chambers. CA Anderson noted that the Commission was now in recess due to lack of a quorum, but that the remaining Commissioners could comment on the project. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Is this just a storage area with sink or will there be other uses/things added? • Will the drain line be limited to 2 inches? and • Can support the layout of this proposal, with the garden in the back, keeps good spacing behind garage. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. C. Auran returned to the dias. 2. 729 LEXINGTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JORGE MAEZONO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LIZA G. DEMINEY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Large lot coverage variance 45.1%, what is exceptional hardship on this property; • Applicant provided information on family hardships, but is there a possibility to convert the first floor office to a bedroom and add an office upstairs to avoid lot coverage variance; applicant needs to look at other options to address family hardship; • Commission is required to find a physical hardship on this property or other design to avoid the variance; • Without physical hardship have to go with rules; • Floor area is close to maximum, reduce by 50 SF or so; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 9 • Japanese maples proposed in rear yard, may not be best choice for privacy, look at selecting tall shrubs or trees from street tree list to address privacy. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 3. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANDREW JUROW AND BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Can the Commission have access to the accessory structure during their site visit? During the last review there was bed in the accessory structure. CP Monroe stated that staff will provide the Planning Commission with contact information for the property owner to arrange access to the structure. This item was set for the consent calendar. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 4. 1120 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (CHECK CASHING) (REZA RAZAVI, APPLICANT; CLAIRE CONSTANTINO TR ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Is there is a peak, time or times when customers come to this business, for example are there more at noon verses two in the afternoon? • What will the peak hours of activity be in two to five years? • Do more customers come at lunch time and after work? • Application says that they have businesses in other cities, where are the other locations? • Is there parking provided at the other locations? • Will staff check what applications were required at the locations in other cities and if there have been any issues at the locations in the other cites; • Application notes that the number of customers per day will be 30, and this number is anticipated to triple in five years, will this create a parking issue; • Previous use at this site was a real estate office, how many employees worked in that office and what was the hours of operation; and • Plans note four offices in the back, what and how will they be used, please provide details. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 5. 220 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 10 PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (PRINTING BUSINESS) (SCHEHEREZADE SHARABIANLOU, APPLICANT; BUDI LEONARDI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Why is this business moving from the current Lorton site to the California site? • How long has a retail use been in the building at 220 California Drive? • How long have retail uses been in the spaces at 210-218 California Drive? • How does the existing square footage at the Lorton Avenue site compare to the new square footage at the 220 California site? Please provide square footage of existing site; • How much on-site parking is provided for the existing Lorton Avenue site and the other three PIP sites that the delivery vehicle serves ? • Have there been parking complaints about this use at the Lorton location filed with the City? and • How does the business operate with only three employees and the few customers that come to this site. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 6. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A "PARK AND FLY" PROGRAM FROM AN EXISTING HOTEL (BRUCE CARLTON, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT; TODAY'S III INC., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Will there be signage in the parking area to designate the location for the park and fly patrons? • What is the vacancy rate of parking on the hotel site; provide average vacancy count twice a day (once at peak time) for three to four days to make sure there is adequate parking spaces on-site for proposed use; • Application says 30 cars maximum for the park and fly program, will that number grow in time? • Should monitor program and if successful how will hotel make sure cars are kept out of upper lot? • Approval should be limited to two or three years; and • 53% of customers are airline crew which use the shuttle to the hotel, can park and fly approval be tied to the number or proportion of airline crew usage? CA Anderson noted that conditions of approval can place a cap on the maximum number of cars allowed for the park and fly program, and can require review of the approval every two years or upon complaint. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 7. 1275 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES (JIM GLOVER, APPLICANT; PETER BRAUN & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; FRANK MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 11 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How much inventory will this business carry on-site at any one time? • Will vehicles in inventory be new or used? • Why will people buy these cars on-line and not just come to the site to look at them? • Why are there six offices, but there will only be one to three employees? What will the other offices be used for? • Provide a better description of how this business will function? Describe how cars will go in and out? • How will cars be brought in, where will they come from, how will they be delivered, where will they be loaded and unloaded? and • How will cars be sold? Viewed on-site or on-line, then picked up on-site? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 7, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions at the Council meeting. She noted that the Council discussed moving the date for the Joint session with the Planning Commission to April, but a full council was not available, so Council asked if the Commission could make the June 13 date, for a one hour meeting before the regularly scheduled Commission meeting; Chair directed staff to e-mail the commissioners to see if they would all be available June 13, 2005. It was noted that Council directed staff to bring some intermediate clarifications for the Subarea D regulations to the commission for immediate consideration. - FYI: Revisions to an approved commercial design review project at 1101 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Commission reviewed this item and set it to design review study when there was space on an agenda. - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – Landscape Plan for New Emergency Entrance on Trousdale (Increment One) The conditions of approval require that the Planning Commission be informed of the applicant's submittals and conformance with landscaping requirements for each phase of the project. This report was on the first phase of landscaping. Commission noted that Redwoods close to the street could become view obstacles for adjacent uphill properties in the future, so should be confined to the existing grove area. Future view blockage should be considered in reviewing other phases of the landscaping. - FYI: Update on the Food Establishment Regulations in the Broadway Commercial Area. Commissioner asked that this be put on the agenda for comment. Received a number of calls about a bakery on Broadway, with current regulations can have but without any on-site seating; presently have the maximum number on Broadway; realize that changing the regulations may not result in adding a bakery. Question is should the commission re-evaluate the current food establishment regulation and allow the number to expand for a time. What kind of bakery was interested? Not a full service like Copenhagen. Used to be a number of bakeries on Broadway, good to have one. CA noted that many businesses can call City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 12 themselves a bakery, Subway sandwiches for example bake their breads on site, location of a bakery on Broadway is to a considerable extent up to the property owners to seek out. Staff suggested that the Commissioners may wish to speak to some of the property owners on Broadway about how they feel about the current food establishment regulations and their effect on the business district. Commission directed staff to prepare a staff report on the alternatives to regulating food establishments XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary