Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020904PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 9, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the February 9, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:12 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Michael Brownrigg Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the January 12, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items for review. 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. 1A. 1433 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1B. 9 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREA COSTANZO, ADAMES DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GLENN AND ALMA GROSSMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Vistica noted on the project at 9 Bayswater Avenue all the light fixtures on the outside of the house should match those added to the second floor balcony and asked that this be added as a condition of approval. C. Keighran clarified that the staff report for the project at 1008 Toyon, item 2, is noted as a consent item but in fact is an action item. Staff acknowledged that this was so. C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 2 passed 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1008 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WAYNE FAIRBROTHER AND JENNIFER HEATH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 2.9.04 with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, architect represented the project. He noted that at Commission direction they worked on the entry, adding an eyebrow; requested moving the item from the consent calendar because the owner had a number of minor changes, window size, etc. which he wished to make at the same time. Commission noted that because the house is so close to the maximum FAR, a condition should be added to verify the setbacks in the field prior to the foundation being poured. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application as modified with the facts in the staff report, 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 January 28, 2004, Sheets A-1 through A-5, site plan, floor plans, building elevations; that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce the impact of night glow on the neighbors and neighborhood; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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 pouring the new foundation for the first floor addition, all setbacks shall be verified in the field by Planning staff; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, and City Engineer’s memos of November 24, 2003, shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 3 Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project as revised. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. 3. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE (GRAM REALTY, INC., APPLICANT; S.J. SUNG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (92 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 2.9.04 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if based on the conditions the applicant would have to return to the Commission if the number of employees was increased. CA Anderson responded yes and Commission could decide at that time what to do. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, represented APR realty which is now the corporate name of the applicant. Larry Knapp and Joann Wandalowski, office manager, were also present to answer questions. Noted would like to change the application to move the weekly agent meeting from Tuesday to Monday, work better with weekly pre-listing house tours; meeting would be over by 10 a.m. because of house tours; feel meeting would be over before there was a demand for retail parking in the area. 1440 Chapin is located away from the intersection of Primrose and Chapin where 6 real estate businesses are located, few with any parking on site and most underparked; this office building has parking to current code plus 8 spaces on site, one of few in area; beside the Monday morning agent meeting there are few people in this leased space. Concerned about condition 2 which places a restriction on the sub-tenant for the remainder of the space, building has parking to code on site, maximum usage of the real estate use is 10 people on site at one time except for Monday meetings, might be able to live with but why penalize this tenant when others in the area provide no parking; other real estate related businesses would need a conditional use permit before they could occupy the remainder of the space. Commissioners asked: Are all the employees licensed real estate agents; do they have other employment or is real estate their main source of income; how do they use the office, had a client who was a national real estate firm and agents spent a lot more time in the office each week than you indicate? All of those employed at this office will be licensed real estate agents except the clerical help; generally these agents do not have other employment. Agents work off lap tops and cell phones, have a network system from which they can access all information from home, generally come to the office to pick up/drop off things with staff. Seem to be 20 offices with doors and pool area for rest, why private offices for part time employees, also a couple of conference rooms? The more senior agents get offices as recognition, offices are small (10' x 12'); conference rooms are shared. How do you calculate the density of use in this office area? If everyone is there at once the density would be 1 person to 110 SF; actually expect a usual density of 1 person to 750 SF. Reason for weekly meeting on Tuesday was to off-set the impact of other businesses in area which have their meeting on Mondays, can you do Tuesday? When do others have their weekly meetings? Most real estate businesses meet on Mondays; not end of world on Tuesday, want Monday to coordinate with our San Mateo office and new listings tour. SAMCAR Board of Realtors meets on Tuesday mornings, another reason for Mondays. What type of real estate do you sell? How many clients come and how long do the stay? Sell residential real estate; client stays irregular, some come once for an hour, others more frequently for 5 to 10 minutes at a time, estimate 0-5 visitors on site at one time. Note in your letter that the area you intend to sublet will be to a “traditional” office use, what do you mean; some office uses do not need conditional use permits? Note was meant to indicate that other office uses would require a conditional use permit, this area is treated differently than Subareas A and B, so city would review real estate and other City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 4 listed intensive office uses; office uses which would not require a conditional use permit are attorneys and accounting firms. There were no other questions of the applicant. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Recently the Body Shop moved out of this building and there is more parking available now than when the parking counts were done by the applicant; feel that will be lucky if 40 people show up at the weekly meeting; lot of parking on site, if real estate agent is in the office, he is not doing business. Asked staff why condition 2 limiting the use of the sublet area to an office use with an employee ratio of 1:300 SF; CP noted that this proposed business would use more (closer to 1:100 SF) than its share of the parking allotted at 1:300 for the part of the space in the building they would use, did not want to compound this by having a high density (employee to parking) use in the almost equally sized area that they intended to sublet. Should the annual study reporting actual use of the real estate office area be prepared by an outsider to be more objective? CP noted have required this kind of study with other real estate tenants and found them to be accurate enough to determine if use coincides with observed parking impacts in the area. This office is away from concentration of real estate businesses in this area; observed a lot of parking available, would be concerned if weekly meeting stayed after 10 a.m. because would conflict with retail parking, that is not OK. Condition 3 should be changed to reflect that the weekly meeting will be held on Monday, don’t think need a third party to prepare report on condition 5, like condition 2 which limits use of the remainder of the tenant space to an employee density equal to the parking ratio. If the meetings on Monday are a problem the condition allows staff to work out a change with the applicant. C. Keele moved to approve the conditional use permit for a real estate use in 7,464 SF of Suite 200 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, with the remaining 6,531 SF to be used at an employee density no greater than 1 person per 300 SF gross; with an amendment to condition 3 so that the weekly meeting is held on Monday at the same time as proposed and the retention of all of the following conditions: 1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 7,464 SF in Suite 200 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 15, 2004, sheets 1 and 2 (8½" x 11"); 2) that the real estate business shall not expand into the remainder of the tenant space (6,531 SF); and that the subleased area shall not be occupied by any other business which has an employee to office density exceeding one person to 300 SF; 3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week; weekly agent meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., with a maximum of 48 persons on site during the meeting which includes agents, full-time employees, and managers; 4) that the real estate business shall have a maximum employees/managers of 64 part-time agents and 5 full-time employees/managers (with a maximum of 10 persons on-site at any one time except on Mondays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for group meetings); the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents, employees and managers for a real estate use in 7,464 SF of Suite 200 and the maximum of 10 persons on site except for 1 hour on Monday, shall not be increased (from 69) without an amendment to this permit; 5) that the owner of the property shall file a report with the City Planner by March 1 of each year declaring how many managers, employees, agents, and independent contractors have been working at the site over the previous calendar year, and the date and maximum number of employees, agents and independent contractors who have been on-site at any one time and the report shall include the usage (business and employee count) of the 6,531 SF sublet space; 6) that due to the impact of weekly agent meetings on parking in this area, the owner agrees to schedule the weekly group meetings or client conferences so that the parking impact is minimized and will consult with the City Planner on an annual basis regarding any difficult times or days of the week and shall make adjustments that may be applicable; 7) 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; 8) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 5 Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in two years from the date of approval (February, 2006) or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Project designer James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and applicant Kurt Steil, 911 N. Amplett Blvd., San Mateo, applicant, were available to answer questions, noted that this is not a typical 120 foot long lot, larger lot, house is 132 SF under the maximum FAR allowed, this number does not include 42 SF of attic space with a ceiling height of more than five feet and 176.5 SF of porch area, total 211.5 SF included in FAR, portion of the roof exceeding the height limit by 20 inches is only 15 feet long; property owner spoke to some adjacent neighbors and reviewed the plans with them, next door neighbor does not have a concern with the project, tried to contact the property owner and tenant on the left side; can revise project if necessary. Commission asked what is the reason for exceeding the height limit? The designer noted that this is a French inspired design, has steep pitched roofs, tried to minimize the mass and bulk by carrying the roof from the second floor to the first floor, roof could be clipped to meet the height limit but would prefer not to, proposed height is needed to enhance the roof and overall design. Commission asked why the landscape plan does not address the opportunity of the creek? Property owner noted that there is a path to the creek off Chapin Avenue, this side of the creek is very steep and not safe, would like to replace the existing fence and move it back a few feet. Commission noted that this is a missed opportunity, recommend visually opening the rear yard to the creek, will leave it up to the applicant to make a decision about the fence, front porch seems small, does not read like a porch, in past needed a variance to exceed the height limit but now a special permit, findings based on architectural compatibility so feel special permit for height is justified. Designer noted that the height could be reduced to comply but it would affect the roof pitch, expose more of the exterior walls and alter the floor plans. Commission noted that the landscape plan calls for a lot of plant materials, should reduce the amount of open lawn by adding trees in the lawn areas, would like to walk through more landscaping and trees as you approach the front entry. Lisa Mcconlogue, 150 Chapin Lane; Cliff Chang, 156 Chapin Lane; and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; spoke regarding the project, lives directly behind this lot, first time heard about the project was when received the public hearing notice, very surprised about the proposed project, thought that the redwood fence there now was on her property, concerned with loss of privacy in yard, will have a big impact, house is taller and located further back on the lot than the existing house; plans show that the existing fence is approximately five feet back from the rear property line, planted trees on my side near fence for screening, moving the fence back and eliminating the 15 foot hedge is not the best way to enhance the creek, noted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 6 when she moved in neighbors told her that none of the properties were surveyed, the area behind the fence has been used by the owners of her property for decades, need to look into this issue. Commission pointed out that the survey submitted by the applicant shows that the existing fence is clearly on the subject property and is setback a few feet from the rear property line. Lives one house over and behind the subject property, never discussed the project with the applicant, creek is beautiful and natural, concerned about the location of the fence, need to be more sensitive to the existing trees and landscaping, would like to investigate the location of the fence, looks like it may be moving back as much as 6 to 12 feet, redwood fence has been in place for a long time, this is a tall house and will appear large from the rear, house will be imposing on the creek. Asked if the property owner will live in the house or will it be sold? Developer will sell the house once it’s built. Property owner noted that the subject house and house directly behind will be 120 feet apart, survey completed by a licensed survey clearly shows that the existing fence is on the subject property, did not discuss the project with the neighbors at the rear because didn’t feel they would be affected by the project. Designer noted that the existing landscaping along the creek would not be removed, only drip irrigation system and some small trees installed by the previous owner would be removed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Landscape plan does not address the opportunity presented by the creek, this is a missed opportunity, recommend visually opening the rear yard to the creek, will leave it up to the applicant to make a decision about whether or not to include a fence at the rear; • Front porch seems small, does not read like a porch, need to be addressed; • Look at incorporating taller plant materials at the rear of the lot to provide screening and respect neighbor; • Concerned with the height and overall mass and bulk, will dominate the neighborhood and detract from the rustic quality found in the neighborhood, should downsize mass and bulk and reduce the height to below 30 feet above average top of curb; • Like the design, would prefer to see building not exceed the height limit but understands the designer’s reason for height and how it will enhance the design; • Need to respect natural area adjacent to creek; • Proposed house is an improvement over what is there now, will visually help the street, proposed house is narrow without a two-car garage at the front of the property; proposed house fits comfortably on the site. • This is a nice design, other houses in the neighborhood are much smaller, only one of this size, would prefer to see the house reduced in size to fit better within existing structures; and • This area contains a wide variety of small to large houses, this lot can handle this house size; C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that the proposed floor area ratio will be doubled with the project. Chair Bojués called for a roll call 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 roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 7 5. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. She stepped down from the dias and left the Council Chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked how much of the basement was counted in floor area ratio? Staff noted that because the basement qualifies for a 700 SF exemption from floor area, only 23 SF counted towards FAR. Randy Grange, project architect, noted that he looked at the existing house and tried to build on the existing image, the above ground FAR is 100 SF below the maximum allowed, used shingle siding to soften the house. Commission asked if the property owner intends to live in the house? No, owner intends to sell the house after it’s built. Like how the designer reflected the pattern of the existing house, but am concerned with how the sides of the house relate to the adjacent properties. Architect noted that the second floor along the left side property line is set back 7’-0”. Commission noted that there is an open area at the front of the existing house which will be taken up by the new footprint, house will be much closer to 1517 Drake Avenue than the current house, concerned with two story wall on north side, house is pinched by the massing, not in keeping with the houses in the neighborhood, other new houses on this block will be smaller. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mark and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue; Chris Mccrum, 1540 Drake Avenue; David Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; Regina O’neal, 1516 Drake Avenue; and Jennifer Frolic, 1517 Drake Avenue; expressed their concerns with the project, lives across the street, house is increasing from 1454 SF (0.24 FAR) to 4039 SF (0.56 FAR), would like to see project referred to a design reviewer, out of character with the neighborhood, need to look at the broader context, a lot of development on this street, five new big houses are proposed, going from existing homes which have a total of 6 to 7 bedrooms to collection of new houses with a total of 20 bedrooms, will see impacts to parking and traffic, we have reached a tipping point on this block, cumulative impact needs to be looked at as a whole, would like to see a separate study session to address these impacts; existing house is charming, was previously occupied by a young couple starting out and before that an elderly couple, need to preserve smaller ‘starter’ houses, at the October 27, 2003, meeting the Commission raised several issues including reducing the FAR for developers and houses with basements and developing different standards for different types of lots, what are other cities doing, at least 80 houses have been demolished in the past three years, what has come of all this? Should not place this project for action until the entire block has been studied; this is the fifth house in a row of seven houses now affected, house have been increased in height and density, will have a substantial effect on the neighborhood; Commission has more information on this block than any other block in Burlingame, staff and neighbors provided information of the median size house on this block, proposed house at 4000 SF will exceed the median by 50%, would like to see project sent back for a redesign and house reduced below 3000 SF; not opposed to replacement and development, adds value to existing houses, however there is a significant change occurring in the Easton Addition, need to re-evaluate trend of developers, many designing to maximum FAR, seeking exceptions to height, basements, etc., most of the larger houses come from the developers, understand that they need to maximize their profit, but the Commission needs to think about the impact to the community; the diversity of people is changing, first time homeowners are being outbid; developers ask for maximum FAR and when reduce house by 5 to 10 percent they look like heroes, in reality they are almost at maximum FAR, homeowners do not ask for so much SF; needs parking and traffic study on block before this project is reviewed again, increase in density and number of bedrooms, there is no parking available on this block, can't turn around at end of block. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 8 Continued comment: Five new houses on this block will change complexion, need to re-examine FAR and set different standards, incumbent on Commission to exercise maximum discretion on impact on neighborhood, redwood trees and traffic, Commission needs to get as much information they can get to make their decision, look at size of other houses, number of occupants, and traffic; size is too large, concerned about the proposed basement and its affect on underground water, high water table in this area, water repairs have been done at 1513 and 1517 Drake Avenue, shingle siding not consistent with the neighborhood which mostly have stucco houses, concerned with second floor balcony at rear and privacy issues, neighbor has pool in rear yard, question why basement is not included in FAR, this is more than the street can bear, over 40% of the block is being redeveloped; moved in next door a couple of weeks ago, house is crammed especially at the front, retaining wall does not extend 4 feet as shown on plans, concerned with underground water and basement, needs to be further studied and drainage reconsidered, roots of redwood tree on adjacent property to south may extend into this property; recently in the market for a house, there is a big market for smaller houses, but outbid by developers; existing house is small but it does not need to be 4000 SF. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Expectation is that if basements are allowed the house should be less massive, proposed house is excessive, bedrooms are large, have two walk-in closets, this house could be trimmed down especially with a 700 SF recreation room in the basement this is not the right house for the neighborhood; • This block is getting hammered, house is too massive and bulky, FAR and number of bedrooms is being doubled; • Concerned about the basement and drainage and how if affects underground water flow; • Design does not enhance the neighborhood; • Streetscape needs to be provided for this entire block to evaluate how this project will fit in with the houses on that side of the street; • Concerned with size of house, size can be reduced, feel architect has received clear message to redesign project; • Need to look at what is happening on street, suggest a smaller house; and • Very little yard left, proposing a two-car garage when only one is required for this four bedroom house, single-car garage may be more appropriate, would follow neighborhood pattern of rear and front yard size. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Cannot support the motion, still think project should be referred to a design reviewer, we are putting the architect in a bind, win or lose situation, would like to see a more collaborative process to address the concerns, need more than just some minor changes, need to reduce by 5 to 10%; feel that architect knows the process, he can decide to consult with a design reviewer if he chooses; want to make sure the applicant addresses the affect of the basement on the underground water, this is a wet area. Chair Bojués called for a roll call 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 roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Keele dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:06 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 9 6. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 AND LOT 2 ZONED R-1- A. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING B. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 2 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING C. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS (DEREK CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ABR ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked how is a tree measured to determine whether it’s a protected-size tree? CP noted that a tree is of protected size if it has a circumference of 48 inches or greater measured 54 inches above adjacent grade. CA Anderson noted that the guidelines for measuring a tree are set in the reforestation ordinance, but that the Commission could evaluate the trees with a different criteria if they felt it was appropriate for this project. Commission noted that the concrete driveway on Lot 2 extends to the second floor of the house, could the driveway be designed to end at the ground floor? Sr. E. Monaghan noted that the proposed driveway has a maximum 15% slope, to get the driveway to the first floor would require a steeper driveway slope, he pointed out that a 15-20% driveway slope would require City Engineer approval, a +20% driveway slope would require a variance from the plan. Michael Jung, project architect, 4075 Papazian Way, Suite 204, Fremont, noted that the two houses will sit at the base of a downhill slope, all existing houses are two story on this side of the block, clarified that the proposed driveway slope on Lot 2 is 15% and would extend to the garage on the upper floor, the side setback variance for the house on Lot 1 is for a set of stairs from the deck to the rear of the lot, this is a tight triangular lot, without the stairs would lose the windows at the rear, there is also a 10 foot easement along the right side property line, distance between the house on Lot 1 and the neighboring house is substantial and therefore see no impact from the side setback variance. Commission pointed out that there are a lot of issues with this project: would like to see both proposed developments on one site plan so that the Commission can see how the projects fit; would like a better match to the design guidelines; can the house be pushed further back so that a traditional at-grade driveway can be installed. The architect noted that it would be difficult to push the house further back because there are two existing 48-inch diameter trees and an existing public utility easement at the rear of the lot. Commission expressed a concern with the style of the two houses and that they don’t respect the style of the existing house being demolished. Architect noted that there are mixed styles in the neighborhood, there is no predominant style, this design reflects the varying styles in the neighborhood, the bulk of these houses will be below the street level and therefore will not be visible, will probably see half of the second story and roof, matures trees surround the site, both houses will be screened well. Commission commented that by working with the arborist and engineer, the house could be carefully designed to move the house further back; would like to see landscape plan for both lots on one sheet; proposed houses do not resemble character of the street at all, houses need to be scaled down, too grandiose, lot of mass with two houses together, not consistent with design guidelines. Commission asked the architect to clarify the plate heights; architect noted that 9 foot and 10 foot plate height are proposed on the first and second floors, respectively, felt that plate heights could be greater since houses are below the street level. Both houses need to be scaled down, high entry windows and plate City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 10 heights, project did not follow the design guidelines, houses need to fit better into the block, need to look beyond the numbers to the design guidelines. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. John Hagenah, 1500 Alturas; Fred Platt, 1505 Alturas Drive; Bart Gross, 1503 La Mesa Drive; Raj Sarkar, 1508 Alturas Drive, expressed their concerns with the project, noted that the adjacent house has a 10 foot sewer and storm drain easement, concerned with trees across his property line, concerned with white ash trees to be planted along his property line, will grow 60 to 80 feet tall and will be 50 to 60 feet above his single story house, these trees lose many leaves and seed cases, concerned with safety and tree limbs falling on calm and windy days, also concerned with fallout from trees with regard to the storm drain and roots damaging sewer lines, these houses don’t require these very tall trees since they are below the street level, would like to see type of tree changed from white ash to an evergreen tree with a lower growth height, four new trees are too close to the sanitary sewer easement; the proposed design is radical given the rest of the block, but it is the new style. Asked if side setback variance would apply to just the stairs or for all construction; staff noted that it would apply to just the stairs, a separate variance would be required for any other part of the house encroaching into the required setback; his house was built in 1950, had a great view, now overgrown trees across the street block view, concerned with protected-sized redwood tree – needs to be trimmed, oak trees on property also need to be pruned, many houses in this area have water problems; concerned with the height of the houses as measured from adjacent grade, asked how is overall height measured, foundation and crawl space will add to the height; live below the subject property, concerned about impact on privacy, area is currently well-wooded and makes it a nice place to live, project is poorly thought out; he gets runoff from hill on Alturas Drive, during heavy rains need to sand bag around house, concerned with runoff from roof drainage and irrigation; would like to see both site plans on one sheet, houses will be very close to each other even though houses comply with setbacks, concerned with drainage, in the past there has been two feet of standing water on this property, water problems on this property will affect adjacent and downhill properties; there are a variety of architectural styles in this neighborhood, proposed houses appear to be shoe-horned into the lots, both house forced into the northwest corner of the acute lot, house is close to corner and to curb, will have a big impact on property; concerned with the proposed design, not consistent with any of the houses on between 1508- 1528 Alturas Drive. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Would like to see both proposed developments on one site plan so that the Commission can see how the projects fit; also show both landscape plans on one sheet, show location of adjacent houses on plan; • Need to see site sections with adjacent houses to show relationship of mass and bulk; • Concerned with the driveway on Lot 2 extending to the second floor, would like architect to consider installing an at-grade driveway; working with the arborist and engineer, the house could be carefully designed to move the house further back to incorporate an at-grade driveway; • Proposed houses do not resemble character of the street; • House designs are too grandiose, lot of mass with two houses together, not consistent with design guidelines as they would apply in this neighborhood; • Both houses need to be scaled down, high entry windows and plate heights not consistent with design guidelines, houses need to reflect adjacent houses and fit better into the character of the block, need to look beyond the numbers to the intent and spirit of the design guidelines; • Concern with the style of the two houses and that they don’t respect the style of the existing house being demolished; • Applicant should address screening issues raised by the adjacent neighbors and the size and placement of trees which might affect distant views; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 11 • Side setback variance for stairs on Lot 1 should be eliminated, there are other design options for new construction, see no justification for variance. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review with the comments and suggestion made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 7. 1136 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (GREG TERRY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ESSALAT HEKMAT ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff what was the new amount of encroachment into the declining height; an area 6’6” in length about 24 SF total. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Essalat Hekmat, architect, 312 North San Mateo Drive, represented the project. He noted that the addition was to the back of the house, increasing the kitchen and family room, increasing the second floor 80 SF to increase the master bath and adding a porch at the front, an architectural element to add interest, there is no functional reason for the porch. The bay window in the kitchen at the sink encroaches into the side setback. The garage is being replaced as a part of the project because it is in such bad condition. Commissioners asked : How do the garage doors open; what is the hardship on the property for the front setback? Applicant noted the garage doors roll up. Other houses have a similar entry porch, copied existing, the features (window and porch) are internally consistent with the architectural style. The articulation at the front could be achieved in other ways, with a trellis or a bay window which would not require a setback variance. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Comment on the motion: concerned about the porch, nice job; same concern, the porch really articulates the house, a “classy” solution, but do not see the hardship on the property to justify, the house next door has much greater setbacks; hope you can find a way to articulate the front and side and not ask for a variance; the addition blends into the existing architecture. Unfortunate needs a variance, not see significant hardship with the property, confident the architect can find a solution without a front or side setback variance; feel the declining height is not a problem.. C. Vistica 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: • the front of the house has been redesigned to provide articulation without requiring a front setback variance; and • the side of the house has been redesigned to retain suitable articulation while eliminating the side setback variance. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 12 Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed, checked by staff and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 8. 1216 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JONATHAN AND JENNIFER VARNI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Chair Bojués noted that all the commissioners have visited the site. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Jon and Jennifer Varni, property owners, represented the project. See this project as an opportunity to invest in Burlingame, have 3 children need to expand; want to stay. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Keighran noted that this was a good job of integrating the addition into the existing building and made a motion to bring this project back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 9. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Chair Bojués noted that all the commissioners have made a site visit. Commissioners clarified that this project is 137 Crescent not 1521 Drake. Staff noted the typo and, yes, this project is located at 137 Crescent Avenue. How big is the basement on this project. Plr Hurin noted that the basement is 664 SF, the maximum basement area exempt from inclusion in the floor area ratio is 700 SF. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma, represented the project. Tim O’Brien, 133 Crescent spoke. Applicant submitted one change to the plans, moving the chimney stack from the left side of the fire box to the right side. Commissioners asked about the declining height exception. Applicant noted the exception was at the very front right side, at the hip roof. Concerned with the south side of the project because live there, this will be the third new house adjacent to his house, this project will affect his daylight access, is a big, new two story house next to his one story bungalow, uses the entire 30 foot height; plans show garage one foot off the property line, if it goes closer he will not be able to get access to the side and rear of his garage, would like the 12 inches insured; the landscaping plan at the driveway does not address whether a fence will be installed on property line between the driveways of the two properties, if a fence is placed between the driveways it will squeeze his driveway, do not want a fence. If they build the garage where they show it they will have a water problem, because of the slope in the area when the neighbor built his house it drained into this yard, there is a 4 foot difference; concerned that there City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 13 is asbestos in the house, how will this be addressed when the house is demolished because his property is down wind. Who will address this? There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners comments: How would asbestos on this property be addressed? Sr. Eng. noted that when a building is demolished they are required to get a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, this would require a survey for asbestos and removal before demolition. C. Osterling noted that this project is consistent with the design guidelines and the design is appropriate to the site and should go forward with a fence down the driveway, he then made a motion to place this project on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: this is a big house but it is well done, concerned about star jasmine on the drive way, a small plant, need something to soften the edge; star jasmine will trail on the fence; not much yard left with two covered parking spaces; should note that the application is conditioned to “build to plan” which means that the garage will be placed one foot from property line at the rear and side as shown on these plans if approved; concerned about the size, mass, bulk and height of this house, it is not consistent with the neighborhood, its all maxed out, cannot support. CA noted that he thought that the neighbor did not want a fence between his driveway and the one on this property, could something lower, shrubs or a hedge be placed along this property line? The numbers look close to the maximum, but the variety of the design balances this, it is well articulated, on the front and south elevations the roof comes down to break the second story and the mass and bulk of the structure, it is possible to reduce the fence to 3 or 4 feet and put jasmine on it or install a low hedge to define the edge between the two properties, it would break up the expanse of hard scape now present between the properties. Applicant clipped the gable ends to reduce the mass and worked in with the hip roofs; articulated the mass well, it is tight on the site, not much yard left but within bounds; nice design but would like to see smaller. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with some attention to landscaping. The motion passed 5-1-0-1 (C. Keele dissenting, C. Brownrigg absent) The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:28 p.m. 10. 9 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK STOKLOSA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND CAROLINE LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (25 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Chair Bojués noted that all commissioners had visited the site. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mark Stoklosa, architect, represented the project. He noted that this house was built 10 years ago. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica noted that this was a modest addition to this house and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when there is space available. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 14 Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar for action when there is space. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory. This item concluded at 10:31 p.m. 11. 2838 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (23 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Chair Bojués noted that all commissioners had made a site visit. Commissioners noted to staff that the Negative Declaration did not include any analysis of the impact of removing stand of trees on this site on the long distance views, which the General Plan indicates is a concern. Also concerned with fire department access for equipment. Report notes applicant would be responsible for repair of damage to Sisters of Mercy trail caused by construction, can such a requirement be made of two private property owners. Do not see why the tree stumps need to be ground within 24 hours of trimming, does this relate in some way to maintaining slope stability during construction of the retaining walls. These items need to be address in the Negative Declaration before it can be adopted. There were no further questions to staff from Commission on the Negative Declaration or the project. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Michael Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue, architect and contractor, represented the project. Trees on site have not been cared for, will remove for construction and replant 60 trees, do not want to increase paving unnecessarily; don’t know where we will be able to find a distant view of the site, all the area is heavily vegetated with trees. Commissioner noted that the General Plan states these distant views of hillside area are to be protected, need to know that project or change is being evaluated with this project. Spoke with Fire Marshal and he identified a combination of fire protections, including a turn out on the street at the top of the site, a stair directly into the site from the street and installation of a commercial fire sprinkler system, which would be adequate. The requirement for trail repair was included if it was necessary to gain access from that side for construction, will put in drive way first and will not need to enter Sisters of Mercy property. Will hire a tree removal company, do not care if they must grind stumps within 24 hours. This is a beautiful spot, have designed the house into the site; need the special permit for attached garages because have a handicapped child and need place to drive in and get out of car, slope on lot dictates location on site, with a detached garage would have more driveway and paving on site. The size of the house is within city standards, the neighbors are located in the unincorporated county and they are allowed a lot more square footage and two units as well; would prefer not to install story poles as required with the environmental scoping, it will be difficult and will not see much but roof. Commissioner noted that the roof would be the most important item seen as on drives by this site, sure you want composition shingles? Applicant noted will plant along the street to screen view of the roof and will use a textured composition shingle. Would like to delete the sidewalk requirement along the street, since no one else in the area has a sidewalk. CA noted there are legal requirements for sidewalks, need to determine before respond. Applicant also noted that would prefer to use natural drainage into existing downhill drain and not pump to street as mentioned in Public Works memo. Sr. Eng. noted that could look into alternate drainage since drain at street level empties into drain which runs downhill on site. Public comments continued: Commissioner noted that there seem to be some inconsistencies between the landscape plan and the house plans, need to be corrected; also selection of trees does not seem to be sensitive to the water balance on the lot and to the existing oak tree, too much variety in plant choice will have an inconsistent look when done, new trees need to support the existing oak, with proper care oaks can grow closely; some of the trees suggested are not trees but shrubs; also need a more detailed erosion control plan, the use of “j” hooks seems to be in error. CP noted that city employee who reviews for NPDES City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 15 compliance will review plans. Water balance on site should drive landscape plan and it needs to be substantially revised and the planter on the south side of the house needs to be removed to allow access to the garage. Why is chain link fence being used instead of wood along property line? Applicant noted wanted an open feel, neighbors use chain link, thought could plant on it. Chain link fence exists on three sides. There were no other comments and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to refer this project to the action calendar when the amendments had been made to the Negative Declaration and the landscape plan and plant materials have been corrected; she noted that while she had concerns about the landscaping, this is a nice job of design, the house is large but the lot is large, glad he is not splitting the lot when he could; in addition to negative declaration items and landscaping should address fire access, consistency on plans of side walls of the building, and water/drainage on site when resubmit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: look like a house designed by people who will live in it with shingle siding, sandstone and a stucco chimney. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the item to the action calendar after the additional studies for the negative declaration and project and corrections to the plans have been completed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 12. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – STUDY SESSION ON LAND USE SECTION (272 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE / MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the Land Use Chapter of the Draft North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. She noted that the land use plan has two distinct areas, the Rollins Road area and the El Camino Real North area, with four subareas within each area. She first reviewed the Rollins Road area land uses, noting that the area would continue as a strong industrial area, with the addition of auto sales and service along Adrian Road. The Commission then reviewed the Rollins Road area by subarea. A-1 – The Northern Gateway Area: The proposal for this area is to continue the industrial base, but to allow the option of live/work uses on a limited basis, where the land use fits in with the industrial character and there was one living unit per work space. She noted that C. Brownrigg had sent in comments, asking if the live/work concept could be expanded so that one larger shared work space could serve several living units. Commissioners noted that this might be hard to regulate, and since this area is isolated from the rest of Burlingame's commercial areas and services, this might not be the best option, noting the difficulty is evaluating what uses would be allowed as live work; it might include architects, photographers, interior designers, but these are traditionally professional office uses, and would not normally be compatible with the area's industrial environment; it makes more sense to place residential uses in the El Camino Real corridor, that area is still within one-third mile of the transit corridor, when medical offices are relocated to the hospital campus, there will be a real opportunity to put housing in that area which will better integrate with the rest of the community. Live/work might work if there were some control on the size of the work space and living unit and type of use, but it may be too hard to regulate. In conclusion, the Commission recommended the following for the Northern Gateway Area: • Leave out the option for live-work in this area, concentrate residential in the El Camino Real North Area, continue the current light industrial uses. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 16 A-2 – The Central Rollins Road Subarea: This area is intended to remain the industrial core of the Rollins Road Area. Commissioners recommended the following: • The proposed system of trails along the creeks should be shown on a map, and • The proposed green spaces along the trails should also be shown on the same map. • Train development shall be a part of development proposals on creek side properties and shall be subject to environmental review before being designed. Rare and endangered species and their habitats shall be protected. A-3 – The Southern Gateway Subarea: This is a transitional area, with the Broadway frontage on the west side of Rollins Road shown as commercial use to tie in with the Broadway Commercial area. The plan proposes a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) for this area, with a 0.05 FAR bonus for a project that includes a gateway feature. A property owner has submitted a letter requesting that the commercial transition area be extended to include the northeast corner of Broadway and Rollins Road, and asked that the Commission consider a higher floor area ratio (1.0 to 2.0) for this area rather than providing an incentive for the gateway feature. Commissioners asked: won't there be parking and access issues for the area on the northeast corner? CP Monroe noted that the access issues would be addressed at the time of development, there might be an opportunity to consolidate parcels or have a combined entry point to improve upon what is there now. Commissioners recommended the following: • Include the area at the northeast corner of Broadway and Rollins as a part of the commercial transition; • Keep the FAR at 0.50; and • Offer a greater than 0.05 FAR density bonus incentive for consolidating parcels and improving access. A-4 – The Adrian Road Auto District: CP Monroe explained that the auto row feature would be added as an overlay to the light industrial uses now allowed in this area, and noted that the draft plan proposes a new access point between Rollins and Adrian Road within this area. However, the road connection shown now on the plan will not work because of the location of existing parking. The Commission may not want to designate a specific location for this connecting roadway, but language could be included in the plan that would encourage an additional consideration of access road with new development in this area. In his comments, C. Brownrigg expressed a concern with signage along the Auto Row corridor as it faces 101 and establishes a community identity; and would like to see more specific signage guidelines. Commissioners made the following recommendations: • Eliminate the road connection as it is shown on the land use map, but encourage a connection to be determined as development occurs; • Add separate sign requirements for auto row signage in the design guidelines, including a consistent theme, address issues of illumination and flashing lights. CP Monroe reviewed the El Camino Real North Area, noting that the area is proposed to continue as a mixed use area, with residential, retail, office and a medical node. The Commission then reviewed the four subareas within the El Camino Real North Area. B-1 – The Burlingame Plaza Subarea: This area would maintain its function as a primary shopping center City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 17 to serve the surrounding area. The Draft Plan proposes to provide for mixed use or residential use along the El Camino Real frontage, incorporating the existing frontage road into the shopping center property. Commissioners made the following recommendations: • Should not include the concept of residential use along the El Camino Real frontage, there is varied ownership in the shopping center and the new development would block the shopping center's visibility; • Don't think it's appropriate to put residential on the west side of El Camino, the east side would provide for a continuation of the residential feel along El Camino Real as it exists to the south, the west side to the south of this area will be dominated by the new hospital, should continue with non- residential uses on the west side. • Can include a green space/pedestrian walkway using the frontage road property along the west side of El Camino Real, it could stay in City ownership rather than revert to adjoining owners, and provide a focused access to the shopping center and tree lined entry – pedestrian access along El Camino Real on the west side. B-2 – The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor: This area now allows a mix of uses, it is zoned C-1 with a multiple family residential overlay. The Draft Plan proposes to continue this mix of uses. This area is close to BART and Caltrain, making it ideal for higher density residential. The plan proposes to incorporate the frontage road along El Camino Real, which will provide an incentive for reuse and bring future residential development closer to El Camino Real as is the case to the south. Commissioners made the following recommendations: • Concerned about the potential mix of uses with commercial right next to or a part of residential, would rather see this area on the east side of El Camino Real all residential to be consistent with the rest of El Camino Real in Burlingame; • This area would be appropriate for higher densities given its location proximate to retail and the transit corridor, up to 40 to 50 units per acre could be allowed if the parking, height, setback and design guideline standards are met on site along with aviation restrictions. B-3 – The Mills Peninsula Hospital Block: This area is dominated by the hospital site, the Draft Plan proposes to keep the medical office and convalescent hospital uses along Trousdale, and proposes residential uses along Marco Polo Way. The Hospital District submitted a letter requesting that the Marco Polo block continue to be designated for office commercial uses, with residential added as another choice; they would not like to be limited to residential only. Commissioners made the following recommendations: • Would like to see the east side of Marco Polo as residential to be consistent with the residential uses now existing on the west side, the existing commercial sites on that block could convert to residential use; • Do not envision residential uses on the south side of Trousdale frontage, this area should keep its office commercial designation. The North of Trousdale Drive Subarea: This area now consists primarily of office uses, the plan proposes mixed use to include residential and offices in this subarea. The representative of a property owner on Ogden Drive had submitted a letter requesting that the residential density for this subarea be increased from 30 units per acre to 40 units per acre, and wanted to be allowed to build a four-story residential project. Commissioners made the following recommendations: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2004 18 • The office buildings in this area now have residential setbacks, having residential projects interspersed in this area would work; • This area would also be appropriate for higher density given that the area is close to retail and to BART and Caltrain, would like to allow up to 50 units per acre, assuming that the project can meet all the other standards for parking, height setbacks, design and aviation restrictions. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Bruce Balshone, representing a client on Ogden Drive, indicated he was glad to see the commission's recommendation for higher density in this area, once the zoning is in place, his client will be submitting a project that will include affordable units, want it to be four-story as is proposed, and the project would fit in with the guidelines as now proposed. Peter O'Hara, representing the property at 1616 Rollins Road, had a question about the trail system in the Rollins Road area, how will the issue of protected species which have been found in the area be addressed; need to make sure that the pathway does not interfere with the habitat for the red-legged frogs which have been found in this area. CP Monroe noted that this issue would be addressed at the design stage, the paths would be above top of bank of the creeks, so it should not be an issue, review would be done at the project level. He also asked if the location of the road connection between Rollins Road and Adrian had been determined, and noted that the drainage easement and the protected species found there might be an issue for the road connection as well. CP Monroe noted that the location of the road had not been specified and acknowledged that the protected species issue would have to be addressed. Eileen Chow, representing the property at 1206-1220 Rollins Road at Broadway, asked what the final decision on floor area was for this area. CP Monroe noted that this is not the time for a final decision, but the Planning Commission at this point did not recommend a change to the 0.5 FAR proposed for the commercial transition area, however they did discuss an FAR incentive is proposed for consolidation of lots. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Bojués noted that the Commission's suggestions will be incorporated into the draft plan. This item concluded at 12:30 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 2 and 3, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council regarding the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue. Commission endorsed the site survey requirement for single family houses established earlier by the Commission. Commission also agreed that there should be a re-examination of the average front setback requirement as it applies to houses which are already included in the average and may be set forward of the existing average. CP noted that some work needs to be done on the R-1 zone and consideration of this would fit right in. A good project for next year when the advanced planning projects are done. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:\MINUTES\02.09.04unapproved.doc