Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072604PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 26, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the July 26, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keighran and Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Catherine Barber; Hospital Project Planner Karen Kristiansson; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 12, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT 1. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED AND C-3 – PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AN APPLICATION TO REPLACE THE EXISTING PENINSULA HOSPITAL WITH A NEW SIX TO SEVEN-STORY HOSPITAL BUILDING, A FOUR TO FIVE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR HOSPITAL SUPPORT SPACE AND MEDICAL OFFICES, A PARKING GARAGE AND A HELIPAD (239 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON CP Monroe gave a brief overview of the project and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, noting that the Revised Draft EIR is being re-circulated based on revisions made to the project by the applicant, there is a 45-day comment period which will end on August 13, 2004, comments will be taken at this public hearing, and comments in writing may be submitted until 5:00 p.m. on August 13, 2004. Rodney Jeung and Trixie Martelino from EIP Associates, as well as Jane Bierdsted and Jaime Hicks, traffic engineers from Fehr and Peers, were available to review the Revised Draft EIR and respond to questions from the Commission. Mr. Jeung presented a description of the Revised Draft EIR process, reviewed the key changes which were made to the project in response to the issues raised in the original Draft EIR regarding the Proposed Project, and noted that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that if a substantial modification is made to a project, re-circulation of the Draft EIR is required. Mr. Jeung further noted that the applicant's goals for the Revised Project were to address the City's concerns with the original design relating to open space and the gateway character of El Camino Real, to eliminate or reduce the number of significant unavoidable impacts identified regarding the loss of open space along El Camino Real, the conflict with the City's visual and design goals, and the on-site parking deficit identified during the construction period, and to incorporate the mitigation measures which were identified in the Draft EIR. Key features of the Revised Project are to relocate of the main entrance on Trousdale to align with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 2 Magnolia Avenue, relocate the parking structure away from Davis Drive, provide improved pedestrian access, relocate the San Francisco Water District water pipeline to the front of the site on El Camino Real, and increase the landscaped setback, relocate the medical office building to the El Camino Real frontage, and to reorient the hospital building towards Trousdale. In comparing the key effects of the originally Proposed Project with the Revised Project, Mr. Jeung noted that the Revised Project eliminates two major land use/visual impacts related to conformance with the General Plan open space policies and the open space and gateway characters along El Camino Real. However, the visual impacts of the Revised Project, as viewed from Davis Drive; is significant and unavoidable. He also noted that the key impacts regarding circulation and parking were less with the Revised Project than with the originally Proposed Project, particularly with the parking supply and demand during construction. With the Revised Project, the entire parking garage could be built in the first phase, and would be available for use during construction and to accommodate some construction workers. Mr. Jeung explained that the Revised DEIR looked at one other option, Alternative C, which is similar in its layout to the originally Proposed Project, but with the cooling towers moved to the side of the hospital building and providing a greater setback and more open space along El Camino Real. The Revised Draft EIR concluded that because it causes the fewest significant and unavoidable impacts, the Revised Project is the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Jeung noted that the next steps in the process are to receive any comments on the Revised DEIR, prepare responses to those comments and develop a mitigation monitoring program. Once these documents are completed, the information would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in the form of a Final EIR. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to consider and take action to certify the EIR before taking action on the project. Commissioners asked the following questions of the environmental consultant: What maturity of the landscaping is assumed in the visual simulations? Thought that the cooling towers at the rear of the hospital would be partially underground and screened with an acoustic wall and landscaping, is this taken into account in the noise analysis? Is there a comparison of the lighting impacts between the original Proposed Project and the Revised Project, what are the impacts of light and glare from the interior lighting from rooms and access stairs, given that the hospital will operate 24 hours a day, as opposed to the medical office building, which would generally be vacant at night. What is meant by the term "undeveloped area" and why did the amount decrease? Is there a difference between what is landscaping and public spaces and land slated for future development? Mr. Jeung noted that the visual simulations used a ten-year time frame for the proposed landscaping. The noise analysis looked at the Revised Project with the cooling towers partially underground and including the proposed screening wall. It was concluded that with these features, there would be no significant noise impact along the property line adjacent to Davis Drive. The interior lighting for the new hospital will be required to meet the City's standard for lighting which requires that no light will spill over to adjacent properties, with proper glass installed in the windows and stair wells facing Davis Drive, the light and glare from the building will be minimized. The term "undeveloped area" includes both the landscaped areas as well as the area which is shown for future development. In the original Proposed Project, this future development was less defined and was estimated to be 4.4 acres. On the revised plan, the circulation was refined, and the future development area is now proposed to be 4.1 acres. The area dedicated to landscaping and public space is approximately the same in the original Proposed Project and the Revised Project. Commissioner questions continued: Are there some things that can be done in the design of the building to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 3 help reduce the visual impact from Davis Drive, such as creating a color palette that will help the building blend into distant views? In the visual simulation showing El Camino Real looking south, it appears that the parking structure is taller than was shown in earlier sketches, it was originally proposed to be lower with bermed landscaping. It would be helpful if the visual simulations from the original proposed project could be included together with the revised project so that the impacts could be compared side by side. Mr. Jeung responded that a refined color palette could be considered as mitigation, it would be up to the project sponsor to determine if it can be done as a part of the project. The parking structure has been refined from earlier sketches, in the final drawings, the architect determined that because of the grade changes and the water pipeline, it would not be feasible to sink the garage as far as was originally proposed, in addition, the planting over the water easement is limited, so berming became infeasible. Chairman Osterling opened the public comment. Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; and Kathy Smith, 1811 Davis Drive, had the following comments regarding the Revised Draft EIR: At an earlier meeting, had presented a petition documenting opposition to moving the location of the hospital's main driveway to Trousdale Drive, there has been no response to this opposition to date, is this opposition being considered by the Planning Commission and is a response forthcoming; understand that the Planning Commission had asked that the traffic study consider the impact on traffic flow on Trousdale from Freeway 280 to El Camino Real, was it done, was traffic looked at when school is in session, has this information been made public and is it included in the materials being considered; also understand that BART conducted a study of traffic growth in this area, was that considered? El Camino Real is a State highway, it is the responsibility of the State to maintain, changing the entrance to Trousdale would shift the burden of street maintenance in front of the entrance to Burlingame; Trousdale is the entrance and exit for three schools, this change to the entrance will channel more traffic on this roadway and will create gridlock. Continued public comment: Would like to express concern with the access to the shopping center across from the hospital's proposed entrance at Trousdale and Magnolia, there are expected to be 3500 more cars daily on Trousdale, there are now two entrances/exits on Trousdale from the shopping center, one of these will be lost to people traveling eastbound on Trousdale from the Ray Park neighborhood because the left turn into the shopping center will be eliminated. Also, due to the increased traffic volumes, trucks which have to deliver to the front of stores in the shopping center may have difficulty exiting onto Trousdale. The alley on the Magnolia side of the shopping center will also be impacted, there are a lot of trucks which load and unload on Magnolia, it is difficult to see around these trucks when trying to exit from the alley, there is not enough room for two cars to pass in the alley; it will be hard to get into the shopping center at Murchison as well, traffic will be diverted to Millbrae streets, there is a 108-unit condominium being built nearby in Millbrae, this will also impact traffic, am concerned that the shopping center will lose business. There needs to be a comprehensive study of car and truck movements at the shopping center. Public comment continued: In looking at the changes made to the project, and the impacts raised in the Draft EIR, it looks like the Revised Project is the best of the bunch reviewed, but would like to point out that pedestrian friendly access does not exist on El Camino Real; walking or riding a bike across Trousdale into the shopping center will be dangerous, now as cars come off the freeway to go to the hospital, there is one entrance on El Camino Real, now they will have to contend with the Trousdale traffic; concern with the service entrance, trucks will have to exit south, how will they go north and redirect to Trousdale without going through the neighborhoods. Would like to thank the applicant for moving the parking structure, thought the original location next to the residences would cause health issues; am still concerned with the existing access way to the hospital parking lot from Davis Drive, would like to see this entrance closed at City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 4 the beginning of the construction period, would not like to see it used by heavy equipment, this would impact the neighborhood; was originally told that the greenbelt on the southern property line would extend to Marco Polo Way, this plan shows the parking lot as it now exists, with no landscaping adjacent to the property line bordering the residences on Davis near Marco Polo. Additional public comment: Concerned with the proposed location of the cooling towers along the southerly property line, the existing cooling tower noise now disturbs the neighbors, could they be moved further away; would like to make sure that the plans include soundproofing of the HVAC system and the Central Utility Plant, and that the solid sound wall proposed adjacent to the cooling towers does not produce bouncing of the noise; would like a clarification on how the ambient noise level plus the cooling tower noise was calculated, how does it add up? What recourse would the neighbors have it noise exceeded the General Plan limit? The original plan showed the medical office building near the residences because of activities which would close down at night, now the hospital is proposed in that location, which will be a 24-hour building, would like to see the lowered, staggered medical office building close to residences; there will be a 128-foot high building looking down on residences, am concerned with the opacity of the glass as well as the reflectivity and glare; would like the landscaped screening to be planted early in the construction so that it will reach maturity at an earlier time; concern with the loss of trees in the area where the water pipe will be relocated and the inability to replant over the line, will an adequate screen be achieved? Concern with security on the pedestrian path, could it be closed at night and have security lighting; would like to see landscape trees and ivy on the roof of the parking structure to provide a screen. At the existing hospital, the service vehicles that deliver to the hospital and to the Mills facility in San Mateo use the Marco Polo employee entrance, will that use continue with the new facility, these service vehicles leave at 7:15 a.m. every Saturday morning and speed through the neighborhood, they are diesel trucks 40 feet long; would like to see a limitation on these service trucks through the residential neighborhoods during construction as well as once the new hospital is in operation; will the medical office building have additional truck trips beyond what is described in the Revised DEIR? Chairman Osterling closed the public comment. Commissioners asked if the comments which they made at the beginning of the meeting would be addressed in the Final EIR. CP Monroe noted that they would, and noted that there were three letters received prior to the public hearing, a response to these letters would also be included in the final document. In addition, Commissioners asked that the following be addressed: How will the service vehicles exit the site and travel northbound? Make sure EIR adequately address the issue of parking once the hospital is open. Chair Osterling complimented the speakers from the public, noting that everybody came forth with constructive ideas. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS 2. 1257 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO REPLACE EXISTING CHANNEL WALLS WHICH SUPPORTS AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE (PETER HAASE, FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUDY AND RICK KELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 5 Commissioners asked: • If the Fish and Game or Army Corps permits require changes to the project, will it return to the Planning Commission? • Is a permit required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board? and will it include NPDES compliance? • Are the health concerns regarding West Nile virus being addressed? Should the San Mateo County Public Health and Mosquito Abatement organizations be contacted? • Is the applicant aware of the added processing time for getting permits from these other agencies? A Commissioner noted that the applicant acknowledged to him that he probably wouldn't be able to build this project until next year. • A condition should be added holding the City harmless for any construction or results of construction in the creek. 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 8:15 p.m. VIII. 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. 3. 1115 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (LISA ANTER, APPLICANT; DAVE ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1751 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SHIRLEY PANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 26, 2004, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Ma, architect, represented the owner. He noted that this project was approved 18 months ago, the property has sold since and the new owner would like to make this addition, but the approval had expired. Commissioner asked if the window on the rear elevation on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 6 second floor on the right should have been shown as a divided light. Architect responded that they felt that the small bathroom window was too small for divided lights. There were no other questions of the applicant and there were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that he supports this project, the changes made from the project as originally approved are minor so moved to approve the application, 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 June 17, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 4) 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; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will 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; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s June 21, 2004 and September 3, 2002 memos, the Chief Building Official’s June 21, 2004 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's June 21, 2004 and September 3, 2002, memos shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve project as approved 18 months ago with the minor changes. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the proposed project. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report July 26, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if property owner installed a storage shed like the ones for sell at OSH would it count in FAR. CP noted that if City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 7 the shed were less than 100 SF and not on a foundation it would not be counted in FAR. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. David Boden, son of the property owners, and Phyllis Boden, property owner at 2108 Easton Drive, represented the project. Since the Commission's last review have gone to the expense of an arborist report to determine the impact on the redwood tree of relocating the garage, Mayne Tree endorsed the location of the garage attached to the house. Because the property exceeds the FAR only asking for a one car garage, so there is no place to store garden and wood working equipment, have spent a lot of money to preserve the tree, do not want to remove it, need the variance to keep the tree. Commissioner asked you are close to the FAR, if removed 18 inches more across the rear would be under FAR? Applicants responded have cut the structure at the 'L', if cut further will remove the support beam, endanger the existing structure, and will have to replace the beam at greater expense. How many tools do you have to store? Want to keep the existing tools, have a lot of power tools, table saw, tool bench, leaf blower, gardening tools; it is fair to let us retain the shed, will not affect the tree nor cause its removal. Commissioner noted can you clarify the hardship on the property for the FAR variance? The hardship is the tree. Commissioner noted have trouble understanding the arborist’s reasoning that a garage cannot be placed at the rear, since its foot print would be smaller than the shed, so the impact would be the same as existing. Applicant noted that the arborist's problem was the vehicle traveling continually over the root zone; in addition the arborist said in 1989 when the variance for parking was granted that the garage should not be relocated to the rear because of the roots; the issue is the same today as in 1989. Commissioner noted that some hardship is created by the redwood tree, is justification for the one foot side setback variance but is not suitable justification for the FAR variance. Commissioner asked if reducing the size of the shed was an option; because if shed is reduced the FAR variance would be less than 100 SF. Applicant noted that if take 18 inches off across rear would have to rebuild shed because the roof support would be removed; can the side setback and FAR variances be conditioned that if the tree is ever removed the shed and the garage would have to be removed as well. There were no further comments from the floor. The pubic hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Not opposed to the attached garage, the problem is the shed; the attached garage also affects the FAR allowed on the site, it appears that there is less than 100 SF of the existing garage used for tool storage, not see the rational for the hardship for the FAR variance; it is clear that if the garage were detached more FAR would be allowed on the site, since a detached garage is not allowed it is unfair to penalize, this is a good way to protect the redwood tree and redwoods are not particularly easy to live with, neighbor at 2112 is the only one affected by the one foot side setback and retention of the shed and they have not complained, one way to look at this is that the proposed FAR is only 20 SF over what was allowed on the site when their garage was detached. Think that there is an alternative location for a single car garage at the rear of the site, 5 feet behind the existing shed, it would be smaller, 225 SF, Commission has seen there are ways for driveways to be designed within redwood tree root zone, understand that the attached garage is more economical solution but that does not justify the FAR, can put in a tool shed up to 100 SF and not count in FAR, should not grant an FAR exception. Applicant needs shed to store collected tools as well as to work in, size is reasonable justified, adjacent neighbor has said nothing, city is better off with the tree retained, if the tree goes then the garage should go or if the house is demolished all the variances should go away, cannot see the shed from the street. Remove 100 SF and make the FAR variance go away. Should reduce size, Burlingame is better off if there is more space between houses than the three feet which will exist here. One foot setback has bothered me, problem is that the neighbor has not objected. An alternative is not to grant request and can put garage at rear. There is space in the proposed garage for the table saw. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 8 C. Brownrigg made a motion to approve the project as proposed because granting 19 SF of floor area over what would be allowed seems like a small price to pay to protect a heritage tree with the additional condition that should the redwood tree ever be removed the side setback an floor area ratio variances would be voided, with the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. Chair Osterling seconded the motion. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the added condition that the variances would become void if the redwood tree were ever removed. The motion was denied on a split vote, 2-2-2-1 (Crs. Bojués and Vistica dissenting, Crs. Keighran and Keele absent, C. Auran abstaining). Commissioner discussion on the action: would it matter if the FAR was considered as if there were a detached garage on the site, and the applicant reduced 20SF from the shed; no because there is an alternative for a detached garage on the site; CA presented a number of choices for action: approve without the shed; reduce the size of the shed 100 SF or less, let the motion stand denied; form a new motion with direction; and deny without prejudice. C. Vistica made a motion to deny the project without prejudice and asked the applicant to consider the comments in the record should they choose to resubmit. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent; C. Auran abstaining) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. C. Auran re-entered the chambers and took his seat in the dias. 6. 508 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DINO ROPALIDIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAIME RAPADAS, A/R DESIGN GROUP) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report July 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if open pavers with turf block were used in the delivery vehicle parking area would we count it as landscaping. CP Monroe responded that it would not count toward landscaping, not suggesting that it be used since sometimes it does well and looks just like grass and then people do not know to use it for parking. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Dino Ropalidis, 839 Laurel Avenue, Burlingame, was available to answer questions. He is a 20 year Burlingame resident. Commission noted that the mailboxes appear to be free standing, kind of a prominent features, can they be set in a wall or moved back into the landscape area? Jaime Rapadas, architect, 801 Mahler Road #106, Burlingame, stated that the mailboxes are 3 stations located by the driveway, will look at relocating them. Commission noted that is area on the eastern side of the property between the parking curb and property line there are only a few pockets of landscaping noted on sheet A2, can additional landscaping and irrigation be added. Mr. Ropalidis stated that they can add landscaping in the whole length of this area, from the property line to the wheel stops. Commission noted that they would also like to see some trees added to this area for a vertical element, take trees from the City tree list. Front elevation is kind of bland, can you use wood shingles for front canopy overhangs. Can you City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 9 move second story, unit #3 bedrooms windows towards the center of the building, would add balance to the elevation. Glenn Hout, owner of 12 Clarendon Road, concerned with parking, cars line the side streets that abut Peninsula Avenue, local apartment buildings only have one parking space permit unit but occupants have 2 cars, or have campers stored in parking space and keep cars on the street; would like to see a minimum of 2 parking spaces required for each unit and 3 guest parking spaces. If this request can not be met then would like to request that there be no overnight parking allowed at the top of Clarendon Road, by Peninsula Avenue. Because of this parking overflow onto the side street, chose to move to Margarita Avenue in the Burlingame Hills. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CA Anderson noted that the City has tried to enforce the existing law which is on the books that prohibits on-street parking form 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., but the neighbors do not support this enforcement and complain to the police. Commission on discussion: this is the third or fourth time this project has been reviewed, applicant has invested a lot in this plan, o.k. with the project as is, aware of the parking problem but this project meets the on-site parking and delivery space requirement, can see how the landscape requirement can’t be met for this site, would like see approve with conditions added: 1) that landscaping be added along the eastern property line between the parking curb and the property line including trees taken from the City street tree list, 2) second story bedroom windows be centered on front elevation, 3) that the mailboxes be relocated into a wall, and 4) that the exterior building light comply with the City ordinance that the cone of light will be contained on-site. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 22, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-4 and L-1, and that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s March 1, 2004 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 23, 2004 memo, the Recycling Specialist's February 25, 2004, memo, and the City Engineer's July 15 and March 10, 2004 memos shall be met; 4) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 57.28' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Peninsula Avenue (23.11') for a maximum height of 34’-2", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 5) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 6) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 7) that one (1) guest parking stall (8' x 17' compact space) shall be designated and clearly marked at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 8) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 10 be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 9) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 10) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 11) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 12) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 13) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 14) that if a gate system is installed across the driveway, there shall be an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guest access to their site by pushing a button inside their units; 15) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 16) that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 17) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 18) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 19) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 20) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 22) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 23) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 25) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 26) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 27) that this project shall comply with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 11 Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 28) that the area in between the parking curbs and eastern property line from the front setback to the rear property line shall be fully landscaped and property irrigated and that at least 3 appropriate tree species taken from the City tree list be planted in this area; 29) that the second story, unit #3 bedroom windows be centered to balance the front elevation; and 30) that the mailboxes be relocated into a wall. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP C. Bojués made a motion to recommended approval of the tentative condominium map for a new three unit residential condominium building to City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the tentative map. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 7. 1864 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES FOR AN INDOOR PAINTBALL FACILITY (COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE) (GRANT TAKAMOTO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ARTHUR RUDE JR., PROPERTY OWNER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Grant Takamoto, project architect, and Will Archie, property owner, were available to answer questions. Site is required to have 10% landscaping in order to soften the look of the building and make it more acceptable. However, in order to conform, or come close to conforming with this regulation need to add landscaping down the side and at the rear of the site. It is very hard to conform to this requirement with the existing building. This is a start-up business and it is very expensive, seems like there is not much gained by adding the landscaping in these side and rear yard locations, won’t really be seen by passers by. Commission noted that landscape calculation comes very close to meeting requirement, isn’t there any way to get that extra 1% required. Mr. Takamoto noted that there are quite a few recreation uses in the area that also received landscape variances, the basketball facility didn’t provide the required 60% front landscaping, the batting cages and also the go-cart facility received landscaping variances. This is not a huge request. Commission asked if there was any way to add just an extra 400 SF to the landscaping to get that extra 1%. Mr. Takamoto noted that when they first started working on the site there was only 1% on-site landscaping, increased to 7% and now 9.6%, but this is a hardship to the business owner and it won’t benefit the public much, would 7 or 6% suffice? Project architect also noted that as an alternative to just ground cover landscaping that they are proposing vertical landscaping elements like vines on the side of the concrete building to soften the presence. Sheila Janakos, 720 Howard Avenue, stated that she is a 20 year Burlingame resident and has owned businesses in Burlingame, has 3 children, 2 teenagers, is happy to see more recreational uses in town, supports project. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 12 Commission discussion: would like to see an added condition for vertical landscaping, this business will be open from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., impact on parking will be minimal, very close to meeting the landscape requirement; staff report says that variance will go with use, yes commercial recreation use; great to see another recreation use on Rollins Road. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 14, 2004, sheet A-1.1, and date stamped July 8, 2004, sheets A-1.0, A-2.0, A-2.1 and A-3.0; 2) that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan, date stamped July 14, 2004, with vertical landscaping including vines planted on the walls of the building, and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 3) that the indoor paintball facility shall only be open Wednesday through Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on weekends from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 3 full-time employees and a maximum of eight active players and eight players waiting to play; that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees or paintball players which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that there shall be no more than 19 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers; 5) that the indoor paintball facility shall be limited to a lobby and retail area (555 SF), equipment storage (642 SF), an orientation room (144 SF) and paintball activity area (17,010 SF); that outdoor areas shall not be used for any activities associated with the paintball business; 6) that the variances for on-site parking spaces, number of compact spaces, total on-site landscaping and front setback landscaping shall expire with the termination of the commercial recreation use on this site; shall be reviewed with any amendment to the conditional use permit granted to the paintball facility use; and shall expire should the building on the site be deliberately demolished or destroyed by a natural catastrophe or disaster or should a major remodel of the building be proposed; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s June 4, 2004, memo, the Fire Marshal's June 7, 2004, memo, and the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's June 2, 2004, memos shall be met; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 8. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE (W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; GRANT RIGGS, PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 2004 MEETING) Reference staff report July 26, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Robert Grant Riggs, business and property owner, 1755 Rollins Road, was available to answer questions. Commission asked how the loading dock will affect cars entering and exiting the required parking? Mr. Riggs noted the Guittard Road loading docks are going to be for future use, driveway is already widened, it is over 50’, almost 76’,are proposing to keep same width. The old plans that were submitted for the last variance showed a narrower driveway but they do not want to close it in. Want to keep the driveway as wide as it is now to allow three trucks in the docks while at the same time have cars come in and out of the parking area when the trucks are parked at the docks. Trying to make this a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 13 high end facility. By taking away the two parking spaces it will allow there to be maneuverability in the parking area while the loading dock(s) are in use. Right now there is only about one-third of the on-site parking being used. The showroom is not intended for consumers, but will be visited by architects, interior designers, and builders, but will not be selling directly to the public. CP Monroe asked if the business is in full operation at this time. Mr. Riggs explained that they are not yet in full operation, the showroom is not yet open and will open in approximately 18 months, still in development. CP Monroe asked for clarification on the driveway width, 24’ wide driveway approved, proposed plan show 48’ driveway, if driveway is actually 76’ wide now then there will be more on-site parking spaces lost than just two. Mr. Riggs responded that the plans submitted show exactly what they are proposing on-site, driveway width is not 76’, whatever is shown on the plans submitted is correct. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions and an amendment to conditions number 6, stating that the variance is tied to the non-retail showrooms use as defined in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 28, 2004, sheets A1.0 site plan, floor plan and landscape plan, with a 48’ curb cut on Guittard Road; with a total of 54 on-site parking spaces and 11,030 SF of on-site landscaping, and a total of three loading docks on the north side of the property; and these conditions shall be amended to the other conditions granted on this site for the warehouse, office use composed of 10,000 SF of showroom, 8,083 SF of office and 65,888 SF of warehouse; 2) that the building shall have 65,888 SF of warehouse, 8,083 SF of office and 10,000 SF of showroom, any change to this configuration shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission approval; 3) that the maximum number of people on-site at any one time will be 50 persons, and the maximum number of employees on-site at any one time shall be 34; 4) that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 5) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 6) that the parking variance approved under this resolution shall be limited to the warehouse/office use with a non- retail showroom use as defined in the staff report, and that should this building ever be demolished or have a major remodel that would affect the building footprint, the parking variances granted in association with this use shall become void; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: this is an approvable project; do not see a parking problem in this area; tenant has made many improvements to the site; nice landscaping added. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. XI. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1570 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 14 Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if staff could provide information on the new house just built at 1555 Cypress, height, floor area, lot coverage, etc. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer was available to answer questions. Noted that he designed the house at 1555 Cypress and that is was about 3,424 SF in area, and there may have been a special permit for height but during the process plans were revised to do away with special permit, also changed style to address neighbor’s concerns. This property is larger 54’ X 120’, will be the private residence from Mr. Roche. All of the zoning requirements are met except for height, owner met with the two adjacent neighbors and they support the project. Commission asked if the windows will be true divided light windows. Mr. Chu noted that yes, the windows will be trued divided light windows. Commission noted that the site plan states that the house next door is a one-story house, but it is two stories. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. Comment on motion: Commission noted that there are couple of larger homes in the area, this house is big but nicely broken up, have no problem with the height of this proposal; Commission noted that this is a nicely design house, might consider adding stone or some kind of detailing to the chimney at the front elevation, since it is a very prominent feature. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 10. 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW RETAIL TENANT (SMITH AND HAWKEN, APPLICANT; SILMA GONZALEZ, ASHDOWN DOWNEY LLP, ARCHITECT; CAPITAL REALTY GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if this is a historical building. Staff noted that there is no information indicating that it is a historic building. Commission noted that there is no signage shown on the plans. Staff explained that signage is handled under a separate permitting process. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Andrew Wattum of Smith and Hawken, 4 Hamilton Landing, Novato, and Silma Gonzalez, Ashdown Downey Architects, were both present to answer questions. Mr. Wattum noted that his office is in Novato but lives in Burlingame. Smith and Hawken has 60 stores around the country, open an average of 5 stores per year. Has opened stores in rehabilitated buildings in Chicago and Boston. Has shopped at the Burlingame Antique Market for many years, got a call from someone that it was going to be available and knew it was perfect for Smith and Hawken. Not a Burlingame Avenue, main street kind of tenant, like to on go side street location. Commission asked if the building will be red in color as shown on the rendering. Silma Gonzalez noted that no, it will be off white. Mr. Wattum noted that they are trying to take the building back to what it was, retain Spanish style. Commission noted that there is no City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 15 parking on-site and none will be added but was curious about the number of transactions per day. Mr. Wattum noted that this not a weekend peak store, have customers in and out very quickly at various times during the day. The number of transactions varies wildly, around 50-60 per day. Usually customers order a product and come back in a week or two to pick it up. Commission stated that this will be a great store to have in Burlingame. Note that the sidewalks in this area are pretty tight and there are no trees in front of the building. The new design brings the building which is recessed, out to the street, can you maintain the recess or soften the edge of the sidewalk. Silma Gonzalez noted that they are planning to open the sidewalk in front of the columns, like Il Fornio, and plant vines. There will also be a portion of the new façade that still will be recessed and they will be put out flower carts, there is also the roll up garage door located in the center of the façade that will be open as weather permits. Need to move out the façade and have the roll up door open to allow light to get to the live plant material. Andrew Wattum noted that Smith and Hawken received a beautification award form the Walnut Creek City Council. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: this will be a great addition to Burlingame, nice project, encourage applicant to work with Trio salon access at the rear to pick-up products. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 11. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, noted that there was a support letter from Denise Baliestrieri who could not stay to the end of the meeting. Project needs a special permit for height, but height in Burlingame is not measured in a standard way, measured from average top of curb, not from ambient grade as done throughout the county. Height of this building measured from ambient grade would be 29’. There is only a sliver of the ridge that is over 30’ height limit, needs a special permit, not a variance. Project has been designed by a well respected architect, despite where house is located should stand on its own merits. There are 5 bedrooms because that what people buying homes in Burlingame want and are selling very fast. The applicant is asking the Commission to act on this project, it is not going to help to send this project to design review, because the project architect has already created a very nice design, consistent with City guidelines. Please give comments and bring this project back for action, meets all of the code regulations except special permit height. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, and Caroline Oushani, 1527 Drake Avenue had the following comments, and were speaking on behalf of their neighbors, the Taylors, 1566 Drake Avenue, Gussonis, 1505 Drake Avenue, O’Neals, 1516 Drake Avenue, McCrums, 1540 Drake Avenue and Ochses, 1512 Drake Avenue; at the October 14, 2003 study meeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant to look at this project as part of the 4 contiguous properties being developed on this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 16 block, asked for the project to be reduced in size, and asked the applicant to look at impact of the development on traffic and sewer capacity; neighbor handed up pictures taken from the adjacent house at 1557 Drake Avenue, from the entrance of this house you look directly at the side elevation of the new house, there is only a 4’ side yard, will eliminate daylight, the right side of the house is too massive, it will devastate the value of 1557 Drake Avenue, please look at the option to flip the driveway location, when backing out of 1561 Drake it is necessary to use the driveway at 1553 Drake, including to turn, could not back out of the driveway if there is not driveway located there, would need to at least paint the curb red, applicant did not address the comments made by the Commission at the October 14, 2003 meeting, please take into account that this design does not fit the neighborhood; this project is doubling the FAR on the lot, houses on this block are within 1,800 and 2,000 SF, look at the impact of all 4 houses, Mr. Hudak asked you to consider this as a separate project, but this should be looked at as one large development; the applicant ignored the Commissions requests that were made at the first meeting, there has been no environmental review or reduction in size; applicant continues to play games, the Planning Commission should be offended by the applicant’s behavior; the Planning Commission and City Council discussed floor area and house size as an issue at their joint meeting, it is clear that the floor area is an issue with our City Council and that it was made a priority to work on changing the code to reduce floor area allowed in Burlingame; responsibility lies with Commission; neighbor’s have asked for two years that the Planning Commission look at this project as a development of 4 houses, the Planning Commission has already granted a height variance for lot #11, to grant approval of this house in isolation is not right; does Commissioner Auran have a listing of a house on Drake Avenue? C. Auran responded that he did but the escrow has closed. Mark Hudak responded to the neighbor’s comments: the neighbor’s continue to insist that this project be reviewed as a subdivision; however the City Attorney has stated that this project needs to be looked at as a single site and project; issue of floor area has been incorrectly stated, it was concluded that the floor area currently allowed is satisfactory to the City Council or we would be working on new regulations for floor area right now, at the joint meeting it was decided that the Planning Commission and staff would look at the standards for re-emerging lots, but it was decided that the community standard is to leave the floor area ratio as is, until the will of the people in the City changes, need to vote on something tonight. Commissioner disagreed with Mr. Hudak’s view of how floor area was view by the City Council. The review of the floor area ratio was not assigned the highest priority, but it was an assignment for the subcommittee to look at. Mr. Hudak stated that he felt that the majority of the City Council believes that the floor area ratio should stay as it is. Commission asked why the driveway can’t be switched to the other side. The architect’s representative stated that the driveway location was moved because when located on the right side there were three driveways merging together in the corner of the street, created a paved area in the corner, decided to moved the driveway to the left side and add greenery on the right side next to the other driveway. Commission asked why it took 9 months for this project to come back, is not even re-designed. Mr. Hudak explained that the property owner was working on other projects, this property was not his top priority. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the photo simulation of the block prepared by the architect is very helpful, concerned with driveway changes, it seems to work well now on the right side and benefits the neighbor, look into switching driveway to right side; need to look at this project as a separate isolated project from the other 3 houses on Drake; excellent job on design, although the driveway is located on the left side it looks like the architect design the right side that faces 1557 with less bulk, the second story slopes away from the property line and there are two dormers rather than a large two story element as located along the driveway elevation; concerned about how this fits in with the neighborhood, shouldn’t be so tall, should swap the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 17 driveway to accommodate the neighborhood, nice design but concerned with height and size; the special permit for height is only for a small portion, but should look at swapping driveway to enhance the traffic flow at the end of the block; well designed project, the massing is located on the driveway side away from 1557 Drake Avenue, concerned with context issues, this is a large house in context of the block, should study the driveway change and how the turn around on the block will be affected, there is an 11’2” side setback on the driveway side, don’t need that much width for the driveway, maybe the house can be shift over to the left to create a larger side setback next to 1557 Drake, would like to see the footprint of the house approved on lot #11 shown on sheet A1, not sure that design review is the right path for this project, let the architect work out these issues; do a circulation traffic study, need a traffic engineer to review the turnaround space, movements and needs at the end of this block and then revise the plans accordingly, if driveway is retained on left side then right side setback should be increased; why do we need a traffic study, just advise the applicant to switch the driveway location because it allows for a better traffic circulation and gives more light to 1557 Drake Avenue; in response to the neighbor’s comments, there is a difference between 3 lots re-emerging with a heritage tree, the City Council resolved this issue by saying that the floor area on re-emerging lots should be stepped down, but this project is a stand alone project, don’t want to limit FAR just for this project when the size and design are o.k.; if driveway is flipped, will there be a greater light impact on 1557 Drake? if not then support change; consider mass and bulk issue when looking at driveway change, may need to reduce left elevation. Commission comments and concerns summary: • Look into switching driveway to right side of the lot to accommodate the neighborhood and to enhance the traffic flow at the end of the block; • Study the driveway change and how the turn around on the block will be affected; have a circulation, maneuver study completed by qualified engineer to review the turn around space at the end this block and incorporate conclusions in the plans accordingly, • Concerned about how this fits in with the neighborhood, shouldn’t be so tall, concerned with height and size, concerned with context issues, this is a large house in context with the block; • There is an 11’2” side setback on the driveway side, don’t need that much width for the driveway, if driveway is retained on left side, the house should be shifted over to the left to create a larger side setback next to 1557 Drake; • If driveway is flipped will there be a greater light impact on 1557 Drake, if not then support change; consider mass and bulk issue when looking at driveway change, may need to reduce left elevation; and • Show the footprint of house approved on lot #11 on sheet A1; C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above comments have been addressed and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués . Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of July 19, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of July 19, 2004. CP also noted that the relocation of the passenger platforms at the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue stations was discussed. CalTrain JPB has sent a separate letter to the Commission notifying them of the proposed design for the passenger City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2004 18 shelters on the north bound side of the tracks at the Burlingame Avenue station. Commissioners had no comments about the new shelter design. - Confirmed meeting schedule for the Neighborhood Consistency and Bayfront Zoning Subcommittees. The next meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to discuss zoning issues will be on September 10, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in conference room A. The next meeting of the Bayfront Zoning Subcommittee will be on August 17, 2004 at noon in conference room A. These are working meetings and the binders with the materials will be included in the packet preceding the meeting date. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\07.26.04.unapproved.doc