Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.04.18 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the April 18, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Deal and Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the March 27, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as corrected. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was changed so that item 1b the planning request s would be acted on before the map request, item 1a. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that he lives next door to the project and he would abstain from the action and step down from the dais. Vice Chair Vistica took the gavel. ACTION ITEMS 2100 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 b. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THIS THREE-PARCEL SITE TO RE-EMERGE THE PARCEL LINES, AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH DETACHED GARAGES; SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHTS OVER 30'-0" FOR BOTH NEW HOUSES; AND A VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY FRONT SETBACK FOR THE NEW HOUSE PROPOSED ON LOT B (DENISE LAUGESEN , APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC., PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 4.18.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Receipt of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Riddiough, the neighbor to the rear at 2105 Adeline Drive, requesting removal of the sick pine tree at the rear of the site was acknowledged. The neighbor had previously submitted an arborist report documenting the condition of the pine tree. CP Monroe discussed the 7 conditions and suggested that if Commission wanted to relocate the house 2 feet to the rear to eliminate the second story front setback, that condition 1 be amended to reflect that change; and that the proposed condition 2 be dropped and replaced with a condition that addressed that, if the applicant receives a permit from the Parks Department, the pine City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2000 page -2- tree at the rear of the side be removed before issuance of a building permit; the city arborist participate in the selection of the location for the replacement tree, and that the development of both lots comply with all the requirements of the city=s reforestation ordinance. There were no questions from the commissioners. CP Monroe also noted that after the study meeting the applicant applied to the Parks Department for the removal of the pine tree at the rear of the lot. The permit has been reviewed and approved effective April, 26, 2000. Vice-Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Denise Laugensen, 414 Costa Rica, San Mateo, the applicant, spoke noting that Jerry Deal the designer was supposed to have submitted a letter indicating that they would not need the variance if the tree could be removed, they would move the garage and house back 1'-6". They are willing to replace the pine tree with whatever kind of tree the city wants. Speaking on the project were Ray Marshal, 2111 Poppy, Dave Luzuriaga, 2110 Poppy Drive. Live opposite Lot B was concerned about the second story setback request, but looks as if its been resolved; glad to have the pine removed; can support the height variance since it is not on the corner lot facing Vancouver; looks from the plans as if the project will fit the neighborhood with the detached garages and the high pitched roofs. In this case a good job, the two houses match the style of the neighborhood with steep roofs and detached garages; the applicant placed the driveway on his side of the new development so helped to offset the loss of the 35 foot setback they enjoyed from the existing house; request that the tree chosen to replace the pine have a large canopy similar to that of the pine. There were no further questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: agree that well designed, it will blend well into the neighborhood; looked at the tree, it is long overdue for removal, think it should be replaced with more than one tree and the replacement trees should maximize canopy. CP Monroe noted that in addition to planting a replacement tree for the removed pine, the reforestation ordinance requires a new tree for each 1000 GSF of structure build, so at least three new trees will be planted on Lot B. Would like to modify condition 2 as suggested by the CP. Was concerned about the second story front setback, it had been eliminated, would like to add condition that for safety during construction building materials including lumber be stored on-site not in the public right-of-way including the sidewalk and that dirt from the site be confined to the site and the public right-of-way regularly swept, this was not the case with the Montero construction and it caused a public safety problem. When locate trees should consider the existing condition that the pine tree creates and select trees that will, in a number of years, create a replacement canopy which will benefit the three yards from which the pine tree is most visible now. C. Keighran moved to approve the conditional use permit for re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure, design review for two new two-story single family residences and a special permit for height for the house on proposed Lot B, by resolution, with conditions proposed in the staff report with the changes to conditions 1 and 2 as proposed by staff and the addition of two conditions one to address the public safety requirement that construction materials be kept wholly on-site and the public right-of-way including the street and sidewalk be maintained clean of dirt and debris at all times and the second to require that the placement of the new trees required under the city =s reforestation requirements and the replacement for the protected pine tree be placed so that the canopy effect is the same for the adjacent properties as enjoyed with the pine tree. The conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped Lot A November 30, 1999 and Lot B January 31, 2000, except that the garage and house as shown in the submitted plans for Lot B shall be move 2'-0" to the rear of the lot, maintaining the same separation between the two structures; 2) that after receiving a permit from the Parks Department for removal of the protected sized pine tree at the rear of Lot B and prior to receiving a building permit for construction of the house on Lot B, the applicant shall removed the pine tree and shall plant a replacement tree on site at a location approved by the City Arborist; development on both lots shall comply with the city=s reforestation ordinance; 3) that the placement of the new trees required under the city=s reforestation requirements and the replacement for the protected pine tree shall be based on creating the same canopy effect at maturity of the trees as is now created by the pine tree for the adjacent properties, the location selected for the replanted trees shall be approved by the City Arborist to determine that the canopy effect created will be similar; 4) that the existing house and detached City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2000 page -3- garage shall be demolished prior to recording the lot line adjustment; 5) that the lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to issuing a building permit and copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit and all other requirements of the Department of Public Works memo dated March 28, 2000; 6) that a property survey setting all corners of each lot will be required when a building permit is applied for to determine the property line locations; 7) that during demolition, site preparation and construction of both new houses, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Burlingame =s Storm Water Ordinance by implementing appropriate Abest management practices: to ensure the site is well protected and managed to prevent sediment and erosion of storm water runoff. If construction activities take place during the rainy season (October 15 to April 15) the applicant shall submit a winterization plan for review and approval by the Planning Department to permit construction during the rainy season, failure to comply will result in a stop work order on the site until the violation is corrected; and 8) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code regulations, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: it is clear that the motion did not include a variance for second story front setback; C A Anderson recommended that the commission not require a construction fence but leave that as an option to be worked out; because the pine tree was removed the house and garage could be slid back so no front setback variance was required, and the tree condition would provide for replacement of a similar canopy for the adjacent neighbors. Acting Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 voice vote (C. Luzuriaga abstaining and Cers. Deal and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. a. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO RECONFIGURE THREE PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS TO CREATE TWO BUILDABLE SITES (DENISE LAUGESEN, APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC. PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 4.18.00, with attachments. City Engineer discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments; this item was covered in the public hearing for the planning approvals. C. Bojués moved to approve the application for a lot line adjustment to reconfigure three parcels into two parcels at 2100 Poppy Drive by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 voice vote (C. Luzuriaga abstaining and Cers. Deal and Dreiling absent). Since the Planning Commission=s action can be final on this map appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Luzuriaga returned to the dais. DISCUSSION OF BROWN ACT CA Anderson presented his Background Paper on the Brown Act, April 13, 2000, to the Planning Commissioners. The paper summarizes the purpose of the Brown Act, the definition of a meeting and action taken under the Brown Act, the effect of finding that the discussion is a meeting, and remedies for a violation of the Brown Act, including curative actions. It was noted that the developer for example who instigates a seriatim meeting is not held responsible for a violation, the commissioners are. Commissioners discussed various circumstances and how the Brown Act might apply including meeting with developers, site inspections, attendance at county, regional and professional meetings, and their disclosure responsibilities. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken by the City Council at their Aparil 17, 2000 meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2000 page -4- ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary Minutes4.18