Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.01.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 13, 2003 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the January 13, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES Chair Keighran asked if there were any changes to the unapproved minutes for December 9, 2002. Commissioner noted changes to Item 2, 2202 Summit Drive: page 2 "C. Osterling noted that he had a financial interest conflict with this project and would recuse himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and exited the Council Chambers." There were no other changes proposed. The minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 283 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (RONALD M. KARP, APPLICANT; KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNERS; THE KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked staff to explain liquor-licensing rules. CA Anderson noted that any alcohol sales on site are approved by the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission and off-site alcohol sales, or "to go" sales would also be reviewed by Burlingame City Council. Commissioners asked for the following issues to be addressed:  clarify the projected number of customers per day, 20 customers seems very small;  there are 5 employees projected for the food establishment, how many employees are there for Sephora, the business next door, and how does the total number of employees for these two businesses compare to the employees that were on site for the previous food establishment use;  does the applicant have the name of a potential establishment for this space;  conditions of approval for the food establishment should specify that food establishment provides a trash receptacle in the public right-of-way and is responsible for the regular maintenance of the receptacle and sidewalk in front of the business;  will there be food prep on site, cooking, or both- note a 2 burner cook-top on the plans;  where will deliveries to the food establishment take place; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 2  it appears that the "service corridor" on the plans leads into the lobby of the hotel next door, if that is not the case, where does the corridor lead. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. 2. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4- APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CAR RENTAL BUSINESS (O. MASON HURST, II, ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, APPLICANT; BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES ARCHITECT, ARCHITECT; ALAMO RENT-A- CAR, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked staff if there was any record of problems with the operation under the past conditional use permit. CP Monroe responded that there was code enforcement involving the required rental desk on site, which was closed for a length of time; will check for other enforcements. Commissioners asked that the following issues be addressed:  what are the general differences between the proposed application and the previously approved conditional use permit in 1999;  what are the specific service and maintenance changes proposed, will they be more intense than existing operations, and will any improvements be made on site to accommodate changes;  how is run-off from the site filtered, does the car wash facility recycle water;  what are the projected number of rentals from the site;  how does the City monitor the required 1% it collects from the rental business;  the business is responsible for the maintenance of the portion of the Bay Trail abutting the site, noted during a site visit that trail is not maintained, conditions of approval should address a regular maintenance plan; and  is the 1% of rental revenues due to the City a requirement for all rental business, or is it specific to this use on this site. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR FRONT SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (KIRK SYME, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT (8 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no questions for staff. Commissioners asked that the following issues be addressed:  how is run-off from the parking areas filtered, where does it drain, can the City Engineer comment on the existing conditions and any proposed changes; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 3  applicants have addressed the width of the sidewalk, but would like to know if the decorative pavement will be walk-able, what materials or design are proposed;  where the pedestrian crosswalk ends, the sidewalk between the curb and the landscaping appears to narrow, will this space accommodate two or more pedestrians at this point;  is the proposed landscaping tolerant of salty sea air;  the applicant should confirm that the explanations provided on the conditional use permit and variance forms are accurate and current, as they are dated May 2001, can the applicant address the side setback variance questions more thoroughly;  the building design and landscaping are straight-forward, but feel that landscaping should be larger to match the scale of the proposed building; and  is the owner aware of any possible tenants and can he provide an estimated number of employees and visitors to the site. This item was set for the regular action calendar when there is space after all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 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. 4A. 1411 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 4B. 1261 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (THOMAS AND KATHRYN ANGIOLETTI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 4C. 1616 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BOB MASON AND PAM MAXWELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting on Item #4A, 1411 Carlos Avenue, because he lives within 500 feet of the site. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote to approve Item #4A, 1411 Carlos Avenue, and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining). Chair called for a voice vote to approve Items #4B and #4C, 1261 Drake Avenue and 1616 Barroilhet Avenue, and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 4 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report for January 13, 2003, with attachments. C. Osterling, noting he would abstain from voting on the project due to a financial interest conflict with the project, stepped down from the dais and exited the council chambers. Staff Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if applicant provided a site plan showing the location of the houses on each side at this lot, where are the pictures from the neighbor that are mentioned in the staff report. Staff responded that the applicant and the neighbor could answer these questions. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Johnny DaRosa, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions about the project. He submitted a site plan showing the footprints for the neighboring houses. Commission asked if the designer had ever been inside the neighbor's house at 2673 Martinez Avenue to evaluate the impact of the addition to the views from that residence. The designer responded that he had been in the neighbor's yard prior to the erection of the story poles on the site. The Commission commented that there appear to be some very serious errors regarding the story poles; the engineer based the location of the story poles on a sketch provided to him, that sketch showed an inaccurate roof pitch and house width. These errors would result in a roof ridge that is actually 12-14 inches higher that the ridge indicated by the story poles. June Bitter, 2673 Martinez Drive, thanked the Commission for continuing the last hearing because medical reasons prevented her from attending. She submitted pictures to show the view from her house. She and her husband bought their house because of the view and they understood that this view would always be preserved because of the view protection ordinance in the Municipal Code. Neighbors at 2669 Martinez Drive do not trim their Eucalyptus trees and therefore, the view enjoyed from her property has already been significantly reduced. The proposed addition would block the only view left to her property. Byron Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court, Dianne Johnson, 2668 Martinez, spoke regarding the application: are not opposed to change in the neighborhood, but feel that change should be sensitive to the neighbor's rights; with the proposed addition Mrs. Bitter would lose her view of everything south of Peninsula Hospital; the inaccuracies with the story poles are troubling; and although this project is scaled-back from the original proposal, the applicant has not made enough of an effort to design an addition that will preserve the views for neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: when first viewed these revised plans and saw the proposed addition from the street, believed that the requested addition was modest, however after viewing the story poles from 2637 Martinez realized that views are still significantly affected by the addition; all of this addition is occurring at the highest point on the lot, the applicant should investigate adding on the north side of the house or centering the addition at the rear of the property so that neighboring views will not be blocked; a re-design of the addition should start with an analysis of the neighbors views; and the inaccuracies in the story poles are unacceptable and prevent accurate evaluation of the project City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 5 C. Vistica moved to deny the application based on the issues discussed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Discussion on the motion: does the Commission think a denial without prejudice is appropriate for this application; no, based on the fact that the story poles are inaccurate and the design of the addition clearly blocks a significant view, support denial of the project. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dais. 6. 1637 CORONADO WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JENNIFER AND DOUG ULRICH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RICHARD COOK & LOUIS BOBROWSKY, ARCHITECTS) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report for January 13, 2003, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Doug Ulrich, owner, and Bob Cook, architect were present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant to clarify the proposed window type and window trim, will they be wood with stucco mold to match the existing windows. The applicant responded that the owner intended to install wood windows with a traditional stucco mold to be consistent with the existing windows. Commission noted that the use of these materials would be a condition of approval for the project. Commission asked the applicant if he had fully explored options to reduce the height of the structure. The applicant responded that the proposed second floor plate is only 8 feet and that to further reduce the height would be would be a hardship because it requires that the existing first floor ceilings be demolished and the existing 9-foot plate heights there be reduced. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: This project is an excellent example of how well the design review process works, agree that the house still appears somewhat tall, but that is due to the existing 9-foot plate heights on the first floor, and because the house has a sizeable front setback the impact to the streetscape will be fairly minor. C. Vistica moved to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: should add condition to address the proposed windows. The maker of the motion and the second agreed and moved for approval of the application, by resolution, and with the following amended conditions to address the windows for the proposed addition: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 17,2002, Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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 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; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s, Recycling Specialist’s and the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 6 City Engineer’s September 23, 2002 memos shall be met; 5) 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; 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; 7) 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; 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 10) that the windows for the addition shall be wood windows and they shall be installed using a traditional stucco mold; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 7. 900 MORRELL AVENUE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (DANIEL BIERMANN, DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KENNETH AND ANDREANNA VIERRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report for January 13, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Daniel Biermann, designer, and Ken Vierra, owner, were present to answer questions. They noted that the area enlarged by the proposed amendment is a dormer that would cast a shadow only on the neighboring garage. The proposed dormer extends the approved dormer by 2 feet and this triggers a special permit requirement. Commission asked if the applicant had met with the neighbors at 832 Morrell Avenue. The applicant responded that they met with the neighbor and shared the proposed plans, but had not heard of any objections to the plans until receiving a copy of the letter submitted on January 7, 2003, after the preparation of the packet. Commission asked if the revised dormer on the right side had floor to ceiling windows. The applicant responded that the size of the windows was dictated by the code requirement that a window enclosure in a dormer must have a window accounting for 25% of the face of the dormer. Continued public hearing: Commission asked staff to clarify the difference between a window enclosure exception and a special permit for declining height envelope. Staff noted that a window enclosure meeting the specified dimensions is exempt from the declining height envelope. In this case, the revised length of the dormer prevents the dormer from qualifying for a window enclosure exception and the dormer is not required to meet the 25% window requirement. Instead, the dormer requires a special permit to violate the declining height envelope. The applicant noted that they were unaware of this information and would be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 7 glad to reduce the height of the windows to 4'-0" and to make them frosted glass for additional privacy. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application with an added condition to limit the height of the dormer windows to 4'-0" and to require opaque glass for the dormer windows. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: should we limit the windows to 4'-0" in height or allow the architect to work out the best configuration and size, do not want to see the project have to come back to Commission because 4'- 0" windows do not fit and the applicant wants to propose a different size; could bring the item back to the Commission for information only if the applicant proposes anything other than 4'-0" high windows for the dormer; would like to add a condition that the dormer windows match the proposed windows for the rest of the addition. The maker of the motion and the second agreed and moved for approval of the application, by resolution, and with the following amended conditions regarding the windows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 21, 2002, sheets A7 and A8, date stamped September 19, 2002, sheet A3, and revised plans date stamped November 26, 2002, sheets A1, A5 and A6, and date stamped December 18, 2002, sheet A4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any further changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 23, 2002, memo and the Recycling Specialist's September 24, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) 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; 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 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 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; 8) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 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; 9) that the second floor dormer windows on the right side shall be wood windows with 1 ½ inch stucco mold trim and opaque glass; 10) that second floor dormer windows on the right side shall be no greater than 4'-0" in height and that the application shall return to the Planning Commission as an FYI item if the windows do not meet this requirement; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:33 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 8 8. 117/119 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES TO PROVIDE ONE OFF-SITE COVERED PARKING SPACE ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL AND TO PROVIDE NO UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE (MARTIN AND ALISON WESLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER : RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 13, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria, staff comments, and an additional condition regarding the Elm tree. Commissioner asked if the condition suggested, that the applicants comply with the City Arborist’s most recent recommendations on the protection and maintenance of the Elm tree behind the garage, should be an eighth condition on 117 Dwight. CP Monroe said yes. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Martin Wesley, 117 Dwight; Janet Jennings, 119 Dwight, Robert Dusty, attorney for Janet Jennings and Patrick Wood, attorney 117 Dwight, Brad Yee, 123 Dwight, spoke. Began application in August 2001, had the location of the garage and driveway surveyed to show the exact location, moved the garage to 6 inches from property line at 119, closest it can be to property line; easement is not disputed residents at both 117 and 119 park on the existing garage slab; application requires a minimum code sump pump to take care of roof drainage, originally went directly to street across 119, proposed to relocate the line so that it runs across 117 to the street; have been to court and have a settlement giving 117 the right to build a 2 car garage on 119 Dwight. Commissioner asked why is the easement is not more defined dimensionally; located where driveway is now, there will be no new paving; access easement should be defined dimensionally; driveway needs to meet city code driveway width and if width is reduced in the future would need to get a variance. Overall this is a private matter, 117 went to court to get the right to build at their expense a garage that would comply with city requirements on 119 property. Commissioner asked why has it been so long since the commission saw this last and would you consider building a one-car garage? Was transferred out of the country was not reasonable to do this from off shore, was sued this summer for not building the garage. Owner at 119 Dwight is not a part of this application, this is not a joint venture; have not approved final plans nor consented to the driveway easement location; did not agree to the location of the portion of the drain pipe on her property; did not sue my neighbor he sued me twice in the past four years. Settlement said build garage by December 31, 2002, the time has expired, the driveway is not defined plans and show it to be over half the property at the rear if use asphalt location; opposed to the condition that if something happens to the property the variance goes away, then I will lose the access easement across 117. Think this is a jurisdictional issue, owner at 119 is not a party to these variance proceedings, should not be given any conditions, this is not a joint application; parties are not cooperating, owner at 119 is not involved, the agreement with the court expired on December 31, 2002. CA Anderson asked if the application by Janet Jennings is being withdrawn. Her attorney indicated that she elected to withdraw the application and her support. CA noted that if this were withdrawn Ms. Jennings would then need to come in with an application for variances for no on site parking. Commission asked Ms. Jennings what was wrong with the proposed design of the garage and the plans. She noted that she had not been given a copy, the location of the drain pipe on her property represented an easement on her site that she did not agree with, they did not consult with her about the design of the garage; and she has been litigated twice on this matter. Did you talk to Mr. Wesley about some way to avoid having the pipe run across the driveway. For four years he has not worked with her, she has kept her word. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 9 Ms. Jennings did not sue Mr. Wesley, filed a cross complaint which was not dismissed until October; sent a number of letters asking feedback; the pipe is not an easement, is a part of the garage and not part of the Planning Commission’s action. CA Anderson noted that the city has no application for anything on 119 Dwight as application has been withdrawn. Neighbor not opposed to garage, it works well, concerned with the elm tree, try to prune the tree but its too big, last storm dropped big branches on his garage and car, lot of sucker growth supports mosquito and rat populations, someone needs to do something about it. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CA responded, problem is with mitigation to the variance. A straight variance for no on-site parking at 117 Dwight without mitigation has not been noticed. The Commission has several choices: 1) Approve the proposal for 117 Dwight providing for parking off site with conditions, recognizing that the variance may not take effect because conditions cannot be met; 2) Deny and have 117 Dwight return with a variance request with no covered parking on-site and show where uncovered parking might be provided on-site without relying on 119 Dwight; 3) continue the matter and refer the parties to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to gain agreement. Wesleys may need consent of owner of 119 Dwight on building permit form to take out building permit for garage. The problem for 119 Dwight is that by withdrawal of the 119 application, there is no covered parking on the property and this violates R-1 District parking regulations. What would stop owners of 117 from using the driveway for uncovered parking? CA notes that the city cannot stop the owners of 117 form doing that, but they will need to show where the uncovered parking would be located. If this is approved without conditions placed directly on 119, how does 117 get compliance from 119? CA noted that conditions are prerequisites to variance, so if no garage is built, the variance does not become effective. It leaves it to the two property owners to sort it out. If approved, cannot go forward without agreement and the Commission needs to clear its agenda of this application. C. Osterling moved approval of the application for a variance for off site covered parking at 117 Dwight Road with the conditions in the staff report, all the conditions added by the City Planner regarding the elm tree and a condition that a score line be placed down the center of the garage slab to mark off the two parking spaces. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The conditions are: 8. that because the property owners at 117 Dwight Road provided the arborist’s report they shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of the City Arborist’s amended comments dated January 13, 2003, and compliance shall be inspected and confirmed before a final inspection is scheduled for the garage structure on 119 Dwight Road; and 9. that a score line dividing the garage into two equal halves shall be drawn down the middle of the garage slab for the new garage and shall be in place at the time of the Building Division’s inspection of the poured slab. Comment on the motion: feel that the parties should be given one more chance to go to mediation and arrive at an agreement before the Commission acts on the project; would like to add a condition that the parties make “a best effort’ to resolve this issue; CA noted need conditions which are enforceable; commission should make findings for the variance. Would add to the motion that a variance is the only solution for drainage and driveway to get to the garage; lot is an odd shape and dimension. The maker and second to the motion agreed to adding the findings to the motion. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the application for a variance for off site City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 10 covered parking and provide no on-site covered parking at 117 Dwight Road. The motion passed on a 5-2 ( Cers. Keele and Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. p.m. Chairman Keighran called for a break. The commission reconvened at 9:40 p.m. 9. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) (83 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report January 13, 2003, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that condition #4 causes the permit to expire in July 2003, which is rather soon; this use permit has returned to the Commission twice in the past year for minor revisions, is there any way to prevent these continual permit amendments. Staff noted that the 2003 expiration date could be extended by the Planning Commission's action this evening and explained that use permits involve specific conditions of approval because the permit can be transferred to any use within the category; Commission could ask the applicant if it is possible to more accurately predict their use so that amendments aren't required. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michael Mount, applicant, was present to answer questions. He explained that operations of Hope Technology School were in part dependent on decisions made by the School District. In this case, the School District expected a larger enrollment in the public school and when it did not materialize, the District offered the portable classroom space to Hope Technology. The applicant noted that the original 2003 expiration date was tied to a one-year lease from the School District. Hope School is also hoping to rent more space from the District at some point in the future. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion on the motion: should extend the expiration date of the use permit to July, 2004. The maker of the motion and the second agreed and moved for approval, by resolution, and with the following amended conditions regarding the expiration date for the use permit: 1) that the Hope Technology School shall be limited to the 5,212 SF shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 27, 2002, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7; including 4,252 SF of permanent building space and 960 SF of portable classroom space; 2) that the operation of the school classes shall follow the schedule indicated by the charts in the staff report for the meeting date of May 13, 2002, and that any changes to this schedule, including revising, shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit; 3) that the total number of persons on site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, will be limited to 62 persons; 4) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint and that the conditional use permit shall expire in July 2004; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s memo of December 2, 2002, shall be met; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 11 10. 512-516 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW EIGHT-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report January 13, 2003, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. He noted the height measurement in the staff report, 47'-4", was taken to the highest point of the parapet at the front of the proposed building, but that the sides and rear of the building have a roof height of 41'-8"; submitted renderings to show that the existing street trees do a great deal to screen the proposed building, even during the seasons when the trees lack foliage; the semi-circular driveway could be re- designed, if it is the wish of the Commission, to eliminate or reduce the front landscaping variance, but believe that the semi-circular driveway is the best solution at this busy location because it removes cars from the street during deliveries and improves circulation; and the plans show that the proposed ceiling heights are 9 feet for all of the units and there is one foot of space between each unit for pipes, etc., this design was not altered because felt that shorter ceilings would not be appropriate for the market these condominiums are trying to reach. Continued public hearing: Commission asked the applicant to clarify the proposed color scheme. The applicant explained that the lighter brushed tiles would be used at the first floor where they are more likely to be viewed and touched and the darker tiles would be used for the upper stories of the building. Commission asked if the size of the semi-circular driveway could be reduced and still function. The applicant noted that a reduction would gain approximately 8% more landscaping, but the driveway would not be as convenient and might not be used as often. Commission commented that there are no affordable units in the proposed application and noted that the applicant indicated he would be submitting for several other multi-family projects in the future, hope that affordable housing is considered for all future applications; had the applicant considered a roof-top garden for this project; CP Monroe noted that roof-top gardens are currently prohibited by the Burlingame Municipal code based on privacy concerns. John Ward, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant had worked with neighbors and the Burlingame Historical Society to address concerns about the project. He submitted a document of mitigation measures for the project that was signed by the property owner and neighbors. Ken Newman, 1401 Carmelita, and Bob Jorger, resident of Burlingame, spoke in support of the project. The proposed building will enhance Burlingame, would like to see more of this type and quality development and the location is ideal because its proximity to the library and shops allows older owners to remain independent when they can no longer drive. Continued public hearing: Commission asked the applicant if the units are disabled accessible, the applicant responded that as per the Building Code requirements, all units are disable accessible. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington, asked for clarification on exceptions required for the proposed height of 47'-4". Chair Keighran noted that the maximum height is 55'-0" and any height over that requires a variance, where any height between 35'-0" and 55'-0" requires a conditional use permit which has a lesser findings requirement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 12 C. Osterling 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 November 4, 2002, sheets A-01 through A-17 and L-1and L-2; with 2,035 SF of common open space at the rear of the property and a front setback of 23'-4" to the face of the building; 2) t hat the maximum elevation at the top of the decorative portion of the parapet shall not exceed elevation 71.52' for a maximum height of 47'-4", and the highest top of roof elevation shall not exceed 67.43' for a maximum height of 43'-8", as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Primrose Road (24.21'), and that the top of each floor, the top of roof and the maximum height of the parapet shall be surveyed floor by floor and approved at each step by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 15.41'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 25.43'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 35.43'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 45.43'; and the fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 55.43. Should any framing exceed the stated elevations at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof and parapets shall not exceed the maximum heights shown on the approved plans; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 6, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Official’s, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist’s July 8, 2002 memos, and the City Arborist’s August 5, 2002 memo, shall be met; 5) that the applicant shall submit and have approval of the City Engineer of a construction staging and parking plan prior to issuance of a building permit; 6) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 7) that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the four guest parking spaces in the below-grade parking garage and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 8) 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; 9) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 10) 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; 11) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be located and maintained 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; 12) that the security gate system across the driveway, shall be installed a minimum 24’-3” back from the front property line and shall provide a minimum opening of 10’-0”; the security gate system shall include an intercom, located at the top of the slope for the driveway, and connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 13) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 14) 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; 15) that off-site runoff shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 13 diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 16) 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; 17) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 18) 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; 19) 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; 20) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 21) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 23) that 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; 24) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City’s water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) 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; 26) that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and proposed flows, the capacity of the system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and mitigation of impact to the system; 27) that the developer shall pay (proportional share) for the installation of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line himself he shall be required to pay for the development’s portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer shall make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City shall use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development’s share of the cost; 28) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 29) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 30) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 31) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Primrose Road; 32) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 14 etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 33) that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability and other related items; 34) 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. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with; 35) 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; 36) that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval for a Protected Tree Removal Permit for the Bailey Acacia at the rear of the property, and the elm and poplar trees on site before the trees are removed and before the commencement of any demolition or construction on site; 37) that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays; 38) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays; 39) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 40) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 41) that the new sewer laterals from the two lots developed with the current application to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 42) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 43) that the shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 44) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame; 45) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 48) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 46) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 47) that the applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominiums and a tentative lot merger map with the Public Works Department before the Planning Commission action hearing on the proposed project; 48) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 49) that the applicant shall comply with all tree-protection measures outlined in the Certified Arborist's report date stamped July 3, 2002; including fencing around the trees around their drip line and deep root fertilizing for the trees and longer-term maintenance; and that the condominium association shall be responsible in an on- going and on a regular basis for the maintenance and annual inspection of the street trees and of the on-site improvements and landscaping designed for the protection of the street trees as determined by the City Arborist; 50) that the semi-circle driveway at the front of the property shall be a pervious material, such as concrete pavers set in sand; and 51) that the City Arborist shall perform weekly inspections for the duration of demolition and construction on the site to insure the health and protection of the three Elm trees in the City right-of-way. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: CP Monroe noted that the proposed height required the Commission to make findings for a conditional use permit. Commission commented that conditional use findings do not require the evidence of a physical hardship on the property and are more closely associated with architectural City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 15 compatibility, the proposed height of 47'-4" is consistent with existing buildings nearby, such as the City Library with a height of 48'-3" and 1422 Bellevue Avenue with a height between 60-70 feet, the height of the existing street trees does a great deal to screen the building and minimize the impact of the proposed height; the front landscaping variance is justified by the convenience and improved traffic flow that will result from the semi-circular driveway; the height and density of the project is ideal for this location because of the proximity of the site to transportation and the design is well-done and consistent. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 11. 380 LANG ROAD – ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION ON PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR SIGNAGE (DANIELA PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELIZABETH HAMMACK, OWNER) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 13, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the determination noting that at the time of sale of the building on the site it was painted and all the signage removed, therefore, any nonconforming status was lost. Commissioners asked, based on the cross access easement memo, if the major access to the site were on the west side would it change staff’s view? The easement on 380 Lang is to provide access to the properties behind, a property owner cannot grant and access easement to himself. What is the size of the sign on the tractor-trailer parked along the west wall of the building? It is an illegal sign, do not know its size, the applicant may be able to help. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Daniela Panebianco, applicant, and Joseph Denie, owner of California Electric, represented the project. They noted that previous sign permits had been issued to this site based on the primary frontage for signage being on the west side; felt that there were errors in the staff report regarding the frontages for signage on the Hayman building; the date of the Hayman permit was 1997 with the earlier permit issued in 1978 after the sign code had been revised; applied for a sign permit after 1978 and the primary frontage was considered to be the west side facing US 101. City should stay with its determination that the west side of the site is the primary frontage for signage until the sign code changes. Commissioners asked: what is the square footage on the trailer sign? Applicant noted that it was close to 200 SF that is allowed on the primary frontage. City Council allowed a sign with 21 inch letters and a 3 foot in diameter logo, would that have been over 75SF? Don’t know decided not to pursue once found out where the building frontage was. Do you have any additional submittals? Want city to comply with CS 22.04.280 dated 1977 without amendments. CP noted that the existing signage at that time was nonconforming. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: City Council was willing to keep the sign on the west wall consistent with the Hayman sign; if limited to existing code their sign on the west wall would be smaller than the Hayman sign; applicant found diagram of 21 inch letter sign, it indicated that the sign would be 55 SF; CP noted that they also suggested a parapet sign so a 55 SF sign would require a variance since only 60% of the signage may be between 12 and 24 feet from grade and 40% more than 24 feet above grade; seems Hayman was not a refaced sign but a new sign; but 74 SF on the secondary frontage, and the primary frontage is on Lang; this is an appeal of the City Planner’s determination on the location of the primary frontage, right? Yes; C Brownrigg noted that what is at issue here is the concept of “grandfathered” it is an important concept and affects many properties, if existing are not honored when change code create a big problem, take the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 16 removal of all the signage seriously, when all the signage was removed the property owner had to comply with the current sign code, whatever preceded; to change this concept would have a big impact on the City and many property owners on that basis move to uphold the determination of the City Planner that the primary frontage is on the south side of the 380 Lang Road site and leave as stipulated by the City Planner’s staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues . Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planners determination that the primary frontage for signage at 380 Lang Road was on the south side of the lot. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1456 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC.; DESIGNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked the staff to provide information about the lot coverage, floor area and setbacks for the existing house in the staff report table. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that many dwellings in the neighborhood, and in particular the two adjacent houses, are two stories. Some portions of the proposed house are attic areas that do not have live-able space but are counted in FAR calculations done by the Planning Department so that the actual live-able space proposed for the dwelling is less than the number calculated for total floor area. The Commission noted that they liked the design of the right side of the house where the roof is brought down to a single story element, did the designer consider adding a dormer at this side. The designer explained that originally a dormer was proposed at this location, but it required a special permit to violate the declining height envelope, so it was eliminated. Jeff Gressard, 1452 Cabrillo, spoke regarding the project. He noted that his property was immediately to the right of the proposed dwelling and he had no concerns about the size, but it appeared that one of the proposed bedroom windows directly faced one of his bedroom windows, would like to know if anything could be done to improve privacy. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the next available meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: the house is designed well, do not see that much could be done to increase privacy between the two properties because the bedroom in question has only one window, window is needed for egress purposes and cannot be eliminated; agree with the observation of the designer that the houses surrounding the site are both two story and rather bulky. The following suggestions were made:  perhaps one of the "landscape pockets" shown on the landscape plan could be shifted so that the bedroom looks out on an Italian Cypress;  it appears that the French doors that are the main access to the backyard at the rear of the house can only be accessed by cutting through the center of the breakfast nook, which will be difficult if there is furniture in the room; is not a requirement, but applicant could consider eliminating the breakfast City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 17 nook, using the floor area to add the dormer at the right side, and re-locating the French doors to the center of the house; and  fence at right side is shown as remaining on the landscape plan, but is in poor repair; would like to see a condition of approval requiring the fence to be replaced at this side. Chair Keighran 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:04 p.m. 13. 344 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (MARK BRAND ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT KIERAN AND MARIE WOODS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Brand, architect, and Kieran Woods, owner, were present to answer questions. The architect noted that the owner is aware of the neighbor's concerns and is willing to work with them to reach a plan that is agreeable to both parties. Scott and Alexis Danielson, 340 Pepper, spoke regarding the project. They noted that their residence is immediately adjacent to the subject property and the entrance to their property is situated next to the proposed pool house. Their biggest concern is that the proposed development should preserve the creek setting, submitted photographs to show even in normal storms the creek level rises to a point beyond the 100 year flood line, have a soils report that indicates the soil adjacent to the creek bank and the proposed swimming pool is very sandy and subject to liquefaction, the pool house is located on the creek bank and that will make it impossible to provide landscaping to screen the pool house from the neighboring property, the pool equipment enclosure is proposed adjacent to the entrance to their property and the noise will create and unwanted nuisance, could property owner consider installing a lap pool that will have a smaller footprint and re-locating the pool house and equipment enclosure to an area that won't impact the neighbor's property or view, such as to the east end of the pool or adjacent to the main dwelling, would like to see rigorous tree protection measures for the magnificent trees on the site that benefit the whole neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented:  front of the house is very elegant and well designed, but this same character is not present on the sides and rear of the house; the flattish roof at the rear especially seems out of character and more indicative of an addition to an existing house;  agree that creek location does make siting a house more difficult, but feel that the requested variances are both too numerous and too large;  a 13-15 foot front setback will make the house appear to jump out at the street, look into options that increase the front setback to somewhere between 15 feet and 48 feet;  there is a large Redwood tree on the site that is not included in the survey;  the tree report appears to have quite a few inaccuracies noticed during a site visit the report should revise some of the surveyed sizes and species types for the trees; also should include protection measures, existing trees are a huge part of the charm of this lot; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 18  can the width of the pool be reduced and garage pulled to the interior to reduce the required side setback variances;  would like to have the applicant submit more studies regarding the creek bank stability, erosion, and feasibility of building so close to the creek;  the house is well-designed and fits in with the traditional character of the neighborhood;  the front setback is justified by the path of the creek as it flows across this particular site;  owner should work with neighbors to eliminate potential impacts from the pool, pool house and pool pump;  owner might consider a lap pool or irregular-shaped natural pool, both of which will have smaller footprints than the traditional pool on the proposed plans; and  elevations show a slate roof, is that possible with the proposed design C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Comment on motion: feel that house is well designed and that the requested variances are necessary because of the creek location on the site, this is a large house, but the applicant is requesting a FAR that is far below the maximum they are allowed to build on the lot, feel that this proposal has many issues to be worked out with the neighbors, with the design and with the siting, feel that design review is the proper place to address all the concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to the design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Chair Keighran dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 6,2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 6, 2003 at which the Council heard an appeal for reemerging lot lines at 1537 Drake; reviewed a design review for a commercial building at 1301 Burlingame; gave 180 day notice to VB Golf to terminate their contract to operate the city’s golf driving range. If an agreement cannot be made, the city will look for different uses for the driving range for three years. Handed out the statement of Economic Interest papers to each Commissioner along with the updates to the Municipal Code. - FYI - 2304 Easton Drive Commissioners looked over the relocation of the fireplace and adjoining windows, including the increase to the dormer and accepted these changes to be within the design review. - FYI – tree removal - 1320 Drake Avenue CP Monroe noted that this tree was a focus of review for the replacement of the house at 1320 Drake Avenue. The house was completed. In the recent storms the tree commenced “rocking” and an emergency removal permit was issued. Wanted Commission to be aware of this for two reasons: 1) if the presence of a tree was used to accept a lesser quality design one must be aware that the tree may not be there forever; and 2) staff is proposing to modify the staff condition regarding the arborist report, when one is required, and added that the applicant shall also provided a three year maintenance plan to insure that the tree is property treated after construction as well. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 19 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary MINUTES1.13.03