Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.01.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday January 27, 2003 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Bojués called the January 27, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:09 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg and Keele Absent: Commissioners Keighran, Osterling, and Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 13, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted that the minutes should read January 13, 2003 not December 9, 2002 minutes. Item number 8, 1036 Cabrillo Avenue was continued to a date uncertain, and will be noticed again when rescheduled. The FYI item for 808 Edgehill was continued when it was found that the property is located within a flood zone and redesign may be necessary. Staff stated that the first two pages of the staff report for item number 4, 1336 Cabrillo Avenue were missing from the staff report, they had been delivered but extra copies were available. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1541 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR AN INDOOR GO-CART FACILITY. (STEVE MARKULIN, APPLICANT; DENNIS KOBZA & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNERS; FRANK EDWARDS CO., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • is this use consistent with the uses being discussed in North End Specific Area Plan; • have the landscape requirements changed, seems to be a lot of requests for landscape variances in this area; • filling in loading dock doors on Adrian Road, can the same be done on the David Road side; • there is a small planting strip adjacent to David Road, will there be landscaping in that strip, will it be irrigated; • seems to be a lot of foliage at front, but sides are lacking landscaping, create more of a balance with landscaping to make site more visually appealing; • what is the number of customer’s at the Redwood City go-cart facility, get break down of customers during the day, in the evenings and on weekends; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 2 • does the area where maintenance is done on the go-carts have oil separators in the drains, NPDES measures, and procedures for oil spills need to be met, explain how; • unique use to Burlingame, explain noise level - can noise be confined to one area, can noise be monitored for the protection of employees and customers, what is the increase in noise at property line; • application states that air will be 100% re-circulated every hour, can this be verified; and • are there additional construction measures that will be taken on the walls adjacent to the track to prevent the go-carts from going through the walls should someone crash. 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 7:20 p.m. 2. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FLOOR AREA EXCEEDING 1.0, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VARIATION FROM THE BAYFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPOSAL TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING INTERIOR COURTYARD. (BRUCE CARLTON, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT; NOEMI AVRAM AIA, ARCHITECT; TODAY’S III, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked is a landscaping variance is required, table shows existing landscaping below the required amount. Staff responded that a landscaping variance was previously granted for this site, and that this proposal does not affect landscaping and no additional landscaping is required. This item was set for the regular action calendar. This item concluded at 7:25 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. Acting Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg requested that item number 3b., 1540 Drake Avenue, be moved to the regular action calendar. 3a. 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 C. Auran moved approval of item 3a. on the consent calendar, 1456 Cabrillo Avenue, 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. Keele. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3b. 1540 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE (BLUESKY DESIGNS INC, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS MCCRUM, PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 01.27.03, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Ken Coverdale, Blue Sky Design, 495 Purisima Way, Half Moon Bay, project designer stated that they responded to the Planning Commissions suggestion and changed the garage roof from a flat roof to a pitched roof. This design change resulted in a gain in interior space and makes for simpler construction; the design also is more compatible with the existing building design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran 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 January 10, 2003 Sheets L/A1 through L/A8; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer and Recycling Specialist memos dated October 28, 2002 shall be met; 3) that a tree protection plan included in the arborist’s report dated January 9, 2003 shall be implemented during construction, these measures shall be monitored by the arborists that prepared the protection plan, and a three year maintenance plan, including regular inspections by the arborist, shall be added to this report, any corrective measures shall be implemented by the property owner; 4) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the garage, first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 5) 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 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; 6) 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; and 7)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. Keele. Commission discussion on the motion: project is much better with pitched roof; pulled off of consent calendar to compliment the applicant for responding to the Commission’s concerns and revising the project; encroachment into the front setback is a little more with the revised plans, but makes for a better project and is justified based upon the reasons given listed in the staff report. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 4. 1336 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERIC JOHNSON, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 4 APPLICANT; DAVE SIEGERT, DESIGNER; RALPH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 01.27.03, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner clarified history of project with staff, that the project was denied without prejudice by the City Council and sent back to the Planning Commission with direction to reduce the FAR by 100-150 SF. Staff confirmed yes that is correct. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Eric Johnson, 1336 Cabrillo Avenue, property owner, thanked the Planning Commission for their work on the project, commended the design review process in keeping the character of the storybook house. They have reduced their project by 106 SF, there is no real effect at the front, but the mass and bulk have been reduced at the rear. Commissioner asked where the square footage was removed. Mr. Johnson explained that square footage was removed along the right side of the house and at the rear. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant did a good job preserving the character of this house; feel that the design of this house would not be as charming with a detached garage, support work of design review in keeping attached garage; City Council even recognized that there is extra square footage in living due to roof pitch (ceiling height) that is being counted toward overall FAR along with garage square footage. C. Auran 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 January 17, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finished, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 Planning Commission review; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s, the Recycling Specialist's, the Chief Building Inspector=s memo, and the City Arborist's May 6, 2002 memos, shall be met; 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) 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; and 10) tat if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the floor area ratio, side setback variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 5 5. 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) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 01.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Ron Karp, applicant, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, H. Dog Esq. 283 Lorton, compliment staff on conditions, o.k. with all fourteen conditions suggested. Not planning on selling alcohol from the site at this time, but if they do they will comply with all ABC requirements to serve alcohol. Explained that this project will not include improving the lobby of the hotel and will not encroach into the existing hotel lobby. There is a blank wall next to the hotel lobby, this is the area where the food establishment will be located, it is a free standing space, was a store before with a legal address of 283 Lorton Avenue. Will leave corridor open for fire exiting, will comply with Fire Marshal’s comments. This space will be walled off from Sephora and the hotel. Deliveries to the food establishment will be made from the alley where there is a rear access door. Commission asked why the food establishment needs to be open until 10:00 p.m.? Applicant responded that they are requesting the latest hours that would ever be open, were thinking about selling coffee and ice cream later in the evening. Will probably be open 11:00a.m. to 7:00 pm., but want to keep all options open so they don’t have to come back to the Planning Commission if they decide to do coffee and ice cream sales in the evening later. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that this limited food service food establishment, with 50 SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment; 2) that the 50 SF area of on-site seating of the limited food service food establishment may be enlarged only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the business shall provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city and consistent with the streetscape improvements; 4) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5) that if the limited food service food establishment is not opened within one year from the date of Planning Commission action, the conditional use permit shall become void and this site will lose its food establishment right; 6) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 7) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 8) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 9) that the service corridor shall be used only for storage in areas approved by the Burlingame Fire Marshal; failure to comply with the Fire Marshal's requirements shall result in the ability to use any of this area for storage for this business or any business in this structure; 10) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's January 22, 2003 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2002, memo shall be met; 11) that the hours of operation for the business shall not exceed the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum number of two employees at one time; 12) that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 13) that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the service alley; and 14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 2001 Edition as amended by the City and that failure to comply with these City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 6 conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Commission discussion on the motion: conditions in the staff report are solid; proposal may improve the look of the building on that side by eliminating the blank wall. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. 6. 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) (18 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 01.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff if the City would be satisfied with an annual $5000 fee and quarterly reports showing the monthly rentals; CA responded Burlingame does not accept in lieu fees, the 1% in the existing condition is more like a sales tax related to the cars being rented. Concerned about the maintenance of the trail area at the back of the site, area especially where the asphalt is narrow and the vegetation poorly maintained, must walk single file to get by; is condition 11 properly worded with the City imposing on the private property owner the liability for damage to the public; CA noted that this is a walk way on private property and the private liability is a requirement of the BCDC permit issued to the site, the condition is just a reminder. There were no further questions of staff by the Commissioners. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, represented the applicant, along with Peggy Scheller from the ANC Florida Main Office and Paul Salisbury, architect. It was not the intention of ANC to stop renting cars from this site, after September 11 the travel and hotel stays dropped off; within the past week they have begun renting cars from this site again, they are working on a coupon promotion program and developing a relationship with the hotels in the area. While 600 car storage is being requested, that is a maximum, seasonal number when cars are rotating in/out of the fleet along with maintenance and high seasonal returns, generally there will be 200 to 300 cars on the site; the number of employees on the site will depend upon the recovery of the car rental business; all employees will be parking on the site; light maintenance is all that will be provided at this site, engine removal and body work will be done elsewhere; most of the work is interior remodel of the second floor of building C to create regional administrative offices, the first floor area of Building C will also be streamlined for offices. Made the offer of $5000 a year until the l% of rentals exceeds that amount because felt that the city would be better off, also reduces administrative costs on both sides, will reduce time for calculation, cost city more to monitor than they will collect, would be willing to pay fee once a year and report rental numbers quarterly with monthly renal breakdowns. If the flat fee will not work for the city will do the l% monthly report/payment. Have walked the bay trail, will do a better job of maintenance, it would be helpful if the city would tell the applicant what needs to be done, are willing to expand the asphalt in the area where the “to be landscaping” hole is if it is OK with BCDC. Commissioners asked: there is a reason that car rental is a nonconforming use in this area, and car storage prohibited, this bayfront land is far more valuable in another use, what is the long term horizon for this use. The Bayfront SAP study identifies better uses for this site, if Alamo could find a suitable replacement City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 7 elsewhere they would be willing to reuse this site, some one needs to make the right deal and find another location and they would consider. Mark Malby, BT Commercial Real Estate, Rollins Road. Represent the owner of the Edwards Court site occupied by National Car Rental which is being abandoned for merger with this site on the bayfront. The Edward Court site is 7 acres, both car rental agencies could be located there, industrial area is better suited for car rental uses and many truck deliveries, bayfront is not. Applicant responded: ANC is in bankruptcy, they had to make a choice within 90 days between using a site they owned and one they leased, or the court would decide; there were some problems with the neighbors on the Edwards Court site, insufficient area for off-loading trucked cars, blocked access to the street, access through Broadway interchange was poor, on bayside have direct access to the airport. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion : can we consider taking an annual fee of $5000 with a quarterly report on rentals, CA noted that if there is a quarterly report noting monthly rentals, the fixed fee would not be considered an in lieu fee; is there a time limit on this application, CA noted that this is a nonconforming or temporary use so there is a condition requiring a one year review by staff and a reapplication in two years. How is the run off from this site handled; Senior Engineer, noted that presently the run off from the parking areas is not filtered and there should be oil separating pillows in all the parking lot catch basins. Will the water in the wash area be recycled; SE indicated that it should be, if it is not presently. C. Keele moved to approve this application for two years by resolution with the conditions as stated and the additional conditions requiring oil separating pillows in all the parking lot catch basins, recycling of the water used in the car wash area, and an amendment to condition 7 that the applicant pay a $5000 annual fee to the city with quarterly reports documenting the monthly rental activity and that the applicant pay 1% of the gross rental fees to the city quarterly when that amount exceeds $5000 annually. The motion was seconded by C. Auran 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 January 3, 2003, sheets A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1, and A22.1, site plan, partial site plan, second floor-administration, and building C floor plan, kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan; 2) that the car rental, maintenance and storage facility may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. , seven days a week , and that there shall be no more an 50 employees and 25 customers on-site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars stored on the site at any one time, this number shall include cars that are on-site for maintenance and there shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on-site to deliver vehicles at any one time; 4) that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on-site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way; 5) that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or customers shall be provided and designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code, 2001 edition, and all employees shall be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern portion of the site, employee parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker identifying them as belonging to employees on-site; 6) that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the south end of the site; 7) that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame $5,000 per year; the annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this permit is in effect. When one percent (1%) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions exceeds $5,000 during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of the total gross rentals to the City of Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit; this amount shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar-year quarter. For purposes of this condition, agreements for rental from San City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 8 Francisco International Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1% payment to the City. In addition to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat amount or quarterly), the car rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame Finance Department documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month during the quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a breakdown of the monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or 1% of the gross rental rates, the car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all re cords as may be necessary to determine the rentals from which the one percent (1%) payment calculation may be derived. Such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen (15) days after request therefore; 8) that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street, in any public right -of- way, or in any public access area; 9) that any change to the rental of cars, number of employees, amount of auto storage, addition of services or secondary business to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10) that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained, unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of Burlingame; 11) that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail and improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the pubic for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, and further that the property owner shall seek Bay Conservation and Development Commission approval for redesigning the narrowest existing section of the trail and replacing and expanding the pavement in this area ; 12) that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city’s NPDES inspector, petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site, that all water used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer, and that failure to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment ( May 3, 2003) or failure to maintain the effectiveness of these systems on an on-going basis shall cause this conditional use permit to be review by the Planning Commission; 13)that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in one year, by February 3, 2004; 14) that this approval shall expire in two years and all said uses on the site shall cease unless the applicant applies for a permit extension by February 3, 2005, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; and 15) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code, 2001 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Comment on the motion: would like to add that condition 11 be included as amended by the City Planner and with the requirement that the narrow portion of the bay trail shall be maintained and pavement expanded to maximize the width and safety of this narrow portion of the trail with BCDC agreement. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the conditions. Will support the motion, but think that there is a better use for this property and hope that the application will look for one. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Keighran, Osterling, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 9 HURIN Reference staff report 01.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: the 4 foot setback is from property line, wasn’t the roadway realigned when the hotel was built across the street and the need for the right of way on the east side reduced, yes the curve of Airport Blvd to meet a widening to a four lane Airport past the waste water treatment plant and Bayside Park was evaluated in the EIR for sealing the sanitary landfill and when the hotel was built the right-of-way on the west side was set aside; do they need an encroachment permit for the back up area into the public right-of-way; yes for parking stall number 6, they already have a cross access easement with the neighboring property for the back up area from the other parking stalls, the Public Works Department will handle the encr oachment permit after the project review is completed. Does the city have any plans to use the right-of-way area; Sr. Engineer noted that all current plans are to widen the street on the other side. There were no other questions of staff. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, architect; Kirk Syme,. property owner; Brent Kitan, 215 Highland, Burlingame, landscape architect, represented the project. This is a significant site for the City because of its bayfront location and high visibility, the appearance of development and maintenance of the site are important; are making a visual improvement to the public pathways, lowering the height of the landscaping, improving the site drainage, the low wall on the bayfront will direct storm water to filtered catch basins on the site and into the city storm drain rather than being piped directly into the bay. Two forces affect the development of this site, the wind and the water; in landscaping have built up the land form to work with the wind and add top soil because of the proximity of salt water and to improve drainage for plant material; have undulated edge of bay trail and sidewalk to expand walking surface and to reflect the environment, BCDC liked the approach. Plans show 6 or 8 clumps of trees where and how big. The species grows 8 to 12 feet tall, the elevations are shown in such a way that all the trees may not be shown, these trees are small in scale like a Japanese Maple but a species which will do well in the environment. CP asked what the elevation of the trail was at the north end where it connects to the adjacent property, applicant noted that the trail drops about 2.73 feet at the south end, but the seawall is on the landward side of the trail so flooding is not a problem, the trail at its present elevation does not flood at the south end now. There were no more questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keele noted that he liked the application, thought that the environmental issues were thoroughly studied and the design accommodates the environmental issues so would move to approve the negative declaration with the mitigations included in the staff report and to approve the application by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and the findings for the variance included in the applicant’s January 21, 2003 submittal noting particularly the odd shape of the lot and the small size, smaller than most lots zoned C-4, that the project will improve and protect the bayfront access, the right of way along the front property line effectively increases the front setback so that it is equal to others on Airport Blvd. with the conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 19, 2002, 2002, sheets A0 through A2, E1, L.1 through L.3, and SD-1 through SD-3; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 24, 2002, August 14, 2002, January 25, 2002, August 30, 2001, and June 1, 2001 memos; and the Recycling Specialist's July 22, 2002 and May 14, 2001 memos, shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, setbacks, or height of the building and any changes to the land uses on the site shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term airport parking or converted to useable/leasable space; 5) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site or their configuration shall require amendment to this use permit; 6) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no delivery trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 10 overnight; 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 8) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 9) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Anza area shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 10) that before any development is allowed, a conditional use permit to vary from the requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for front setback to the proposed building [4’-0” proposed where 30’ is the minimum required, should not be less than the building height (17’-6”), and should not be less than ½ the apparent width of the building (39’-0”)] and front setback landscaping (47.3%, 3252 SF proposed where 80% landscaping, 5490 SF is required) and variances for front setback (4’-0” proposed where 30’-0” is required) and parking for substandard back-up space on-site (12’ back-up space provided for spaces 7-11 and 17’ back-up space provided for space #6 where 24’ is the minimum required for 90° parking) are required; 11) that the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and meet the standards of the permitting agencies such as the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable; 12) that the upper 5 feet of fill will replaced with compacted engineered fill and the proposed building will be supported on continuous grid foundations to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake. Any connections between the new structure shall be designed with flexibility to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 13) that the project shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer as specified in the geotechincal report dated July 17, 2001, and letters dated November 9, 2001, February 8, 2002 and September 4, 2002; 14) that flexible joints should be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement; 15) that the finished floors for any structure shall be at least 10' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater. The developer shall provide documentation of current maximum flood elevation; 16) that prior to submitting for a building permit, the applicant shall provide calculations to support the size of the new storm drain pipe and the existing 6 -inch and 12-inch storm drain pipes. If necessary, the existing and proposed storm drain pipes sh all be upgraded to the required adequate size; 17) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 18) 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; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction 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 e rosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21) 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; 22) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 11 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; 23) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 24) 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; 25) 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; 26) that this project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 27) 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; 28) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. The developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 29) 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; 30) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 31) that the office building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms and enclosed public areas shall not exceed 45 dBa; 32) 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 diameter; existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; 33) that prior to submitting for a building permit, the project developer shall file an application for vacation of the existing roadway easement which must be reviewed and approved by City Council. Prior to City Council approval, the project developer shall be responsible to obtain authorization for vacation of the roadway easement from all utility companies owning and operating utilities in the subject easement. All public utilities within the existing easement shall be relocated as required by the utility companies prior to any vacation of the roadway easement; 34) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented; 35) that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; and 36) that Burlingame and BCDC shall approve public access improvement plans; the developer shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of all public access improvements for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the public for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration and front setback and parking variances. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Keighran, Osterling, Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 12 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN CP Monroe noted that this item will be renoticed to property owners within 300 feet before it is a on another agenda. 9. 1521 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, ARCHITECT) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if staff could add an extra column to the table in the staff report to provide data on the existing structure, this information will help determine the physical parameters of the change of intensity of use on a lot and the effect on the change of character in the neighborhood. Staff asked if Commission would like to have the footprint of the existing building shown on plan, Commission said yes that showing the footprint of the existing building would help assess the project. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Fred Strathdee, 147 Leslie San Carlos, project architect, and Ron Grove, 941 Lakeview Drive, Redwood City, property owner presented the project. Stated that they are considering changing the exterior finish of the proposed house from siding to shingles. Commission asked why shingles? Mr. Strathdee responded that they felt that shingles were more in character with the proposed style of the house. Oversight on the plans, rock veneer should be carried through to the house 3 feet around the perimeter as shown on the garage, detail will be provid ed on revised plans. Commission asked if the neighbor has a garage at the same location. Mr. Grove noted that the proposed garage is about 15 feet past the face of the garage to the left, the proposed garage is located at about the middle of the adjacent garage. Owner noted that there are two houses he is working on located at 1522 Los Altos and 1509 Los Montes with similar design that the Planning Commission may want to drive by, neighbors are satisfied with both. The Los Montes project has shingle exterior with stone veneer as proposed with this project. There were no others questions of staff. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project: • shingles would look nice on this house; • add plate height to elevations; • add window detailing to elevations; • is the water table with rock veneer shown on the detached garage elevations suppose to be carried through to the house, it should show on the plans on all elevations; • there are no dimensions or details on the gable, a large gable would be appropriate; • like the large front porch and siding; • a lot of house, concerned with size, proposal is at maximum FAR and maximum height, can project be scaled back and still accomplish objective of the owner; • this is a large lot, extra long, but not extra wide, concerned with mass and scale; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 13 • what is the blank opening shown on the north elevation, call out function or detail; • what are the blank rectangles on the south elevation; • need more detail on the elevations, call out exterior material; • applicant should provide height of houses on this block, both sides of the street; • not convinced stone veneer will look good with the porch; and • traditional feel to this house, needs a chimney on north elevation for aesthetics. C. Keele made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: like this house, fits large lot, size of the porch and garage combined is almost 900 SF which leave 3,100 SF of livable space, not excessive; shingles would be nice on this house with rock veneer; plans need more detail on elevations; no consensus among Commissione rs on preference of shingles or siding, rock veneer water table or no water table, so will leave these design decisions up to the applicant. Acting Chair Bojués 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 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:21p.m. 10. 721 CONCORD WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION, (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE AND ELIZABETH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 206 Park Road, project architect, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that second floor bedroom on the left side was bein g expanded adjacent to the neighbor’s balcony. Project architect explained that the main windows for this bedroom face the rear of the lot and the two windows on the left side elevation are high on the wall over the bed and will be made of a material that you can’t see out of. Commission noted that existing roof material is old shingles but plans indicate that only the new roof area will be composition shingles. Project architect explained that as part of this project the entire roof would be replaced with new composition shingles. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: like the way these drawings were done, easy to understand, plans should be used as an example for other applicants in this process; project is very straight forward; this project improves the house and addresses the neighborhood. Acting Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 14 11. 1401 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAMES AND MARY SHANNON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Barry Rafter, 130 El Bosque, San Jose, project designer and James Shannon, 1401 Carlos Avenue, Burlingame, property owner, presented the project. Commission asked why the applicant is requesting a toilet in the garage. The property owner explained that is necessary because of plumbing problems. The site has been flooded with sewage because of a City clean-out located in front of this house. Senior engineer, Phil Monaghan, confirmed that this a problem that the City has been working with the property owner on. Mr. Shannon installed a backflow valve to address the sewer problem but stated that he could not use his toilet for six days during the month of December. When the backflow device is engages it does the job in keeping sewage from backing up onto his property but does not allow the release of sewage into the sewage system. The toilet in the accessory structure would be located above the backflow and waste line, and therefore could be used while the backflow device is engaged. Mr. Rafter stated that he tried to carry simplistic lines of first floor through to the design of second floor. Owner and designer noted that they added up rather than out with a first floor expansion to preserve the yard and open space. Did a similar bay window design on house at 18 Dwight Road. There are houses of similar design in surrounding four blocks of this site. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • existing house design works well with the corner location, but the character of the house is lost on new elevations; • do you have to carry bay window to second floor gives towering appearance on this lot; • design needs more articulation; design is boxy and looks like a tower on the corner; • what is hardship for FAR variance, does not seem to be grounds for granting a FAR variance on this property, please address; • look at reducing FAR 162 SF to bring project into compliance, for example 27’-9” wide master bedroom is very large; • east elevation lacks design and detail, chimney in particular is less attractive; • too much mimicking of first floor; • 33 foot height proposed is excessive, does not need exception to height; • both Hillside and Carlos elevations need improvement; • plate height on second floor is 9 feet and adds to the mass and bulk, should be lowered to at least 8 feet; and • when project returns applicant should provide heights of other houses on the corner. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made, and to return on the regular action calendar after the design review process is completed. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: can see no hardship for FAR variance; design needs more detailing; too boxy and tall; project will benefit from design review process. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 27, 2003 15 Acting Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (C. Osterling, Keighran and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:57 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 21, 2003 As part of budget efforts to find new ways to do things the Park and Recreation Director position will be shared with Millbrae 20 hours a week while they are recruiting a new director. This will also provide opportunity to evaluate the two departments to and see where the two cities might economically share services. Goal setting session and budget discussion meeting for the City Council has been set for Saturday, February 8, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Lang Room Appeal hearing dates have been set for 380 Lang Road and 117/119 Dwight Road for February 3, 2003; The public hearing for the health and beauty spa ordinance change is also set for the February 3, 2003. - FYI on 1204 Cabrillo Avenue- CP Monroe noted that the applicant is now requesting a change in roof material from slate to composition shingle because the present roof trusses will not support slate. The Planning Commission included a condition of approval that the applicant use slate roofing material or equivalent for this project. Commission noted that the present roof was an error that the applicant made, got by the structural engineer. How come the plans said slate, but then the trusses were engineered only to hold composition shingles? Project has been around for a long time, would like to see it completed for the neighbors sake, but feel that the applicant must show an effort to meet the conditions of approval. Would like to see a sample of composition shingle roof material proposed to be used in place of slate. Are there other roofing materials available that simulate slate but are lighter weight? Applicant should explore this and return to the Planning Commission with roof material samples for the Commission to review before Commission makes a decision. - Circulation of letter from Jennifer Phaff regarding Safeway project. - Circulation of materials on League Meeting in San Diego. Planning Commissioners that wish to attend should express interest as soon as possible because there is not enough funding to send all of the Commissioners to this meeting. Price goes up the later you register. C. Osterling, Auran and Keele noted that they would not be attending. C. Bojués and Brownrigg expressed an interest in attending this meeting. C. Brownrigg may have an alternative means of travel which would allow him to attend for one day. - Circulation of memo from City Attorney regarding email transmissions. XI. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Acting Secretary