Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.02.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, February 24, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the February 24, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 10, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one correction Page 9, second paragraph, replace Chair Keighran with Vice-Chair Bojués. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC AREA PLAN – DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT, PROJECT CONSULTANT CP Monroe introduced Tom Ford, Project Manager, from Design, Community and Environment (DCE) who presented a brief overview of the process for public input and conclusions resulting in the Alternatives Land Use Map for the North End of Burlingame and Rollins Road study area. He discussed the changes in land use proposed, focusing on how to approach the planning area for writing the specific area plan. He suggested that rather than focusing the specific area plan on a sub-area of the study area, that the study area be divided into two distinct areas and a specific area plan developed which addresses the potential and design objectives of each. Commissioners asked: what are the next steps in the preparation of the SAP; will begin to write the plan, prepare the environmental document, when that is done will have one more public review and come to Planning Commission for review. Expected more land use and design detail than is present in the attachments; the plan will include an implementation section, design guidelines, street section details, explicit details on land uses within the areas; commission asked if more detailed urban design could be provided for development opportunity areas such as the proposed auto row along Adrian Road. Commissioners clarified that an opportunity site or area might be the new auto row and as such design should include landscaping and signage; another might be El Camino Real with detail for urban design addressing the physical development of properties in the area, or the trail areas proposed in the Rollins Road area and what they would look like. Tom Ford asked the commission if they could look the materials over further and provide input on areas which they saw as opportunity sites where they would like more land use and design detail. Staff confirmed that we could put this item on the Planners Reports for the next meeting to give the commissioners a little more time to review the materials. Commission agreed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 2 Commission noted that all the workbooks and meeting notes for this project are posted on the City’s Web site, Planning Department web page and encouraged people in the audience who may not be familiar with this planning project to check out the reports and call staff with comments and input. It was noted that the date of the next workshop has not been set but it will be well publicized. Interested members of the audience were encouraged to contact the Planning Department. This item will be placed on the next agenda under Planner’s Reports to give the Commission more opportunity for identification and additional discussion of opportunity areas and sites. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m. 2. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS, CODE SECTION 26.30 AND 26.32 - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that the purpose of this code revision is to merge the current code and resolutions governing new condominium construction and condominium conversion and the standards for condominiums in the Planning Commission and Council resolutions in to a single ordinance. The Commission subcommittee which worked with staff also made some suggestions for updating some standards, based on more recent commission action on condominiums. These suggestions included adding: required guest parking, allowing compact parking stalls, modifying front landscape requirements to encourage an on-site delivery area, and distinguishing standards between commercial condominiums and residential condominiums. Commissioners asked: is this the appropriate place to consider requiring affordable housing, CP noted that affordable housing requirements are addressed by inclusionary zoning requirements, the condominium regulations establish siting and building envelop standards; how do the proposed regulations address roof gardens, CP noted that roof gardens cannot be used to meet open space requirements, city has never approved a roof garden because of privacy issues; requiring one guest parking space for 4 or fewer units seems burdensome since such developments are usually built on 50’x150’ lots, concerned that the guest parking space will take away valuable open space; subcommittee discussed the need to limit the use of required parking spaces only to currently registered cars, CA responded that the term used “lawfully operable on a public street” covers this and the requirement is included in the CC and R’s for the homeowners association to enforce. Should the ratio of compact to full size parking spaces be increased, our current standard spaces are very large, so should we consider an increase from 10% to 20% compact, CP noted that it was possible to increase the percentage, the compact option was added to off set the effect of the on-sight guest parking requirement since the multiple family density is really determined by the number of parking spaces which can be placed on a site. There were no further comments and staff noted that this item would be brought back to the Commission for public hearing and action at the meeting of March 24, 2003. This item concluded at 7:35 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. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 3 Chair Keighran noted that she and C. Brownrigg lived within the noticing area of this project and were required to recuse themselves from this item. She passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Bojués and C. Keighran and C. Brownrigg stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Vice-Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the commission wished to call this item off the consent calendar. There was no request to remove the item from the consent calendar. 3a. 1544 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATIONS AS FOLLOWS: (DENISE LAUGESEN BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT a. Parcel map for lot line adjustment b. 1544 Bernal Avenue – application for design review for a new two-story, single family dwelling with a detached garage C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. Chair Keighran and C. Brownrigg returned to the dias and took their seats. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1401 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAMES AND MARY SHANNON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 2.24.03, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked since the house is currently going through the design review process, how can we be sure that the design of the garage will match the design of the house? Planner Hurin noted that the design review consultant reviewed the design of the proposed garage and felt that it was consistent with the proposed design of the house. Commission asked if 10' x 20' clear interior dimensions are provided in the garage, it is difficult to tell since there are no interior dimensions provided, sink or toilet room may encroach into required space. Planner Hurin noted that a condition can be added to require a clear 10' x 20' clear parking area in the garage. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. James Shannon, property owner, noted that the design review consultant is aware that the application has been split, he reviewed the garage and noted that it was compatible with the design of the house, explained that this site has problems with sewer backing into the house, there are still problems with the backflow device which he installed to resolve the problem, having a toilet in the detached garage, which would be located above the backflow and waste line, would alleviate the problem; wanted to address this problem right away. Commission asked the property owner why two skylights are needed, feel they take away from the design; property owner noted that he would like to bring as much natural light as p ossible into the storage area above the garage, there is a large oak tree which extends over the garage. Commission asked if the window City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 4 in the toilet room will be opaque glass; property owner noted that it would be opaque glass and that it faces a 7 foot high property line fence. Commission asked why the property owner is in such a rush to build the garage; property owner noted that he could have split the application earlier in the process but thought that bringing the addition to the house and new detached garage forward at the same time would be faster, the design review process for the second story addition was beginning to get long, would be nice to have extra storage space during construction, would like to solve the sewer problem as soon as possible. Commission asked if the detached garage will have an affect on the existing trees in the area; property owner noted that the two trees to the south west of the garage are silver birch, they are located near the property line and are approximately six inches in diameter so not protected, don't think the garage will affect the root system. Commission asked if the property owner would be willing to add glazing to the side access door in the garage; property owner noted that it was his intention to have glazing in the door, would bring in additional light into the garage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that he was glad to hear an explanation from the property owner regarding the sewer problem, conditional use permit for the toilet is appropriate because of the backflow problems, the skylight will allow natural light into the garage, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project façade shall match that shown on the plans and shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 9, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.4, and that the detached garage shall not exceed 350 SF in area (14'-0"W x 25'-0'D) and shall provide a 10' x 20' clear space for parking, shall not exceed an overall height of 15'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 9'-0" measure from adjacent grade; 2) that the toilet room in the detached garage shall only contain a toilet and shall not exceed 11.7 SF in area (2'-6" x 4'-8" interior dimensions); that the storage room in the detached garage shall not exceed 41 SF in area (4'-0" x 10'-3" interior dimensions); and that the storage loft shall not exceed 169 SF, accessible by a ladder in the enclosed storage room at the rear of the garage; 3) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and storage in the designated storage room and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 4) that the window in the toilet room shall be opaque and that glazing shall be added to the exterior side access doors; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s November 4, 2002 memo and the Recycling Specialist’s November 8, 2002, memo shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 5. 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 (CONTINUED FROM 2/10/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report February 24, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments; she noted 12 conditions for consideration at tonight’s public hearing. She also noted that there were three letters which arrived today concerning this project from Ruth Wolfson, 335 Pepper Avenue; Scott and Alexis Danielson, 340 Pepper Drive; and Terrill Timberlake, 401 Chapin Lane. The letters are at the commissioners desks. Commissioners asked one letter states nearly 40% of the site is within the creek bank and subject to Army Corps and Fish and Game jurisdiction; CP noted that all of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 5 proposed development is above the top of bank on the site, so Army Corps and Fish and Game review is not required, if during construction any disturbance should extend below the top of bank, work would be stopped and permits would be required from both agencies. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark Brand, architect, represented the project. He reviewed briefly the changes made to the project in response to the study meeting comments: they set the house back more (1.5 feet), they added Aristocrat Pear tree to screen the front, they adhered to Mr. Dan ielson’s (neighbor) sketch and moved the pool house to the rear and put a row of English Laurel shrubs in along the creek bank to screen the view of the new house, the size of the pool house increased from 148 SF to 202 SF so that the pool equipment could be enclosed to reduce the noise to the neighbor’s living areas, designer wanted roof pitch of pool house to match that of house so height increased from 12 feet to 15 feet; got the quietest pool pump made, increase sound less than 1 dBA at 12 feet if installed outside, less if installed inside; confirmed accuracy of height measurement of house. Just saw the three letters delivered at end of day today, disappointed in Mr. Danielson withholding support since met pool screening and setback requests he requested. The pool is well setback from Mr. Timberlake’s property and he has a pool too. Commissioners asked: why do you need a side setback variance since the present house will be demolished and a smaller swimming pool is not a hardship. Architect responded: neighbor has no objection to setback proposed, need to keep all construction away from the creek bank, if met setback pool in side yard would be of a size that it would be unusable, a pool is a commonly held property right in this area. How will the pool be built 6’-6” from the top of bank. Architect, finish is 6’-6”, would like to ask for 6 inches more toward creek for construction. Can the roof of the pool house be lowered so the structure is not so massive? Architect noted yes, present design is to match 12:12 roof pitch of house, could be lowered although the design reviewer suggested it match the pitch of the house. Neighbors Terrill Timberlake, 401 Chapin Lane; Scott Danielson, 340 Pepper Drive; Alexis Danielson, 340 Pepper Drive; Kieran Woods, 344 Pepper Drive; spoke. Concerned about the variance for the pool in the front setback, endanger the root systems of the large oak and cedar trees on the site, not appropriate to have a pool so close to the street; a pool may be desired by a homeowner but is not a necessity, house is larger than it should be causing a variance, therefore the variance is unwarranted. Tried to be constructive concerned about protection of two heritage trees on site, when saw comments from other neighbors was swayed to change from support to “take a second look”. Why need 4 variances with a demolition, too much program for the site; because pool is in side yard rather than rear, will face the pool, avoid setting a precedent and deny the variances. Object to granting a side setback variance to allow a luxury pool in the side yard, my living room will face the pool, would not in rear yard; says addressed the visual screening but not a permanent solution since trees die or may be removed if owner does not want pool shaded; noise from pool close to living area in her house, should be in rear yard; not see the justification for the pool. Bought property which is 2 ½ lots in size, disappointed neighbors not support, only asking house and pool on 2 ½ lots. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussion: How can a pool be built keeping out of a 6 foot space from top of bank? Sr. Engineer noted his concern was it typical construction techniques were used, side would be laid back and construction would violate top of bank, could use shoring and make a vertical cut, and would not affect top of bank if 6 feet away. Not in favor of side setback variance, could move house over an put pool someplace else, variance is for a hardship and do not see one here particularly since the pool will affect the neighbors. There are hardships on this property, because of the creek there is not a lot of useable space, move it back too far it is too close to the oak tree, design of house is good, relocated pool and pool house when the neighbor next door expressed concern, install landscaping along bank to screen. Heard concern about City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 6 removal of landscaping later, can make a condition that it be installed and maintained at 15 foot height. CP noted that there was no condition included that required tree protection during construction and a three year post-construction supervised maintenance program, should be considered, hedge could be included. This application is 1600 SF under the maximum FAR for the site, prefer a smaller house, applicant listened and responded to neighbors concerns, am in favor with added condition regarding landscaping and protection during construction. Agree. Plans well below lot coverage, see justification for variances and support project. Commission discussion continued: Exceptional and extraordinary circumstance on the site is the location of the creek; preservation of property rights, pool, it cannot go in the rear because of the creek location; don’t agree with the screening requirement, does not need to screen from 340 Pepper, the property owner at 340 Pepper can plant a screen on his property and maintain it at whatever height. Good point about hardships on this property, the creek creates a benefit, and its location justifies the front setback variance; regarding the side setback it is possible to make the pool smaller to increase the side setback but the pool would be 8 feet wide at one point, trying to put more program on site than should, with a little more work could get a better, reconfigured uses, don’t want to prolong and would favor now. The pool and pool house have been a part of the project from the beginning, the side setback has been there all along, not advise to remove, the garage is setback much more than house, like to see the roof pitch on the pool house changed to make the building shorter; add trellis and vines to side of garage to shelter it; FAR smaller than most houses commission has seen. Side setback is on the side of the lot that shares the city boundary, the purpose of side setback is to establish space between houses, this side of the property abuts Hillsborough where the minimum side setback is 20 feet, so 6 inches is justifiable. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with three additional conditions that the applicant provide a tree protection plan for the construction period and a post construction three year maintenance plan including regular inspection by a private arborist and correction if necessary durin g construction and during the maintenance period to be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building permit; that the height of the pool house shall be reduced by two (2) feet by adjusting the pitch of the roof; that the pool construction shall occur no closer than six (6) feet from the top of bank and that a civil engineer with geotechnical experience shall supervise the excavation and inspect during construction and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 13, 2003, sheets T1, A0 through A3.1 and sheets L1 and L2 site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan, except that the maximum height of the pool house shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet as measured from adjacent grade and that the height shall be reduced by changing the pitch of the roof structure; 2) that any excavation on the creek side of the proposed swimming pool be set back at least six (6) feet from the top of creek bank, be vertical and properly supported during construction to maintain a vertical face, the excavation can not be “laid back” as suggested in the geotechnical letter dated 1-23-03;any encroachment of excavated material below the top of the bank of the creek or into any part of the creek shall require all work to stop and the property owner to apply for and receive required permits form the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Army Corps of Engineers before continuing that part of the construction which could affect the creek; 3) that the applicant shall have prepared and provide a tree protection plan for the construction period and a post - construction three year maintenance plan including a regular inspection schedule by a licensed arborist, and correction to protections if necessary during construction and during the maintenance period, the plan shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building permit; and that the new English Laurel, as shown on the plans sheet L-1, to be placed at the top of the bank along the north side of the creek shall be maintained at a height of no less than nine (9) feet; 4) the construction proposed in the application is adjacent to a creek that drains a large part of Hillsborough and parts of Burlingame. The applicants have City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 7 obtained professional analysis of the effects that the construction, maintenance, and use of the project may have on the property and its relationship to the creek and the soils, vegetation, and topography of the property. Before issuance of a building permit for any of the construction, the owners of the property shall draft an agreement on behalf of themselves and their successors in interest and in favor of the City of Burlingame holding the City of Burlingame, its officers and employees harmless for the approval of the proposed project for any future loss, damage, or claim that may arise because of the location, methods, and construction of the proposed project and that fully represents that the owners are relying solely on their own knowledge and the representations of their own experts and consultants in constructing the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or employees in proceeding with the construction and use. This agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney and executed by the owners and recorded with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder before issuance of any construction permit for the proposed project; 5) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 19, 2002, January 29, 2003 and February 3, 2003 memos, Fire Marshal’s December 5, 2002 memo, Chief Building Official’s December 19, 2002 and January 27, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist’s memo dated December 10, 2002 shall be met; 7) that prior to issuance of a building permit and commencing construction on the pool within the front setback a licensed surveyor shall set the edge of the pool excavation area so documenting that it is the same as in the approved plans; the survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer, and the pool house shall be located in the rear yard at least 58 feet from the rear property line and no closer than 59 feet from the front property line; 8) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 9) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12) 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 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the Motion: Concerned that the tree protection measure include a three year post construction maintenance plan which is followed up by a consultant. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review, front and side setback variances for the house and front setback variance for the pool, and a special permit for an attached garage. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Bojués dissenting, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 8 6. 1122 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS AND TARA NILAND, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 2.24.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the bay window on the first floor was not proposed, would the second floor be subject to the average front setback requirement; yes. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Niland, applicant and property owner, was present to answer questions, noted that the City Arborist confirmed that the two trees in front of the property are located in the City right-of-way, City Arborist noted that one of the trees is dead and would be replaced within 2 to 3 weeks, other tree will be trimmed. Commission commented that reducing the second floor plate height by six inches made a big difference, window trim detail should be changed from stucco to a tradition wood stucco mold similar to other houses on the block, stucco trim as proposed is not typical of the houses in this cul-de-sac; applicant noted that he feels the stucco trim as proposed is appropriate and adds character to the house, knows of several other houses in the area which have stucco trim, also noted that all of the windows in the house will be replaced; Commission noted that if stucco is used it should be wooden board with stucco over it. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the applicant made significant changes to the project and 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 February 12, 2003, Sheets 1-12, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, roof plan and landscape plan; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated November 4, 2002 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; 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 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; 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, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: how does the Commission feel about the window detail, stucco trim is not an appropriate style and would not be consistent with the neighborhood, would prefer to see a traditional wood stucco mold. Commission noted that the applicant indicated that other houses in the neighborhood have a similar stucco trim and would give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion p assed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 9 7. 1205 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND EXISTING DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL/FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO AN OFFICE USE. (DAVE RICHANBACH, SHOUT CREATIVE INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (88 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 2.24.03, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Planner noted that the applicant submitted a photograph showing how the present office space was used. Commission commended staff for providing information on parking in the larger area, this additional information will help the Commission reach a good conclusion. Commission asked if the parking in lieu fee can apply to this project? CA noted that in the past the parking in lieu fee was applied to situations where there was a parking deficit and when additional square footage was being added to a building. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Richanbach, applicant, was present to answer questions. Commission asked why he did not expect the business to grow in five years; applicant noted that he does anticipate growth, in the last ten years gross revenue has increased but not the number of employees. Commission asked what are the duties of the employees who telecommute; applicant noted that two employees telecommute, these employees are his business partners: one is a an executive media producer, the other is a project manager and manages events off-site, partners will visit this site from time to time, but other than that, will have no clients coming to this site. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg noted that this is a nice building on this block, that the downtown parking study indicates that there are parking spaces available in the area, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the office use on the first floor (2,027 SF) and the storage use on the second floor (1,165 SF) on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 13, 2003 (First Floor Plan) and date stamped January 30, 2003 (Second Floor Plan), and that the second floor shall only be used for storage related to the business on the first floor, and there shall be no office use on the second floor; 2) that there shall be a maximum of three employees on site at any one time including the owner and all employees, and that there shall be no clients visiting this site for any type of business consulting; that client visits to this site shall only be allowed with an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 4) that any changes in the hours of operation, floor area, use, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5) that the parking variance shall only apply to this building at its current size and shall become void if the building is expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; and 6) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: nice to see the original building will not be changed, downtown parking study supports available parking in the area, previous business had 2-3 employees with available seating for up to 30 customers, proposed office use will reduce the intensity on this site. Commission requested adding a condition tying the parking variance to this structure. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-0 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 10 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1505 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WILSON NG, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEREK PRINCE, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if construction has commenced on the house; can ask applicant. Commission noted that the chimney seems closer than 10 feet to the roof and did not appear to comply; CP noted that the Building Division would check for compliance. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Wilson Ng, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that the house has sustained extensive termite and dry rot damage, and that the roof has been leaking, work was covered up because of the rain, has a building permit to address termite damage in kitchen. Commission noted that it appears more work is being done than just termite repair. The applicant noted that water damage caused by the roof leak required the removal of insulation, roofing material and stucco, opened areas had to be covered up to keep rain water out. Commissioner noted that there is a "For Sale" sign posted at this site on the picture provided; applicant noted that this was an older photograph and that the property has since been sold, he is representing the new owners. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • plans should clearly indicate type of window trim and exterior siding to be used; • concerned with how the floor plan functions, floor plan is awkward, only way to access rear yard is through new master bedroom or garage, should look at ways to provide better access to rear yard; • interior design is driving exterior design, close to maximum lot coverage allowed, need to rethink internal floor plan to address exterior issues; • concerned with 8'-7" plate height on second floor, do you really need 8'-7"? Should look at a lower plate height on second floor to reduce mass and bulk; • entrance is grandiose and not compatible with the character and style of house, need to make the entrance simpler and smaller; • wrought iron railings currently proposed, railings need to be more consistent with the design, simpler; possibly look at using wood railings instead; • furnace and water heater both encroach into required 10' x 20' clear interior parking dimensions in garage, relocate furnace and water heater to eliminate encroachment; • inconsistencies in roof plan, roof plan shows a 2-foot overhang around the structure but building elevations call out a parapet at the rear of the structure, need to clarify, parapet is inconsistent with style of house; • chimney appears to be in violation of code, requires chimney to be 2 feet above anything within 10 feet, applicant needs to verify compliance with the Building Dept., if this is a gas chimney need to note so on plans; and • concerned with proposed open patio in middle of house, will be very dark. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 11 Comment on motion: for this case, because of the range of discussion, audio tapes of the meeting should be provided to the design review consultant, would like to see a more detailed landscape plan provided. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 9. 1805 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (KEN ZINNS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RUSSELL AND MARLENE HOM, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ken Zinns, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. Architect noted that he tried to keep the proposed attached garage consistent with other garages in the neighborhood most of which extend forward of the house, proposing a hip roof over the garage as others do, garage is set back further than other garages in the area. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • concerned with the garage at the front of the house, ok with the garage being attached but uncomfortable with an oversized garage 6 feet closer to the street than the rest of the house focuses all attention on parking; • garage pattern is consistent with the neighborhood, but concerned with how the design was handled, can reduce size of garage by making it narrower, also look at reworking the laundry and bathroom behind the garage so that the garage can be pushed further back, and made smaller. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that the proposed attached garage is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood, this is a modest addition, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: attached garage may be consistent with the pattern in the neighborhood, but don't need to compound earlier unfortunate design decisions, laundry and bathroom behind garage push the garage closer to the street than it needs to be, would like to see garage pulled back, entrance to the house should be the streetscape signature; do not have a problem with the garage being at the front of the house, but need to look at ways to decrease scale of garage; want to avoid face of garage being flush with the front of the house. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion failed on a roll call vote 3-3-1 (Cmsrs. Brownrigg, Vistica and Keighran dissenting and C. Osterling absent). Commission discussion: garage may need to be at the proposed width to accommodate two single -wide doors, reducing the width of the garage may force one double-wide door; an option is to provide two single- wide doors by staggering the garage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 12 Chair Keighran noted that the applicant has been given enough direction to decrease the mass of the garage and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion was seconded by C. Visitca. Comment on the motion: the applicant should not only try to minimize the impact of the garage, but should also look at the possibility of increasing the size of the entrance to the house, need to de-emphasize the auto oriented aspect of the design. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:52 p.m. 10. 1441 & 1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT AND FOR HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE VARIANCE AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR ONE THREE-STORY AND ONE FOUR-STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH A TOTAL OF 15 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS. (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (143 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the site and project description and identified the environmental concerns noted by staff. Commissioners asked: is the only issue before the commission tonight, the possible environmental concerns raised by the proposed project, CP noted yes. Is this the time to express concern about the inclusion of affordable units in this development, staff noted you may if you wish; plans seem to show two front setbacks, 16 feet and 17’-6”, which is correct; would like to see table showing the square footage in each dwelling unit and range of size by structure; note that the environmental survey prepared by the applicant is dated August 23, 2003, will it be updated since some information seems incorrect; see an open space calculation but cannot tell what area of the site was included from the plan, is this area over the creek; how will the enclosed part of the creek be treated in the site development and use. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. The following members of the public spoke: Kent Dormin,1457 Bellevue; Clair Kerg-Willard, 1457 Bellevue; Abraham Landis, 1457 Bellevue; Robert Vienot, 1435 Bellevue, President of the Homeowners Association; Mary Vienot, 1435 Bellevue. In their comments they noted the following: as proposed the building will affect the sun access to 9 of the 18 units at 1457 Bellevue, which will eliminate/diminish the property values; parking in the area is terrible and a development this size will impact it more; proposed buildings are double the height of the existing buildings, further impacting access to light and air, need a redesign which will consider this interface; need to study the proximity of the buildings; proposed units so expensive that they will price out 90% of the buyers, where will moderate and middle income people live; want a beautiful building, without negative impact on adjacent properties, concerned about the proposed height; project will take away all light from his dwelling, all left is a patio on rear which over looks an office building; project will cover many of the windows of their building with wall, will remove any view out, 50% of the units so affected and will reduce marketability; on west side of project, 6 dwellings substantially impacted with loss of light, structures seem jammed on to site; building too tall, needs a 6 foot height exception which affects light and air access; concerned about impacts created by two story below grade parking garage, will it flood this close to Ralston Creek or cause flooding in the area. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 13 Commissioners identified the following concerns: • Increasing the intensity of the use of the site, more bedrooms and bathrooms, what is the impact on the existing sewer and water systems, are the public facilities adequate? • Affordability of the units, compare market price of new units to current rental rates of units on site. • Using the number of bedrooms proposed along with other trip generation data, determine the impact of the proposed development on transportation, traffic and circulation in the area. • Would like a view analysis from the adjoining properties (sides in ward to project site) and compare existing to new, identify what the impact will be, what greenery will be visible from each side. • Prepare a shadow study, impact on adjacent properties, determine loss of light (hours per day), and the relative difference in light access caused by an overall 35 foot project and 42 foot project. • Evaluate landscape plan, what will be the visual impact of the plantings proposed in pots up to the open creek, and on the other side. • Compare the amount of open space provided compared to that of other condominiums in the neighborhood, use those there is information on in the files. • Evaluate the neighborhood consistency of the style of the building as proposed, is it consistent with other buildings existing on the block. • Impact on on-street parking, effect of two large curb cuts. • Look at existing housing stock, how does this project affect the affordability and density. • What are the characteristics of the residents being displaced. • Seismic analysis of the two decks of parking below grade, where is the water table, what construction impacts will be created by going so deep. • Evaluate the historic value of the American Red Cross use of this site and any buildings existing. • Will the below grade parking structure affect ground water flows. • Provide an evaluation of the proposed height and square footage of the buildings proposed to the existing surrounding buildings. • Evaluate the utility and value to the community to the future residents and neighbors of the open space provided in this project. • Creek is an integral part of this project, what comments do the Department of Fish and Game and the US Army Corps of Engineers have, how have they been addressed. • Error on the aerial showing the location of the creek should be corrected. There were no further comments from the Planning Commission and the public comment on the environmental scoping was closed. Staff noted that they would, based on the comments made, determine what kind of environmental document needs to be prepared, and see that it is prepared. Neighbors would be notified when this item came back to the Planning Commission for any action. However, if they wanted to be sure that they were informed of any study meetings, they could submit stamped self-addressed envelopes to the Planning Department and agendas for all meetings would be sent. The agenda for each meeting is also posted on the Planning Departments web-page which can be accessed via the City’s web page. This item concluded at 10:35 pm. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of February 3, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 3, 2003. She noted the outcome of the appeal of the project at 778 Burlway Road, the progress of the remodel of Burlingame High School and the proposed schedule for completion, the appointment of Council member O’Mahony to represent the city on the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and Financing Authority Board of Directors, noting City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 14 the importance of this role of Peninsula water users given the need to up grade the Hetch Hetchy system, and maintain the water supply in the future. Agenda for Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Commissioners reviewed the list of items proposed so far; noted that one of the issues in discussing FAR requirements was the need to provide useable open space on the single family lots, need to consider if FAR should be related to lot size in some way. Asked to add this concept to the agenda. Date for Special Safeway Meeting After some discussion Commissioners agreed that the Safeway project should be scheduled for a regular Commission agenda as soon as it was ready, and that the only other item on that agenda should be a consent calendar. Commissioners discussed the idea of setting a time limit for the meeting. If the meeting reached the limit it would be continued to the next evening. The commissioners wanted to know as soon as was feasible when the Safeway project would be scheduled so they could set aside the follow up date. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Bojués, Acting Secretary MINUTES2.24.03