Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.04.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 14, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Bojués called the April 14, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:52 p.m.), Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 24, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission and of the April 5, 2003 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, TEMPORARY PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDING WITH A NEW, SINGLE-STORY CLASSROOM WING ADDITION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: data provided for traffic circulation is from November 2001, is there more recent data and are there any figures for Saturdays; is the drop-off system described in practice at this time on this site or a similar site, is there evidence that it will work; have a concern about the parking variance, a third assembly space is being added to the site, is it possible to adjust the new parking layout and fit in more spaces, perhaps along the drive that curves to the site; the exterior treatment of the new classroom is blank, applicant should add vines or shrubs to the landscape plan to add interest to this elevation, and especially to the view from Rivera Drive; overall the landscape plan is a little thin, work to be done to building is major and this is an opportunity to do something special with the landscaping on the site by adding more trees and shrubs, noted during site visit that landscaping is a bit neglected, there is a dead tree on the property; also have concern about the parking variance and circulation, with so few parking spaces there is a big potential for back -up onto the public street; and has the City Engineer evaluated the entry to the parking lot near the corner of Sebastian for safety 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 7:23 p.m. 2. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 2 DISPLAY AREA (SHOWROOM) EXCEEDING 5,000 SF IN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT (CALVIN COASTSWORTH, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC, ARCHITECT; ROBERT RIGGS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked staff if the signage shown on the plans was part of the proposal. Staff responded no, all signs require a separate permit. Commission complimented the applicant on the photo exhibits that were submitted, they are clear and descriptive. This item was set for the consent calendar at the next meeting. This item concluded at 7:26 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. Vice-Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3A. 3000 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A NEW ENTRY CANOPY AND DECK ADDITION (TECTA ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RABIH BALLOUT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3B. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE DEPTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PETER AND SANDY COMARATO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3C. 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO STORY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND ALISA JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 3D. 753 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE CAR DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by individual resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 826 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1, APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 3 USE PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE (73 NOTICED) (RAY VIOTTI JR. APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROB AND JODI EICNENSHR, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 04.14.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Robert Eicnenshr, owner, was present to answer questions. The Commission asked: what type of maintenance will be performed on the vehicles, how many vehicles does the applicant have, and does he work on any vehicles that are not his own. The owner responded that the he owns 4 cars and two motorcycles, two are family vehicles and the other two are show vehicles, vehicles will all be stored in the proposed structure, the lift will be used to store one car under another, the type of work done will be minor, mostly changing oil, polishing hubcaps, cleaning under the vehicles, all the vehicles are finished, no cars will be assembled on site or in the structure, the 60 dB air compressor will be enclosed in a room to reduce the possible noise impact to neighbors; rack will enable him to clean the undersides of cars for shows; having the structure will allow him to keep the cars off the street. Ed Rymsha, 831 Edgehill Drive, spoke with the following concerns about the project: the applicant already removed numerous trees from the lot, was there a permit issued to remove the trees; there are drainage issues on the site now and would like to insure that any new structure will drain to the street, would like to see story poles to see how the structure will affect the neighbor's views and backyards; think it would be better for the neighborhood if the applicant rented commercial space to store and work on his vehicles, don't see the need for the air compressor, which is typically used for more intense commercial operations such as bonding, painting and sanding. Ray Viotti, architect for the project, spoke to explain that a system for drainage is shown on the plans, including a trench along the proposed hardscape and a sump pump; the applicant has already made many adjustments to the design of the structure to accommodate the neighbor, including dropping the plate height adjacent to the neighbor from 12 feet to 9 feet and decreasing the mass of the structure by d esigning a mansard roof, property was rented for 30 years and very overgrown, no protected size trees were removed on the site, there is one large oak tree on the property which will is shown to remain on the plans, landscaping has been provided to screen the structure from the neighbors, and the compressor room could be insulated to insure that there is no noise impact to the neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the landscaping species proposed for screening are appropriate and a good choice, would like to see a condition requiring that they be minimum 15-gallon size and be irrigated with an automatic system; concern about the noise from the air compressor, would like to see a condition requiring insulation with an STC rating of 39 on the walls and ceiling in the compressor room; appreciate the changes made to the design by the applicant, but this proposal still looks and smells like a commercial operation, don't feel it is appropriate in a residential district; can't support the project because of its size and height, understand that this hobby is important to the applicant and the hobby requires a large structure for storage, but the proposed structure is almost as large as the main dwelling and that pattern does not fit with the neighborhood; can staff clarify noise regulations in residential districts. The City Attorney noted that hours of operation for electric or motorized tools is regulated, but noise from use of tools for homeowner vehicle maintenance activities is not restricted. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 4 C. Keele moved to deny the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:52 p.m. Discussion on the motion: feel the applicant has been clear this is a hobby and n ot a commercial use; the landscaping is appropriate and will screen the structure from the neighbors; size and character of the structure is commercial and does not belong in a residential district; and still feel the structure is too large. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Osterling and Vistica dissenting, Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52p.m. 5. 1320 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 04.14.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Con Brosnan, applicant, noted that his experience and research has shown that imitation slate products have a history of poor performance, they fade and disintegrate. After discussing the issue with the design review consultant, decided that a high quality composition shingle like the CertainTweed brand proposed is the most similar in appearance to slate. The Commission asked if the applicant had considered a wood shake material. The applicant responded that shake was not compatible with the style of the house, so that material was not considered. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 1, 2002, sheets A.1 – A.6 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the roofing material on the house and detached garage shall be composed of CertainTeed Grand Manor "Shangle" in a Stonegate Grate color; 3) that the arborist's report, dated October 2, 2002, showing how the spruce tree at the front of the lot shall be protected and maintained during demolition and construction shall be submitted by the applicant at time of building permit submittal; the arborist's report shall be approved by the City Arborist before a building permit is issued and the applicant shall be required to have a licensed arborist inspect the site for compliance with the plans after demolition of the existing house, at the beginning of the construction of the new house, and prior to the final inspection; following each inspection the licensed arborist shall submit a written report to the City Arborist; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission 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 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; 7) that all air City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 5 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; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's August 26, 2002, memos shall be met; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 11) that prior to underfloor 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; 12) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 14) 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 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: the proposed material is of high quality and fits the architectural style of the house. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 6. 999 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO STORAGE LOT (JOSEPH PUTNAM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 04.14.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that in visiting the site, saw the fence is up and the cars are present, but there is no landscaping or irrigation system in place. CP Monroe responded that if the project was approved, the applicant would be required to get a permit to install the landscaping and irrigation, as approved. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Ken Putnam, applicant, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant would be willing to add 10-12 small trees or large-scale shrubs along the Howard and Myrtle frontages, this would provided a little variety and help to screen the use from the neighbors. The applicant replied that the fence extended to property line, was not sure there would be room on the outside of the fence on his property to add this type of landscaping. The City Planner noted that the strip of land proposed for additional landscaping may be part of the City right-of-way and the applicant would need and encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to install vegetation in that location. The applicant can work with the City Arborist to come to an agreement about the species that could be planted in this location. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the automobile storage lot shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 10, 2003, topographic map and pavement plan and irrigation and planting plans; 2) that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 6 the subject property shall be used for automobile storage for new car sales only and no auto maintenance, auto repair, or auto washing shall take place on site; 3) that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting, maintenance and cleaning all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and shall submit to the City, and have approved, a plan for filter/drain maintenance by June 1, 2003; 4) that the existing landscaping and irrigation system along the perimeter of the site shall be properly maintained and irrigated by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks, and replacement of plant material as necessary; 5) that the unloading of automobiles from transport trucks shall occur on-site and shall not block the public right-of-way; 6) that the applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the City Arborist to install 10-12 small scale trees interspersed with large scale shrubs in the City right-of-way adjacent to the site along Howard and Myrtles Avenues; the trees and/or shrubs shall be installed, with automatic irrigation, before a final inspection is scheduled; and prior to scheduling the final inspection the applicant shall apply to the Public Works Department and be granted the necessary encroachment permits for all work in the public right-of- way; and 7) 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. Brownrigg. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m. 7. 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING (JONATHAN S. WU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (11 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 04.14.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration, with CP Monroe noting an amendment to condition number 7 to allow a maximum of 12 shuttles to operate from and be stored on the site to transport customers to and from the airport. Commission asked staff if the 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep parking stalls are used for more than one car. Staff responded that these parking spaces are for employees and they meet the code required minimum dimensions for such parking. Commission asked the City Engineer to explain the difference between the fossil filter and the sand oil separator mentioned in condition number 4. The City Engineer responded that fossil filters are typically installed in existing catch basins and sand oil separators are usually installed in new drains, however there is no difference in performance between the filters if they are maintained properly. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jonathan Wu, applicant, was present to answer questions. He asked if the Commission could extend the deadline to install the filters to allow the owners time to gather the funds for the work. The City Engineer noted that the required filters would not require a major investment. The applicant responded that he should be able to comply within the required time frame. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keele moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2003, As Built Site Drawing, Sheet 1; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s March 31, 2003 memo requiring the applicant to remove and replace the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, fronting the subject property, at the owners expense shall be met; 3) that the applicant shall work with the City Arborist to address the conditions of the City Arborist’s March 31, 2003 memo and shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 7 meet the requirements within a year of the approval of this application; this condition requires, to preserve the sidewalk, the removal of the existing Lingustrum (Glossy Privet) trees along Airport Boulevard and the replacement with 5 gallon Frazer’s Photinia spaced four feet apart, proper irrigation shall be installed as part of this condition; 4) that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters on a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance by June 1, 2003; 5) that this use permit shall include only the parcels identified as Block 7, Lots 1-13 and Block 5, Lots 8-12 (APNs 026-344-040 through -100 and 026-363-300 through -390), and these lots shall be operated as a single facility with one entrance/exit at the designated airport parking gate identified as 615 Airport Boulevard, and one maintenance only gate; and should the use of any of these lots be changed from long-term airport parking the use permit shall become void and a new application for a use permit shall be required; 6) that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with 1,236 total parking spaces (eight parking spaces reserved for employees, twelve spaces reserved for bus shuttle vans), a maximum of 11 employees, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site; 7) the eight required employee parking stalls shall be striped as standard stalls at 9' wide by 20' long; 8) that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 9) that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 10) that overflow parking of rent-a-car agency vehicles and storage of other vehicles is permitted providing on-street loading or unloading of such vehicles does not occur during peak 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. hours, and providing the area used has legal internal access within the parking lot area; 11) 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; and 12) that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on July 20, 2008. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 8. 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT ON TWO SECONDARY FRONTAGES FOR NEW SIGNAGE (DENNIS STANWORTH, GOLDEN GATE SIGN CO., APPLICANT AND EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 04.14.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration, with CP Monroe noting a change to condition number 1 to include the maximum square footage of the proposed signs, 2 signs at 64 SF. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Paul Slaven, applicant, explained the illumination for the sign, which will be composed of a series of channels that will be lit in the direction of the building surface so that the light reflects off of the building and creates a soft halo around the lettering at night. The applicant noted that his company had recently done repair work on the Forbes sign erected near the subject site and he believes the Forbes lettering was the same height or taller than the proposed lettering, while the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 8 existing Sheraton sign in the area is much larger than the proposed sign. CP noted typical parapet signs on the hotels in the area are 3-foot letters with larger capital letters. Commission asked if this will be the only sign on the building and if the applicant felt the hardship on the lot was related to the building's placement near the lagoon. The applicant responded yes, the site is different from other properties in the area because the building is difficult to see from many parts of Airport Boulevard and also the design of the building does not allow a sign to be placed at any other location without covering up windows. 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 the wall signs (Signs A and B) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 19, 2003, sheets S2, E2, P1, and 1-3 (11" x 17" sheets), and date stamped April 8, 2003, site plan (11" x 17" sheet); with 64 SF of signage on the west side secondary frontage and 64 SF on the south side secondary frontage; 2) that the proposed wall signs shall be installed no higher than 98-0", as measured from adjacent grade to top of sign; 3) that the copy of the signs shall read "IBM" and that the maximum height of the letters shall be no greater than 5'-0"; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 2001 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: should the city consider setting hours of illumination, all other signs in that area are illuminated throughout the night and the nearest residential neighborhood is very distant, don't think illumination hours are necessary; the proposed signage is smaller than the existing signage and meets the current square footage maximums. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:36 p.m. 9. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS, CODE SECTION 26.30 AND 26.32- CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 14, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the scope of the changes proposed to the municipal code for the new condominium and condominium conversion requirements. She noted that the commission action was a recommendation to City Council. The Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. There were no questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to recommend the amendment to the condominium subdivision requirements for new construction (CS 26.30) and condominium conversion requirements (CS 26.32) as presented in the staff report to the City Council for approval and adoption. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: commissioner noted that at study discussed exempting the required guest parking spaces for projects with four or fewer units to increase the number of units possible on a 50’ x 1020’ lot, also discussed increasing the percentage of compact parking spaces allowed to allow more units on a site, neither of these changes is included in the proposed revisions. Other commissioners noted that inclusionary zoning will provide for a reduction in on-site parking for affordable units, so the on-site parking and subsequent density will be addressed in another way; inclusionary zoning requirements will be on the Commission’s May agenda for review. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 9 Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed amendments to the condominium regulations in the municipal code to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER PLR Lewit briefly presented the project description and noted that there were two letters submitted from neighbors at 1024 and 1028 Balboa Avenue. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Charles Schembri, owner and applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that the design of the house stemmed from trying to preserve the protected-size trees on the left side of the property. There is no proposed co nstruction within the 100-year flood zone. Commission asked if the applicant also developed the lot next door, the second lot created by the lot split approved in 2000. The applicant responded yes. Lana Applerodt, 1040 Balboa Avenue and Anna Mairanella, 1037 Balboa Avenue, spoke expressing concerns that the lot was too small for the proposed house, the house is too close to the protected trees on site; the creek currently floods the lot and development of a residence would make the condition worse; the house just built at 1033 Balboa Avenue is nicely done, but another new, two-story residence in the neighborhood will dwarf all the existing houses. The City Engineer noted that there is currently a faulty pipe connected to a storm drain next to the property, the pipe leaks and water runs downhill across the property to the creek, giving the appearance that the creek is overflowing its banks and flooding the subject property. However, when the City repairs the pipe, the property should not experience this problem because the storm water will go directly from the pipe into the creek. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • still have major concerns about the safety of the trees and tree canopies; would like to see the arborist report with tree protection measures during construction, including necessary trimming, included as an attachment to the staff report; • compliment the architect and applicant on the design of the house, which takes advantage of the creek setting along the left elevation,, but the right elevation is a long, blank wall with no variation; adding some articulation on this wall would add interest along that side, the trellis shown does not do enough to break up that elevation; • recall the public hearings for the original lot split on this site and the trees were a major issue for the neighborhood; concerned about the tree canopies, do not see any reason that the proposed house needs to have 10-foot plate heights, as well as being built to the maximum allowable height and FAR, if these items were revised a greater safety zone could be provided for the tree canopy; • story poles will be helpful to determine the scale of the proposed house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 10 • feel this house is a size 10 foot trying to squeeze into a size 9 shoe, have faith that this architect can redesign to reduce the FAR and to address the blank wall at the right side; • the proposed house has a two-car attached garage where only one covered space is required, can the architect stagger the garage doors or design a single-car garage that won't have such a large presence on the street; and • solution for the applicant may be to look at removing the family room proposed at the rear of the first floor, redesigning the floor plan to convert the unlabeled area next to the nook to a new family room, and then add some variation to the flat right side wall; this will result in a slightly smaller house, but would address many of the Commission concerns, including moving construction further away from the oak trees. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and story poles erected on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on motion: the architect should receive copies of the audiotapes for the project because he was not here in person to hear the discussion; and for next review can staff provide a comparison table for the residence that was just built on Lot 5A. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a 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. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. 11. 129 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE NILMEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM AND BEATE QUINN, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Commission commented that sheet A4 of the plans, showing the outlines of the structures on adjacent properties, is very helpful. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Michael Nilmeyer, architect, was present to answer questions. He noted that the special permit for declining height envelope encroachment was necessary to bring the new dormer out to the same plane as the existing dormer and that the conditional use permit for the garage was necessary because the roof pitch of the garage was designed to match the roof pitch of the house. He also noted that the swimming pool would be removed and the yard landscaped as a part of the project. The Commission asked if the owner or architect had spoken to the neighbors. The architect responded that the owner had spoken to all the neighbors adjacent to the subject property. The Commission complimented the architect on the design of the addition, noting that it matched the character of the existing house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the next available hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 11 12. 1609 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHIL HYLAND, JPH DESIGN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN AND ANDREA CUTRIGHT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN PLR Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Phil Hyland, designer, was present to answer questions. The Commission asked if there was a wall extending beyond the chimney on the right side. The designer noted that only the eaves extended beyond the chimney. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following concerns about the project: • concerned by the bulkiness on both side elevations, design appears boxy; • designer should investigate ways to add articulation along the side elevations, perhaps corbels and a "bump-out" at that elevation; • provide details on the plans about the existing and proposed windows, will they all match, are they true divided light wood windows, what type of trim is proposed; and • add some taller elements to the landscape plan to screen the proposed second story, taller trees can be added at the front; taller shrubs can be added along the sides. C. Brownrigg made a motion place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: this is a modest addition, far below the maximum allowable FAR and the simple design matches the existing house. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m. 13. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ATTACHED GARAGES TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, noting a letter submitted from a neighbor at 1561 Drake Avenue that included and arborist report from Mr. Coate for the site. Commission asked staff to clarify the discrepancy between the FAR totals provided in the applicant's March 18, 2003 letter and those provided in the staff report. Staff noted that the applicant's totals were probably taken from the designer's calculations, but that staff always performs their own calculations, staff totals are the numbers that should be referenced by the Commission. Commission asked for further clarification of the City's responsibilities concerning the Redwood trees on the site. The City Attorney advised the Commission that tonight's public hearing was to give direction on design and no action would take place on the project, therefore the Commission could request additional information from the applicant, neighbors, or City staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 12 Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing 1537 Drake Avenue, was present to answer questions. He commented that based on the City Council hearing, he felt the environmental issues concerning the trees, sewer, and traffic had all been adequately addressed by the environmental document, but noted that he had not yet reviewed the Coate arborist report. He went on to note that the developer and designer met with neighbors on two occasions in an attempt to design a project agreeable to both parties. A comprise was arrived at, resulting in the reduction of FAR on Lots 9 and 11, additional landscaping on Lots 10 and 11, including installing two mature 10'-15' trees on Lot 10, and an increase in the front setback on Lot 10. He believed the neighbors wanted to insure that the color and trim scheme shown in the rendering were followed and to have all three properties developed at the same time to reduce them impact of construction on the neighborhood, developer is agreeable to both of these requests. Mr. Hudak noted that the applicant had not been able to address all of the neighbor's concerns and that the project had already been to a design review consultant and received a positive recommendation. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; Janey Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue; Ann and Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, and David Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, had the following concerns: the artist rendering is deceiving because it is not to scale, this is not what the houses will look like from the street or from neighbors properties; biggest concern is the Redwood trees, both the Mayne and Coate reports clearly state that the project, as proposed, will endanger the trees, the root protection area will be encroached upon with the proposed placement of the residences on Lots 9 and 10 and the driveway; the 3-year responsibility of the developer for the health of the trees is not long enough, the trees can take up to 10 years to die as a result of damage to the roots; still have an issue with the parking provided, do not feel a single car garage provides enough parking for a new, 4-bedroom house; pleased to see that FAR has been reduced on Lots 9 and 11, but all the houses are still approximately 30 feet tall and the middle house has not been reduced in FAR at all, these homes will not fit into a neighborhood where the average height of residences is 21 feet; the meetings between the developer and neighbors have done some good, but more progress needs to be made, does Commission have the authority to appoint a task force comprised of some Commissioners, some neighbors, and the developer, in order to try and reach a compromise outside of a public hearing forum. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: if all three lots are developed at the same time, concerned about how the Redwood trees be affected; report submitted by arborist Coate does not state that the arborist actually visited the site, would like to have the City Arborist compare the Mayne and Coate arborist reports; concerned that the Coate report differs from the recommendations given by the Mayne report; would like to compliment the designer and developer on a proposal that provides variation among three new homes and for reducing the FAR on two of the lots; not concerned about the design of the proposed houses, the proposed heights are all near 30 feet maximum, but that is only a tiny portion of the roof ridge, the rest of the roof lines are varied, feel the houses will enhance the neighborhood and that having a maximum FAR house between two smaller FAR houses is a typical pattern in this neighborhood; disappointed that the developer and neighbors were not able to come to an agreement; can the City Attorney provide advice on whether the suggested task force is a possibility; and feel that this public forum is the proper place to discuss the project and to insure that a decision is reached in a timely fashion for both parties involved. The City Attorney noted that at this stage in a project, it is difficult for a Commissioner to serve as an unbiased mediator because they are already in a decision-making position, also is the problem that one or two Commissioners serving on a task force do not necessarily represent the opinion of the entire Commission; if a mediation route is advised by the Commission, a professional mediator such as the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is probably the best solution. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 13 In further discussion, the Commission had the following concerns about the project: • would like the City Arborist to provide a report comparing the information in the Mayne and Coate arborist reports, City Arborist should feel free to assess the site as if there were no proposed residences and ask for clarification/elaboration on the protection measures proposed from the applicant's arborist; aside from providing evaluation about which mitigation measures will help to protect the trees with the houses in their current location, would be helpful to know if the proposed siting of the houses will or will not harm the trees; • applicant may also want to provide a comment from Mayne arborist on the report by the Coate arborist; • need to see a demolition and construction staging plan, including timing, equipment storage and delivery paths to assess whether building all three houses at once could potentially damage the Redwood trees on Lot 9; and • applicant may want to consider adding a window with a bit more glass at the second story of the middle house. Vice-Chair Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested information and revisions had been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a 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. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORT - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 7, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 7, 2003. - Follow up discussion of Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2003 Brief discussion concluded that in June the Commission would review the priorities for the FY 2003-2004 work program and discuss how the tasks were to be assigned to various subcommittees. It was noted that the Bayfront Plan would be coming to the commission in the June/July time frame. - FYI – architectural detail changes to approved design review at 1108 Cortez Avenue Commission reviewed the request to remove the acorn pediment trim on the two windows on the front of the house and over the door at the rear. It was noted that the trim was added to address design co ncerns expressed by the commission during design review, now the applicant doesn’t want to install them, for cost or convenience, or whatever, so makes a request based on the fact that other houses do not have such trim. Commission also expressed a concern about the corner board width, thought that requested the applicant during design review to provide a wider corner board, should check. If the applicant wishes to make these proposed changes they should bring the item forward on the regular action calendar, with complete plans and a clearer set of reasons for the changes and idea of how the design objectives of the initial review will be met by the change. XI. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:57 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 14 Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary MINUTES04.14