Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.06.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 23, 2003 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the June 23, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:08 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 9, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one correction on Page 5, item number 8; replace Chair Keighran with Chair Bojués. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted that people that would like to speak about the hospital project that are not able to attend the July 14, 2003 scoping meeting can speak From the Floor at this meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1840 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE A, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE USE (SULLIVAN SANTOS, SSS DESIGNS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KUO TAY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. She noted that in the staff report under staff comments it is explained that this block was built when parking was supposed to be offered to these buildings on the rail right-of-way across California, which did not continue. During the 1970’s a lot of offices in this area were converted to medical office, attractive location because of the hospital. City changed parking requirement to reflect intensification of use from general office to medical office, made the parking in this area more non-conforming. With this application staff would like to establish a base line square footage in the building for office use and medical use. A table has been included in the staff report listing the square footage for each suite and the type of office. Commissioners asked: • What was in this space before; • How many employees where in the space before; • What are the office hours for other suites; • Clarify hours of operations, not clear on application; • Clarify number of patients per day, application states 4 patients per day during the week, seems like a low number, what kind of services are being offered that would take up that kind of time; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 2 • Are all of the other offices in the building occupied, went by site during the day about 1:30 p.m. and not all of the spaces were occupied; • Can building owner do periodic parking study at various times during the day; • Can staff provide information on inadequacy of parking in the area based on studies done for the North End Specific Area Plan. 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. 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH A WORK ROOM (CHRISTINA IP-TOMA AND BURT TOMA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. All Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners asked: • Clarify waste line size, should be limited to 2”. This item was set for the consent calendar. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. A neighbor asked for a public hearing on item 3a, 1715 Quesada Way. Commissioners did not request any other items to be removed. 3b. 523 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDTION (TOBY LONG, TOBY LONG DESIG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE AND PAUL VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 523 Francisco Drive on the consent calendar. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3a. 1715 QUESADA WAY, ZONED - R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) (106 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 3 Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Joe Diodati, 1730 Quesada Way, Tom Shaughnessy, 1738 Quesada Way, Michael Mount, applicant representing Hope Technology Group, John Tauper, principal of the new school, spoke. The neighbors noted that they were concerned about on street parking, particularly during the drop off and pick up times at BIS, if buildings on site are going to be rented the school should provide parking on site during the day for the new use; looked over the traffic assessment, when was it done (time of day), seems like the drop off/sign in process will have a major impact could take as long as 45 minutes, it is not the same as BIS drop off; 25 parents coming and leaving with only 10 parking spaces available at the school is going to be problem, looks like they will also need 17 parking spaces on the street on Quesada; what parking is available on the BIS site? Public comment continued with applicant: traffic study was done about 10:30 –11:00 a.m. when school was in session, 3 or 4 days before the date on the report; assumes the use of parking on street, have always found space on the side away from the houses, on the right side of the driveway up to the school there are a lot of spaces, particularly at the time this school will start, 9:15 a.m. and end at 2:15 p.m., tried to avoid overlap with BIS. Schematic shows that there is a loading zone for drop off and pick up, that will be available for some; asked for use permit to be approved for maximum of 25 children, will not start at that number; the building being leased is a permanent building on the BIS site, it was previously used by Olympia Day Camp, school will have a similar number of children and staff, hours of day camp were 1 p.m. to 6 p.m., so the same issues were there for the afternoon. Commissioners asked: have you explored with BIS if there is any parking on site to the north for drop off and pick up? If you are referring to the 9 spaces the Principal will have to review our use with the District, we will probably have to rent these spaces. Where is the entrance? Between sign C and D. Did the parking study observe the drop off for BIS? Don’t know, will need to contact the traffic engineer. Observed a white loading zone, know from experience cannot leave car in such a zone, does that apply on site here? Do not know, Principal indicated that the loading zone was an area we could use for drop off, did not ask time limit; parents can park along the island. What percent of the students must sign in and out? Initially about 8 to 12 of the students will need to be signed in and out, when at full enrollment 12 to 15 of the students will need to be signed in. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner’s comments: can we condition the project that the employees park only on the west side of Quesada; yes but it will not be enforceable unless the east side parking is restricted in some way by the City. Troubled by the circulation issues and small children mix, study should have addressed the 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. circulation; need more information on the white zone usage; can the white zone be used for loading pre-schoolers; need more information, study should be done when traffic peak, maybe the school needs to be more flexible in hours, further from 9:00 a.m. start; applicant should see what information the traffic engineer has; police report in staff report not show any neighborhood complaints about parking; if 15 children need to sign in and each takes 5 minutes, that’s 125 minutes of parking, the white zone is not going to be enough space, where will the drop off be. Commissioners continued: when will the school start? Need to work on the inside during the end of June and July, hope to have a pilot program during the summer and begin full program in the Fall. Could do a conditional use permit for two months which would expire when BIS opens; the applicant could try to resolve the other issues and get a second use permit by then; that means that if a second use permit is not City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 4 granted for the year round school the school would have to close; yes, assume applicant would work on a way to resolve the problems immediately; would give time to change the entrance of the school, get access to area at the north and east for parking. C. Keele moved to approve the application for Hope Technology School on the BIS campus with the condition that the use permit shall expire prior to the start of the regular BIS school session in the Fall of 2003 and that the applicant shall apply during this time for a new conditional use permit which addresses the issues raised by the commission, by resolution with conditions in the staff report as modified by the time limit as follows: 1) that the Hope Technology School shall be limited to the 2,105 SF portion of Building #4 as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 9, 2003 Sheets A, B and 1 and shall be permitted to operate at this location until the start of the regular Burlingame Intermediate School session in the Fall of 2003, at which time this conditional use permit shall expire, provided that the applicant shall use this initial time to resolve the concerns raised by the planning commission including the employee, volunteer and parent parking, student drop off and pick up, and other neighborhood and on-site school issues, failure to obtain a second conditional use permit before the start of the regular Burlingame Intermediate School session shall void this permit; 2) that the operation of the school classes shall follow a schedule to be approved by Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS) and that the schedule will be staggered so that no Hope Technology classes start or end at the same time as BIS classes start and end, either during the standard school year or during summer sessions; 3) that the total number of persons on site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, will be limited to 49 persons; 4) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s memo of April 30, 2003, shall be met; and 6) that 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. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to grant an conditional use permit for this use until the start of the regular fall session of BIS, with the direction that the applicant prepare a complete application for a conditional use permit for this operation during the school year and have it approved prior to the start of BIS this fall or cease operation at BIS. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. 4. 856 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (PAUL DIERCKS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SUZANNE DEHNE, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran 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 and date stamped May 1, 2003, Sheet a1.0 through a5.0 and sheets a0.0 and g1.0 date stamped June 6, 2003; that only three Redwood trees shall be planted at the rear of the lot; 2) that the 263 SF accessory structure shall be used for parking and storage only; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official’s memos dated March 24, 2003 memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 5 requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: applicant has answered all of the questions the Commission had at the study meeting; like the added detail on the garage and how it relates to the house. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 5. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE KALDOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if a lot coverage variance is granted for 96 SF, could the applicant come along and add more to the lot coverage. CP Monroe noted no, based on the conditions posted if the building is demolished then the lot coverage variance goes away and the new construction must meet current lot coverage regulations. All Commissioners have visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, project architect, stated that since the study meeting the lot coverage variance request has been reduced by 57 SF and the garage has been pushed back as far as possible and reduced in size. The existing house is a small house, master bedroom proposed is only 12’ x 14’, not oversized. Demolishing the garage and moving it to the back of the property reduces the mass and bulk on the lot seen from the street. Commissioner stated that they like the design but have a problem finding exceptional circumstances on this property, and noted that this is the only house on the block with a detached garage. Mr. Grange noted that 10% of the floor area of the house is in the porch alone, the house is small and they don’t want to cut up the house. Considered filing in the porch and pushing everything forward, but can’t do that because of the garage location. Commission noted that applicant states in application materials that they plan to retire in 3 years, do they really need an extra bedroom, what is the rational behind 3 bedrooms, can addition be made smaller, what is the hardship. Cindy Kaldor, property owner, stated that she and her husband bought this property four years ago expecting to retire in the house, her husband is planning on retiring in 2 years, in October she found out that she is responsible for 2 elderly aunts that are in their 90’s, and will most likely be moving in with her. She also plans to continue to work and need a home office. An additional bedroom and bathroom will be easier to live in than 2 bedrooms. Looked at other options, like moving ,but want to stay in the area. Adding a second floor would require adding more space than needed in order to keep the design balanced. Talked with all of the neighbors about the project, and they were pleased with the project and happy that project does not include a second floor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: can see hardship due to configuration of the structures on the property and architecture; addition is modest, hardship with covered porch; sympathetic with reasoning for variances but don’t agree that family members moving in is a hardship to justify two variances; need to be judicious in granting variances, we don’t want to pave over Burlingame and lose green space, applicant should reconsider other options, second story addition or reducing rooms; porch is not really a hardship, several houses in Burlingame have large porches; support project, limited by configuration of existing structures, this proposed project is less of an impact than going up; Commissioner asked CA Anderson if the project City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 6 could be conditioned so that variances go away if new owner decides to building up. CA Anderson responded that Commission can add a condition that the variances are voided if a second story is added in the future. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions and the conditions suggested by the Commission: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-4; the decks on site shall be no higher than 30 inches above adjacent grade and the side setback to the deck and planter along the left side of the driveway shall be no closer than 9'-6" from the right side property line; 2) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 1, 2003 and the City Engineer's May 5, 2003, memos shall be met; 3) that the side setback variance and the lot coverage variance shall expire if the house is demolished or remodeled to an extent greater than 50% of the existing floor area; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5) that both variances, the lot coverage and side setback, shall become void if a second story is added on to the house or if the building is demolished, also the existing non-conforming setbacks shall be corrected or subject to variance should a second story addition be added in the future. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motions: o.k. with this approval with the added conditions that the variances are voided if a second story is added, maker and second agreed to amended conditions. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 6. 2825 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW REAR DECK (ROBERT AND REGINA CHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Some Commissioners noted that they drove by the site but did not go onto the property. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Robert and Regina Chan, property owner, and Georgina Ladder, 2831 Frontera Way, were present. Applicant was available to answer questions. Deck is rectangular shape in order to use sloped space in the rear yard. Commission asked why the deck couldn’t be made s maller. Applicants stated that without a variance the deck size would be reduced and usable yard area would be lost, reducing the deck would also create an empty area for people to fall into, want to cover entire area for safety. Smaller deck is not the best alternative. Live above on the right side, notice a discrepancy in the plans; built concrete wall to hold back dirt that was moved; because of the slope loss of privacy is a concern in this area; saw owner moving dirt, need to either dispose of dirt now or fill in yard. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: no hardship for side setback variance, strip next to deck can be made a walkway/stair, would eliminate side setback variance; other alternatives for rear setback; understand some hardship but there is a solution without variances; no convincing reason for variances; understand rear setback, there is a hardship because of the steep slope on the lot. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 7 C. Keighran moved to deny without prejudice the application for side and rear setback variances for a new rear deck based on the reasons stated, there are no exceptional hardships on the lot and there are options available that do not require variances. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: do not agree with motion, rear yard variance is justified due to steep slope; if a retaining wall where constructed and grass planted a variance would not be required; it is not as if they are building a higher deck. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny with out prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-1 (Cmsr. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:39 p.m. 7. 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARCEL MAP TO MERGE THREE PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, THREE-STORY SELF STORAGE BUILDING (BOB DAILEY, APPLICANT; WARD-YOUNG ARCHITECTS, MIKE MUSSANO, ARCHITECT; DORE TRUST, DAILEY TRUST, STELLA LIU, ROBERT DAILEY, RAY MATHEWS, JENNIFER WALWARK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (18 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 23, 2003, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commissioner asked for clarification on the number of required parking spaces. Plr. Barber stated that 57 parking spaces are required, and 57 parking spaces are provided on-site. Twenty-one conditions which will be recorded with the building permit were suggested for consideration. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Bob Dailey, D&M Development, 1281 Boulevard Way, Walnut Creek, applicant and property owner was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the Phase I site assessment found hydrocarbons and heavy metals and states that the levels detected do not exceed the Regional Water Quality Control Board levels, however have these levels been reviewed by the San Mateo County Health Department. Do you know where soil samples were taken and at what depths? Applicant responded that Fugro prepared the Phase I site assessment and works very close with regulatory agencies; noted that no one will be living on the site, and that customers coming to the site are only there for a short amount of time. Phase I site assessment includes the information on location and depth of soil samples. Commission asked if applicant had more information on EMF’s, other than the general information that was printed from the PG&E website. Applicant stated that he asked PG&E about the EMF’s, but didn’t get much of a response and was referred to the website. The office where employees will work is located on the opposite side of the building from the PG&E substation. Commission noted that there is no dimension on the drawings for the one-way driveway located on the far left side, doesn’t seem wide enough. Plr. Barber noted that the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the revised parking and circulation plan and had no problems. Commission noted that the three required ADA parking spaces are located directly in front of the loading area; will people load and unload items if the ADA parking spaces are occupied. How will staff monitor the spaces so that they are not occupied by unauthorized users that want easy acces s to the loading area. Applicant stated the parking study indicated that the maximum parking demand for the site would be 10 spaces; highly unlikely that all three ADA parking spaces would be occupied at once; loading will be done with customers checking out a 2.5’ wide cart from the office and wheeling it to their car, loading their items and then walking to the elevator. The carts are narrow enough that they can be maneuvered down the required walkways in between the ADA parking stalls, should they all be occupied at one time. There will be an employee on-site during business hours to monitor the usage of the ADA parking spaces at the front of the building. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 8 Commission asked if anything will be stored in the parking spaces. CP Monroe responded that there is no storage allowed in the parking spaces, they are required on-site parking for use by customers and employee only. Commission asked what material would be used for the roll down gates at the entrance to the covered parking and asked to explain the roofing material proposed. Applicant explained that the gates would most likely be wrought iron to match the fencing around the site; the roofing material will be Spanish tiles made of metal, with a standing seam roof on the rear, a good to mix of detailing on the roof, from a distance the roof looks like tiles. Commissioner noted that the building does not look like a storage building; would suggest that the applicant consider using hand finish stucco, Santa Barbara finish. CA Anderson noted that this is not a design review project and a specific type of finish can not be required on this project. Commission suggested that the applicant consider a Santa Barbara finish. Charlie Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering, 708 Carolyn Drive, Burlingame, explained he is the civic engineer and surveyor for the parcel merger. Project description should say tentative and final parcel map. The site will be graded about 1’-6” where the pad of the building will be placed, and the back parking lot will stay at grade. Decided to use concrete over the covered parking area. Applicant added that the entire site will have new concrete paving after the demolition. Any contaminated soils encountered will be removed to an appropriate dumping facility. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: like the architecture of this building; doesn’t look like a storage facility, not typical; will be nice addition to the area; condition number four should be revised to say that parking on-site is only to be used by customers and employees of the self-storage facility; condition should be added that requires all soil removal and disposal be done in accordance with state laws and under the supervision of the San Mateo County Environmental Health. Chair Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, including adding the modifications noted: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 11, 2003, site plan, parking plan, floor plans, elevations and landscape plan; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s February 13, 2003 memo, the Fire Marshal’s February 20, 2003, memo, the Chief Building Official’s February 14, 2003 memo and the Recycling Specialist’s February 11, 2003 memo shall be met; 3) that the self-storage facility office shall be open 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and the gate shall be open for storage unit access from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week; 4) that the 57 required on-site parking spaces will be used only by customers and employees of the self storage facility that is approved with this application and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or any other goods or vehicles either by customers of the self storage facility or by other businesses for off-site parking; 5) that the landscaping noted on sheet L1.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species and shall be maintained at all times; 6) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 7) the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and approved by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. All applicable requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including the following listed below; 8) all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 9) each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance shall be as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 9 directed by the city; 10) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and as directed by the city; 11) off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 12) methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 13) the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 14) the thru driveway from the last aisle of parking on Marsten Road to the rear 24 foot wide driveway accessed via Nerli Lane shall be a one way aisle only, and shall be labeled as such. A large one way arrow shall be painted on the asphalt/concrete at the exit point to the 24 foot driveway (easement) to warn drivers coming into the site from Nerli Lane to advise them that cars exit onto this lane; 15) the gates located at each of the driveway entrances shall remain in the open position during business hours to allow unrestricted access to the site and all of the on-site parking spaces; 16) if any odorous, stained, or suspicious soils are encountered during the construction, the contractor sha ll cease all construction immediately and contact Fugro, the firm that prepared the Phase I site assessment, to investigate and analyze the soils to determine an appropriate course of action for evaluation and proper handling of such material, including review by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department; all soil removal and disposal from this site shall be in accordance with state law and shall be under the supervision of the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department; neither a demolition nor grading permit shall be issued for this site until approval of the soils and any required removal plan has been authorized by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department; 17) all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code 2001 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame, and all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; 18) the property owners shall maintain the 24 foot wide access easement for PG&E to access the adjacent substation. A letter of consent acknowledging the shared access use by the project and that the proposed development is acceptable shall be required from PG&E before a building permit will be issued; 19) on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City lighting ordinance; 20) all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements of the City’s light ordinance; and 21) if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to accept the mitigated negative declaration and amended mitigation measures and recommend approval of the tentative and final parcel map for a lot merger. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:08 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 10 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1135 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MATTHEW GAUL, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Commissioner Auran recused himself from this item because he was the broker on the sale of the property. He stepped down from the dais. Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff to request a landscape plan that includes evergreen large-scale shrubs or trees for screening the project. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mike Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue, applicant was present to answer questions. He explained that the existing single story house and garage are structurally sound. The house has a lot of built-in wood features and detailing that they hope to retain and carry through out the addition. Will work on upgrading the landscape plan. Commission expressed concern with roof pitch and suggested considering a special permit to increase roof pitch. Applicant noted that they tried to keep a mission style with a lower horizontal level roof. Commissioner noted that existing roof is about a 3:12 pitch, built up roof, won’t even see tar and gravel roof material. Commission asked if all of the windows would be replaced as part of the project and what type of trim is going to be used. Applicant stated that all windows are going to be replaced as part of the project and that the window trim is 2 x 6 wood trim. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: • Provide eave detail, clarify size of fascia and if it is a solid soffet; • Revise landscape plan, add large-scale evergreen shrubs and trees; • Clarify plate heights; and • Detail window type and material. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: Nice job; close to maximum floor area, but doesn’t look big on plans; addition looks nice with existing home, blends nicely; applicant should provide more detailed landscape plan, make sure to retain window detail and type, see too many projects that do not follow through with quality windows that are shown on plans. Chair Bojués called for a voice 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 (Cmsr. Auran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 9. 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (KEVIN LEHANE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHETCUTI & ASSOCIATES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission ask what the correct floor area is, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 11 table says 2,630 SF, text says 3,630 SF. Staff stated that there was an error in the table and that the correct floor area for the proposed project is 3,630 SF. Commission asked if staff has the existing floor area for the house. Plnr. Barber stated that a rough estimate of the floor area is possible using Metroscan, information comes from the County Assessor’s office and there is no way to know how they calculate floor area. There were no further questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Marijana Stott, designer, Kevin LeHane, contractor, and Pete Muncheck , applicant, were available to answer questions. They noted that the floor area of the existing house is approximately 1,360 SF. Herbert Wei, 1470 Vancouver Avenue, property owner to the left, stated his concern with loss of privacy due to the project. Stated that part of his purchase agreement when he bought his property was that when the adjacent property was sold the 3.5’ x 52’ area which creates the “L” was suppose to revert back to him. Is not sure if this is reflected on the plans. CA Anderson noted that is an issued between the private property owners, does not have anything to do with the City. They are going to have to work out that issue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • Project is too big, plate heights are too tall; feels massive; needs to be 15% smaller; • Entrance balustrades are not typical of Burlingame; bulkier than you usually see on this type of house; • Round columns are o.k., question the stucco relief at the top, not found anywhere else on the house • No consistency among elevations, the style changes on each elevations; • Too much detail, need to tone down; • Left elevation is simpler and flows nicely; • Right and rear elevations are large; • Plans note Styrofoam trim, generally discouraged, suggest wood trim, stucco mold; • Landscape plan needs more trees; add evergreens at front to screen size of house; add landscaping on side of driveway; • Site plan needs to address how this project will relate to the property on left, subject lot is a lot wider than adjacent lots, adjacent house is right up against setback, this property wraps around adjacent property, need to address by stepping the building back or by adding screening; • Proposal is between two large houses, lot is larger so setbacks need to be respected and increased so it doesn’t look like an alley between the houses; and • Shutter size needs to be appropriate for windows, shutter should be proportionate to window size and look as if they could be a usable shutter. C. Keele made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: the designer has a lot of talent, direction from design reviewer will help address Planning Commission comments; like the stained glass, cooper detailing, columns. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction given and return on a regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 10. 263 CRESCENT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (KEVIN LEHANE, APPLICANT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 12 AND DESIGNER; CHETCUTI & ASSOCIATES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Marijana Stott, designer, Kevin LeHane, contractor and Pete Muncheck , applicant, were available to answer questions. Applicant noted that she had tried to contact the Department of Fish and Game as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to find out how far back construction should be setback from the creek, but could not get anyone to return her call. Commission noted that there is information on-line regarding jurisdictional boundaries; moving the house closer to the creek eliminates backyard; want to keep walled courtyard on the front facing Howard. Commission asked why one room is being saved from the original house, applicants noted that it could be removed but thought that it had a lot of nice finish features and character. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • Too big, massive and bulky; • Plate heights too tall; • Landscape plan needs work, add taller evergreens to screen addition; • Detailing on the front is very ornate, much more than the sides; need more balance of detailing throughout project; • Styles differ from side to side to rear, elevations should be consistent; • Creek side lot, should use creek side setting; garage separates creek from house, usually a creek is a real amenity; design should take advantage of creek side location; reconsider location of garage; • Howard side has two windows with single shutter, feels unbalanced; • Look at window arrangement; windows should be consistent throughout project, are not the same on all elevations; • Howard Avenue is a very busy street, look at shifting the house on the site to take advantage of quieter street; and • May want to look at reducing the number of bedrooms so only a one-car garage would be required then garage could be made smaller; less impact. Chair Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given and return on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:17 p.m. 11. 1661 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 13 Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, project architect, stated that he located the second story addition in the middle of the first floor and pushed it back to reduce the massing. Planning Commission asked if the existing windows are going to be replaced to match the new windows, noted that the right side windows don’t match. Mr. Grange stated that he could add grids to the existing lower level windows to match the new upper level windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: nice project; fits in with existing architecture of building. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed regarding the windows. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:17 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 16, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 16, 2003. She noted that the Council adopted the FY 2003-2004 budget. They also denied without prejudice the appeal at 1029 Balboa Avenue and directed that the application be referred to a design reviewer and back to the Planning Commission. Finally, the council voted to participate in the Housing Endowment Trust JPA which will facilitate the members’ eligibility for housing subsidy funds, which may benefit our Housing Element objectives. - FYI – 1029 Balboa Avenue, return from City Council, direction for design reviewer The Planning Commission clarified their comments on this project so that the design reviewer would have clear direction: • That story poles should be installed before the action meeting and pictures of the poles should be included in the staff report; • The story poles should encompass the entire envelope of the redesigned house, and should be verified by a licensed civil engineer, the survey should include the location of the major tree limbs and all portions of the structures on the site should be separated from the major limbs by at least two feet; • Liked the fact that the design of the house took advantage of the creek and oriented to the creek, but it was still too big; • Careful of coverage of roots, even if cantilever poor solution because of lack of water on roots, should not cantilever over major root systems; • Clearance between the roof and the tree canopy should be addressed; • Engineering analysis is needed for the durability of the walls between the house and the creek, including addressing the impact of volume of the flow in the creek; • House is too big for the lot, the footprint is big for the buildable area; • House is too close to the creek bed, wrong project for this lot; • Potential damage to the trees is a major concern; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 14 • The house orients well in the setting, its floor plan opens to the trees and creek but the story poles show conflict with the tree canopy; • Problem that one can only access the rear yard from inside the house; • Query whether a second floor is possible or the right solution for this lot; and • Ensure that there is a meaningful backyard. - FYI – 1301 Burlingame Avenue, proposed window change The applicant, representing Apple Computer, requested a modification to the approved façade design to reduce the pedestrian oriented window along Park Road by 15 feet from 45’5” to 30’-5”. The commission felt that this window was important to breaking up the length of the blank wall on this side of this corner lot. For this reason they felt that this item should be set to a public hearing so the applicant could present other ideas for breaking up this long wall and encouraging pedestrian interest and movement. Staff was directed to inform the applicant and determine if he wished to proceed to public hearing or install the window as approved at 45’-5”. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary MINUTES06.23