Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.10.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the October 14, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:06 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The Planning Commission noted that the minutes of the September 18, 2003 Planning Commission Special Study Session for the Bayfront Specific Area Plan should be amended to note that Commissioner Keighran left the meeting before its conclusion. The September 22, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. Staff clarified that the corrections to the minutes of September 8, 2003 were revised by staff after listening to the tapes to state that the Commission considered the project at 1504 Arc Way to be a possible candidate for design review, but ultimately voted to set the project for regular action when the requested revisions had been made and submitted. The Commission concurred with the corrections. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Dan Doolittle, 1520 Floribunda Avenue, spoke regarding the conditional use permit for 1512-1516 Floribunda which came before the Commission, applicant is asking for height over 35’, this is rare, but one building already granted height over 35’ in the last year, if this one is granted it would be a policy change, request that City look at the cumulative impact on density and infrastructure for this policy change in the environmental review. There were other no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1420 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THOMAS M. AILAND, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that on page two of the staff report the floor area is shown incorrectly on the table, it appears that the allowed amount and proposed amount were reversed. Commissioners asked: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 2 • Are there are lot of substandard 4,000 SF lots in this area, if so, have any other variances been granted for these lots; • Why are the new stairs not located inside of the house, could locate them where the laundry and bath are currently located and move laundry and bath upstairs, it is easier to put on outside of house, but not compliant with code; and • Need to see tree protection plan for the birches in the front yard, have City Arborist review prior to returning the project for action. 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 7:16 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. No consent items for review No consent items for review VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (VIRGINIA PON, APPLICANT; WILSON NG, DESIGNER; JANE CHUAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 14, 2003, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the story poles had been surveyed. SP Brooks explained that there was no requirement to have story poles surveyed, unless specifically requested story poles are not surveyed. Chair Bojués noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Wilson Ng, project designer, was available to answer questions. Spoke with the neighbor and agreed to lower height. Existing flat roof on the garage is 10’-6”, so agreed to lower the plate line to 7’ and make gable with a 4:12 pitch to prevent blockage of view. Kevin Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive, submitted pictures of the story poles, not opposing project now since plate height was lowered. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: design meets criteria; neighbor is not opposed; went to Mr. Slaboda’s house and viewed the story poles from his dining room, distant views will not be impacted; would like to add two additional conditions 1) that construction will match story poles (refer to pictures); and 2) garage plate height will be no higher than 7 feet. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 1, 2003, sheet T-1 and sheet A-1 through A-11, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the roof ridge of the addition shall be 2'-6" lower than the existing roof ridge with a 4:12 roof pitch for the addition, and that the garage shall have a 4:12 roof pitch, and the plate height of the garage shall not exceed 7 feet; 2) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 3 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; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s, the Fire Marshal=s, the Chief Building Inspector=s, and the Recycling Specialist's June 30, 2003 memos shall be met; 4) that the applicant shall submit a certified arborist report to detail tree protection measures for the protected-size Pepper tree at the front of the property and that this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to any grading on the site and prior to the issuance of a Building permit; and if the protected-size Pepper tree is to be removed, the applicant shall apply for and receive a Protected-size Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department prior to removing the tree; 5) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Manageme nt and Discharge Control Ordinance; 6) that during demolition and grading for the addition, 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; 7) Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 8) 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; 9) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that the construction shall match the height and location of the story poles erected prior to construction, as shown in photos date stamped October 14, 2003. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 3. 1401 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT A DETACHED GARAGE TO A RECREATION ROOM (PARCA, JERRY MARTIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) ( 71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 14, 2003, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked CA Anderson if the use of the property can be considered extraordinary circumstances to satisfy variance findings. CA Anderson stated that yes, use can be considered to satisfy variance findings as long as the use exists, when reverts to single family use the variance would be required to return to garage use. Commission asked if staff has received any complaints or concerns on this site. Staff stated that there were no complaints or inquires received about this project. Commission asked how condition #3 will be enforced, would like to add a condition that requires property owner to notify the City when there is a change in use on this property. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jerry Martin, PARCA, 1750 El Camino Real, applicant explained that this is the only home like this in the entire County; provides service for kids 6-17 years of age, many of them have multiple disabilities and need mobility assistance, this requires more space. They are not proposing to expand the program, staff or number of children; need bathroom in recreation room since mobility is an issue, the garage door is being replaced with a new garage door so that the space can easily be converted back into a garage use. Patricia Scheppler, 1415 Palm Drive, next door neighbor, asked if the garage door will be open during use, concerned with noise, parking is not currently a problem and they are not hiring more people, and are doing a fabulous job. Jerry Martin of PARCA stated that the kids will be entering the garage (recreation room) via a courtyard and that the garage door will remain closed during use. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 4 Commission discussion: support applicant, findings are met based on the unique use of the property; suggest adding a condition that notice shall be given to the City upon change of ownership, garage should be inspected to ensure that it is reverted back to garage use, resolution will be recorded with the County. C. Keele moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the 8'-0" x 20'-3" (162 SF) addition to the existing accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 15, 2003, sheet 1-4, with a maximum overall height of 9'-6" as measured from existing adjacent grade to the roof ridge, with a maximum plate height of 8'-0" measured from existing adjacent grade; 2) that the bathroom in the accessory structure shall not exceed 7'-4" x 8'-0" (59 SF) and shall only contain a toilet and sink; and that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen or be used for sleeping purposes; 3) that the accessory structure shall only be used for recreational purposes associated with the respite care program for children with developmental disabilities; at a time when the respite care program ceases to operate from this site, the property owner shall convert the accessory structure back to a garage for parking one vehicle, which includes removing all of the carpeting, the bathroom and the interior walls of the bathroom; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s July 14, 2003 memo, and the Fire Marshal's August 25, 2003 memo shall be met; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 6) that notice shall be given to the City upon change of ownership of this property, and that all of the changes required in condition number 3 above shall require a demolition permit and shall be inspected by the Burlingame Building Department. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 4. 810 STANTON ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR SALES AND INSTALLATION OF MOBILITY DEVICES (THE MOBILITY SPECIALISTS, APPLICANT; ALAN MALTIN, PROPERTY OWNER; PHILLIP R. DIXON, ARCHITECT) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report October 14, 2003, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a condition should be added requiring ADA compliance for the restroom. Staff noted that this will be required by the Building Department during their review. Commission asked what, if any, use could occupy the building and meet the parking requirement with the existing six parking spaces. Staff noted that this is no use, warehouse uses have the lowest parking requirement at one space per 1,000 SF, seven parking spaces would be required for a warehouse use in this building, where there are only six spaces provided. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Phil Dixon, 755 Bermuda Drive, San Mateo, project architect, was available to answer questions, noted that business operators were also present to answer any questions about the service; it is unfortunate that they found a building that is already non-conforming in parking; however the proposed use is a good fit for the area and will have a low traffic impact. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica 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 August 26, 2003, site plan and floor plan; with a total of 6 on-site parking spaces and 220 SF of on-site landscaping; 2) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 5 that the building shall have 897 SF of office, 1685 SF of display and 3915 SF of work area, any change to this configuration shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission approval; 3) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 4 persons; 4) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 5) 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. Osterling. Commission discussion: fully support application; all Commissioners have visited the site; it is clear that nothing could go into this building that would meet the parking and landscaping requirements; this is a low intensity use with only 1-2 customers per day. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 8 BELVEDERE COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND LOWER FLOOR DECK ADDITIONS (MICHAEL KOUVARIS, WILLIAM WOOD ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LAHORI RAM, PROPERTY OWNER) (19 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 14, 2003, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués noted that all Commissioners have visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Lahouri Ram, 757 Easton Avenue, San Bruno, property owner, and Bill Wood, William Wood Architects, were available to answer questions. Noted that original improvements were made within the existing footprint; there are two crawls spaces under the main and lower floors, page C-1 shows lower floor balcony reduced from 6’ to 4’, balcony is enclosed on one side by planter, lower deck is only accessible from underside of house, area under the decks is counted two times, plus crawl space over 6 feet in height is counted toward FAR, when you take all of that out of the FAR calculation the house is close to compliance; have eliminated the cross bracing on the deck, it looks better, wanted to try to not impede views of neighbor, so thought adding a curve to the deck was better than squaring it off; the owner is o.k. with conditions of approval. Martin Eisenburg, 800 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed Ahmed of 6 Belvedere Court; noted that they are pleased by altered plans, however still concerned with the expansion of area surrounding stairway and creation of upper deck 101 SF next to the master bedroom, this house is greater in size than the neighboring homes; appreciate that the expansion is within the existing building footprint; they did enclose front porch area; the enlargement permits more occupants in the house and provides separate entrances, (lower walkway) encourages potential use as separate unit, more exits are more intrusive to the neighborhood; with less deck is less intrusive to neighborhood. The 101 SF deck off of the master bedroom was originally a sliding glass door with Victorian balcony, they were not seeking a 101 SF deck; request that this portion of the deck be returned to a Victorian balcony. Mohamed Ahmed stated that the there was only one room added in the crawl space area by the old owner, Mr. Ram took out the dirt and put in living space; over time the plans have changed, spoke with Erika in Planning and Juliet balcony was all that was approved, so Building Department went out and red tagged; had a survey done of property at the walkway separating staircase, but the stakes were removed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 6 Applicant response: Bill Woods, project architect, and Lahouri Ram, property owner, responded and noted that the original plans were approved to replace existing deck but then the owner wanted a curved balcony; the front door was pushed out 2 foot and the chimney was removed; tried not to block the neighbors view, the lower deck is used for access and fire safety egress for two sons and one daughter, not adding to occupancy; lower deck is only 4’ wide and will not be used for furniture, this is not an apartment building; trying to minimize the expanse of wall to offset the blank wall, make aesthetically pleasing, not extending to create apartment; expanding house for use by family, insulted that someone would tell us how many people can live in house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: believe that there is a hardship on this property, sloping lot makes it difficult to enjoy yard, good job in responding to concerns, almost matches the previous deck, it is reduced in size from the previous proposal, 90 SF deck off the master bedroom does not impede views, concerned with failure to sidewalk due to this project, would like to see applicant work out issues with neighbor; safety issue is justification for the variance, need egress for bedrooms, this is a unique property; viewed from 6 Belvedere Court, did not see obstruction of distant views; findings support the requested variance; excellent solution to safety problem with the connection to the lower deck. C. Vistica 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 September 30, 2003, sheets CS1, A1 through A10, and L1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that that the floor area ratio variances shall only apply to this building (and the decks) and shall become void if the building (or the decks) are ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or if they are replaced or modified in any way; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s June 23, 2003 memo shall be met; 3) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 4) 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; 5) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 6) 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; 7) 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. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR REQUEST TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (41 RADIUS NOTICE/89 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS SP Brooks briefly presented the project description, noting that this is an environmental scoping session to determine what issues the commission considers to be potential environmental impacts of the proposed application to change to the zoning regulations for Broadway. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 7 Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) Board of Directors, noted that the BID has come out in favor of the proposal, they were concerned with the original proposal because it would have removed the current controls on restaurant uses, this request is to include various office uses, so the BID now supports. He noted that he had taken a sample survey of several Broadway merchants, and the response has been in favor; there is one Board member who does not support the proposal, and he is here to state his opinion. Gerald Weisl, Weimax Wines located on Broadway, lives at 136 Bloomfield, noted that the amount of available office space in Burlingame is significant, but retail is precious and limited, after looking at the proposal, would like to retain Broadway as largely retail. John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway, spoke in favor of the proposed zoning changes, noting that it is time to make changes to Broadway, but the types of retail that have come in recently do not attract foot traffic, business is slow and there are a lot of vacancies, want to bring it back to the way it used to be, financial institutions would be beneficial on the first floor, the economy will change, we want to attract the type of business that will bring larger numbers of customers. Commissioners asked if the merchants thought that the proposed uses would bring more foot traffic and asked when they had observed the changes and the decreased pedestrian traffic on Broadway. Mr. Kevranian noted that he believes the offices will bring in more foot traffic and noticed the decline about 4 to 5 years ago, he doesn't feel that it is just in response to the economic downturn. Commissioners noted that there were financial institutions on Broadway and they moved out on their own, how will the changes to zoning bring them back, confused that offices will bring more people, with a professional doctor's office, there would only be a handful of people, retail would bring more. Mr. Kevranian noted that dental offices can bring 60 to 70 people a day depending on the number of hygienists in the office, you could have a Mailboxes Etc. with a check cashing service which is not allowed now, real estate offices generate a lot of people that will patronize business, would like to see retail, but recently there has been the wrong kind of retail that doesn't generate foot traffic. Commissioners asked if opening up to office use could be the beginning of a dramatic change to the general use and flavor of Broadway, where retail will decline and more potential offices will move in and replace retail. Mr. Kevranian noted that before the current restrictions on office were put in place, Broadway was not taken over by offices. Ross Bruce noted that the BID did not collect any data to determine what this change would do, membership decided to roll the dice; think freedom would be helpful to Broadway now and later, it might push out retail later; Broadway goes through phases, used to be all antique stores, then real estate and insurance, should free up the restrictions to allow it to go through the phases; this may have unintended consequence, but we don't think so. Commissioners asked if the BID would like to see a mix of office and retail, or an area that is more offices and financial institutions together, what is the vision; how do you envision the mix in 10 years. Mr. Bruce responded that they see a combination of uses with retail, we do not always get what is anticipated, but a fair number of members feel that the current experiment with the office restrictions has run its course and a looser, free market approach may be worthwhile; have seen so many different versions of Broadway, don't know what percentage would work best, the area prospered during most phases, would like to see it seek its own level. Commissioner Keighran noted that she had met with Ross Bruce, Gerald Weisl and Dave Arminino to discuss this issue, presently we have restrictions on the number of restaurants, can we do that for offices, or could we try a trial run for two years and then revisit the issue. CA Anderson noted that approach can be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 8 done, the City can try to structure a balance; when the controls on restaurants were put in place, the number was set by those that existed at the time the ordinance was adopted, would need to determine the criteria carefully; but once the business is allowed in, it will exist and it can't be taken back; you could also revisit the issue by adopting a new ordinance to pull it back to the previous regulations at any time. Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, noted that he has been on Broadway since the 1960's, has owned property there since 1967-68, Broadway is struggling, suffering, hurting, need changes right away; retail uses come and go, need a variety of businesses, two dentists were turned down by the Planning Department, if health services have to be on the second floor, there would be no access for the handicapped; need to keep a balance of businesses, all of the Broadway business owners want change, one building has been vacant almost two years, he is just asking for what was allowed before. Commissioners ask if the BID had identified any environmental concerns with this change, such as parking or traffic. Ross Bruce noted that they had not identified environmental changes from converting from retail to office, parking in the area hasn't been as big of an issue as it used to be, do not believe that the nature of the business would change the rent structure, three years ago with the controls in place, retail rents still spiked, BID members thought that based on previous experience, this change feels right. Mr. Bezdjian noted that if you look at the Broadway area during lunch hour, there are a lot of vacant parking spaces, so there is parking available, his building has eight parking spaces; the market is what controls rent; don't believe there would be any environmental impacts because the uses would be what was allowed before. John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, noted that he is not a merchant, but visits Broadway a lot, a similar situation happened in San Mateo, and San Mateo adopted changes that prohibited offices because they found that when offices went in to replace retail, the office tenant closed off the window frontage on the street and didn't present a face to the street; it became an issue of compatibility with the retail merchants. Chair Bojués closed the public comment. Commission discussion: Broadway is a gateway to Burlingame and we should be careful what we do, need to determine what the personality is that we want for this area, should it be like Burlingame Avenue, or like 25th Avenue in San Mateo; we have talked about making the Broadway area attractive to hotel guests; since the parking requirement is higher for offices, each office tenant will have to ask for parking variances, parking is an issue in this area, we have to look ahead not just 2 years but 5 to 10 years, what do the citizens want for Broadway, office commands higher rent than retail, rents will skyrocket, once a use is in place, it can't be removed, we need to look at the long term ramifications; have mixed feeling s, don't know how impacted the area is presently, there is plenty of parking in the afternoon, many restaurants are not open for lunch because there is not enough business, we need to look at the parking issue before a decision is made; concern with office rent, which is more expensive than retail, would like to find out what the market rate is for rent on Broadway compared to the office rent; may be good thing as a mixed use, what we have now is not working, tried different things and haven't found the right mix; mentioned in staff report that there is a signed petition, would like an opportunity to see it to have a better idea what the petitioners want; don't think anyone knows what Broadway needs, what is the vision, we are reacting instead of being proactive, is this a center for locals with special retail, what will work well, should it be more service oriented, we can't rush, we need to look at it carefully. The Commission identified the following issues which need to be analyzed in the environmental studies, based on the application as it now stands, with a request to add financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office use on the first floor as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 9 Area. SP Brooks noted that the applicant would be responsible to pay for the environmental studies requested by the Commission. • Parking, traffic and pedestrian flow, compare existing conditions to what is proposed; • Economic impact of the change; • Effect on City services and infrastructure with the intensification or diminished use of the area; • Environmental analysis of parking if 25% of the area were office uses and if 50% were office; • Analysis should compare to existing conditions as a baseline, existing floor area of the various uses in the area, compared to the proposed change; • Need to consider the effects of having convenient transportation as part of the traffic and parking analysis, some employers might like the location because employees can take the train, may be less of an impact on parking; and • Need a cumulative analysis of impacts of different categories of change, at level of 25% office, or 50% office, should do a matrix analysis, each use with different floor areas within these categories. Continued Commission discussion: See Broadway as a pedestrian environment, can be service and retail, some office uses may fit because they provide a service to the neighborhood, would have to be careful how the ordinance is crafted; need to look at a vision statement for Broadway, concerned with John Root's comments about windows closed off at the street level, need to take into consideration the fact that restaurants are closed for lunch, this could be addressed by the merchants; the city does not have a vision statement for the Broadway area, the initial study and subsequent environmental review for this request should look at effects of the change in uses on parking, traffic, pedestrian flow and circulation, economic impacts and the effect on services and infrastructure; the applicant should be aware that the Commission needs considerable information and that he would be responsible for the cost of preparing the specific studies that the City Planner determines would be necessary to prepare the environmental document. 7. 1340 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG HAGEY, KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RANDY LEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if staff could find out the heights of 1328 and 1329 Drake Avenue from the files. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Greg Hagey, 650 California Street, San Francisco, project architect, was available to answer questions, and noted that proposal is a modest addition, the owner’s intent is to maintain the character of the street frontage, and keeping existing roofline, located massing in the center of the house and pushed it back, tried to repeat the detail of the existing house in the addition. Commission noted that there are no covered porches on the house. Project architect noted that the front entry is existing with no cover, trying to retain the existing front as is, but there is a rear porch off the kitchen which does have a roof over because the door is set back. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: • Need a landscape plan, include larger evergreens to reduce the mass and retain the Burlingame nested look; • Include a tree protection plan with the landscape plan. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 10 Chair Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made. This motion was seconded by C. Visitica. Comment on motion: this is a great project; designed with thought about the living needs; design is sensitive to the existing style; the architecture looks great. 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 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg absent, C. Auran abstained). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. C. Auran returned to the dias. 8. 1428 & 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – a. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOT LINE; b. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE – DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING c. 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE – DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the Black Acacia are protected, thought they weren’t. SP Brooks clarified that the size is protected but not the species, so the City Arborist does not list them as protected. Commission asked for the number of existing bedrooms and the height of the existing house so that the Commission can compare the difference and intensification of the use. Tree no. 1, a Redwood, need to see an arborist’s report on the health and protection proposed for this tree. Commission noted that the floor area listed in staff report and plans do not match. SP Brooks explained that staff always calculates floor area and does not rely on the numbers shown on the plans and double checks when the FAR is close to the max. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. James Chu, project designer, and Bob and Cindy Gilson, property owners, were available to answer questions. Project designer noted that current house has four bedrooms, height of the existing house is over the maximum allowable and taller than the proposed houses; noted that the redwood tree is 4 feet from the proposed porch but the porch foundation will be a concrete slab without piers, piers and grade beam foundation is for the house which would be 10’ away from the tree; talked with neighbors and moved the driveway to the other side at their request. Neighbors are happy with the proposal because existing house has seven cars on the property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: 1428 Cabrillo Avenue • Landscape plan has no evergreen material on right side; • In the front of the house, the proposed vegetation under the existing oak tree is not compatible with the shade and moisture environment; • Need large scale plant materials as part of landscape plan; • Arborist report needs more information, need monitoring and protection information, should also include anything around garage footings; • Window over front entry needs more detail, make stronger; • Put the light at the entry inside of the entry hall, could add a smaller light on outside; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 11 • Second story plate is all at one height, need to break it up, bring plate height down in some places; • Large structure on normal size lot, reduce size, mass and footprint of the structure; • Under design review Commission looks at intensity of use and increase of size on the block, does not fit in with neighborhood, too big; • Deck on rear elevation looks like a wall, doesn’t flow, needs improvement to look more like a deck; • Project is to the limit on FAR, size of house is amplified; • Lot coverage is close to the maximum, very little yard, a lot of hardscape; • Need to look at whole package, two houses are replacing one; • Nice design overall but need to tone down, can be reduced without effecting design; • Needs better articulation; • Reduce plate heights and visual mass; • Tree report is inadequate and needs revision; and • Need to see substantial change to this project, reduce floor area by about 10% of what is proposed. 1432 Cabrillo Avenue: • Landscape plan has no evergreen for screening, stepping stones go nowhere; • Plants around redwoods are not compatible with the shade and moisture environment under the trees; • Star jasmine shown as 1 foot in height, but would be at least 2 feet tall; • Tree survey says slab within 10’ of tree, but plans show building within 4’ of the tree, explain; • Study window trim, need to enhance; • Look at window over front door; • Mass and bulk not an issue with this house by itself, but need to look at intensification of site and concern when putting two houses close to max together, can not support as a package; • Tree report is inadequate and needs revision; and • Reduce FAR by about 10% from what is proposed. Commission discussion: need to look at intensity of use and increase in size on the block under conditional use permit and design review process; need to look at the whole package; concerned with size of these homes and impact on the block; need to reduce each house by approximately 10%; need to design relative to the neighborhood; could be a candidate for design review; think this designer is talented and design review would be a waste of time, has experience to make changes, but need to make substantial changes to size of buildings when this project comes back. Chair Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. 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 5-1-1 (C. Keighran dissenting and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 9. 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 12 PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked for the heights of the houses at 1444 and 1453 Cabrillo Avenue. Plnr. Barber noted that we would check the files to see if that information is available and will provide it in the next staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer, was available to answer questions. Noted that existing house is 14’ tall, two bedrooms, one bathroom, proposed house will be 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms. Mark Shih, 1445 Cabrillo Avenue, noted that had spoken to owner, concerned with two clusters of trees in the rear yard behind current garage, roots are damaging fence and coming up in his yard, can’t grow grass, requests removal of trees. Staff noted that these trees would be removed as a part of this project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: • Provide height of two adjacent houses, 1444 and 1453 Cabrillo Avenue, know this is a sloping lot but concerned with the height; • Design is too vertical, need to reduce size; • Balcony at the front does not fit, would never be used; • Front elevation is nice design, nicely articulated, but detailing is lost on other elevations; • Side and rear are two story flat walls, need to break-up mass and bulk, detail the side walls; • Height is a concern, design has a tall and vertical feel, reduce size of the structure; • Need to reduce size significantly, suggested that FAR be reduced by 10% to approximately 3,100 SF; and • Landscape plan needs more evergreens, bring trees away from the house, to the front. Chair Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made; and return to action after the design review process is completed. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 10. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECT, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commission asked CA Anderson how this project can be analyzed when there are still changes proposed on the adjacent site 1537 Drake Avenue, CA Anderson stated that the 1537 Drake Avenue project is already approved, this proposal is a separate project, can request street rendering to analyze how project will fit in with approved project. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, Burlingame, was available to answer questions; and noted that they flipped the driveway to the other side to reduce traffic City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 13 at the end of the cul de sac, held mass away from neighboring properties. Mark and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, Bob Bear, 1510 Drake Avenue, Janice Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue, Janet Garcia, 1536 Drake Avenue, Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue and Chris McCrum 1540 Drake Avenue expressed the following concerns: need to change approach/dynamic, it is clear there is an inherent conflict, project maxes out FAR and give rise to issue of intensification when it is looked at with the project for three houses at 1537 Drake Avenue, social cost to residents –congestions, pollution of Mills Creek, damage to redwood trees, with no return, four lots constitute a subdivision, Planning Commission needs to look at how regulations apply to four houses, subdivision has significant compounding effect, need to apply new set of standards; look at reducing FAR 10% for two houses, 15% for three houses and 20% for four, parking is a major problem, there will be at least 3-4 cars per home, where will the cars park; in the comments from public works two criteria in their review which would require traffic and parking studies, when 1537 Drake Avenue was heard at City Council for the appeal hearing the Police Chief was asked about the traffic impacts and he said that their would be impacts, however CP Monroe stated that the parking requirement is met, but traffic and parking will be worse with four new homes, it will cripple the neighborhood; annoyed with this proposal, seems like games are being played, house has 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms and almost to the maximum on FAR, developer has no sense of community, need to look at whole picture, this should be considered a subdivision, need to look at the trees, no demolition permit has been issued because there are still unresolved issues with the trees at 1537 Drake Avenue, 20,000 SF of land, with four new houses where there were two, fifteen bathrooms where there were five, now can barely back out of driveway due to the angles on the this street, no turn around space at the end of the block, need a smaller home more consistent with the neighborhood; fourth house is too close to the maximum, too massive, request a supplemental review under CEQA for entire four house development, need a parking and traffic study; at appeal hearing before City Council for 1537 Drake Avenue, Council member proposed that the size of houses be reduced when you have multi-house development, Planning Commission at 11/25/02 meeting stated that Code Sections 26.25.030 and 25.285.090 gives a clear distinction between a subdivision and a single development, the more stringent requirements for subdivisions, should consider the four houses together, need to re-write ordinance; there has been no discussion with the neighbors on this project, project at 1340 Drake was a 50% increase and there were no complaints. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: • When did the current owner take title to this property in relation to the last hearing held for 1537 Drake Avenue; • How many bedrooms are there in the existing house; • Provide information on the size of adjacent properties, show footprint of two adjacent properties on site plan and provide rendering of the proposed houses (4) as well as three on each side of the new 4 houses; • Need to look a cumulative impacts of four houses not just this property; • Concern with doubling of the floor area; • Concerned with increase in traffic and sewer capacity due to four houses; • Added impact of all four houses, with 19 bedrooms it would be a significant environmental impact; • Layout of this block is unique, need to look at intensification of the block; • Applicant needs to address concerns and consider impacts; • Need update on the tree mitigation for 1537 Drake Avenue. Chair Bojués made a motion to continue this item until further information is provided, and project is looked at as complete package and size is reduced. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 14 Discussion on motion: cannot consider this application without information on 1537 Drake Avenue; need update on revisions to 1537 Drake Avenue and tree mitigations; need to see proposal in context of the street; bring back with detailed information as a complete package; CA Anderson stated that technically need to look at each project, staff and commission subcommittee are working on emerging lot ordinance, CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be considered, look at maximum build out, subdivision concept makes sense but not in legal sense because the subdivision already is existing. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0- 1-1 (C. Brownrigg absent and C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 11. 8 WINCHESTER PLACE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (GREGORY PROEFROCK, GLANCE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD V. UNSINN, PROPERTY OWNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Greg Proefrock, project designer, and Dick Unsinn, property owner, were present to answer questions. Project designer explained that this house was one of about ten cottages built on the Winchester Farm before the area was subdivided. Subject lot is substandard, built prior to existing regulations so there are non-conforming setbacks and lot coverage. Although the proposed variances would maintain the existing setback, the street frontage will remain unchanged. Family room was constructed without permits, there is no vapor barrier, it is too narrow, not a functional room. Trying to make better use of the space, slight increase in height, however the neighbors are okay with the project, only one neighbor can see the addition from their property; did a study of how the project could comply with all setbacks and there would only be narrow planting strips in the rear yard; the solid wall on back side of the addition is required for fire protection, it faces the parking lot of an apartment building, solid wall on north side faces a sewer easement; they area also correcting access to second floor room, previous owners put in metal spiral staircase, want to correct and make it safe. 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. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: hardship due to the unusual size and shape of the lot; and property backs up to apartment building. 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. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of October 6, 2003. - Sr. Planner Brooks reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 6, 2003. - FYI – Changes to approved Design Review at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue SP Brooks reviewed the proposed changes to the exterior of the house at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue. Commissioners stated that there were inconsistencies between the color rendering and the building City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 15 elevations submitted, specifically regarding the right side framing members shown on the rendering, would like this item brought back as an FYI item with the inconsistencies corrected and need more than one elevation, need all elevations correctly represented. Commissioner Osterling noted that at 1017 Balboa Avenue, a tree fell over due to the construction of a garage footing and fence on the neighbors property. He requested that in the future, any tree on an adjoining property that has a canopy which extends over the property line should be show on plans and should be addressed in the tree protection measures for the project. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary