Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.01.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 28, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the January 28, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 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 Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 14, 2002 meeting; Item #8; 1177 Airport Blvd; Page 11, paragraph 2; was corrected to read: “comment on the motion: support, commend work done and the spirit of cooperation between the hotel and park users, commend effort to improve one of the buildings in the city.” The minutes of the January 14, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were then approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Keighran asked that Item 3b. 19 Dwight Road be taken off of the consent calendar and placed on the regular action calendar. Commissioner Keele asked that item 3a. 2000 Davis Drive be taken off of the consent calendar and placed on the regular action calendar. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY, TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG, PROPERTY OWNER). CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that this application includes the tentative and final parcel map and the tentative map for the condominium proposed. Commission had the following questions and comments on the proposal: • Applicant needs to make stronger findings for the setback and number of building variances, question the findings, this is a flat lot with a regular shape, findings need to be based on hardship related to the property, no hardship on the site, building should be pushed back to meet the average setback on the side of the street requirement; • Need a more detailed landscape plan, more landscaping in the front and back, no palm trees, need to have plants in landscaping which have sufficient scale when grown to match the scale of the building; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 2 • The articulated elements on the building need to be deeper so they look more like elevation when built, now 18 inches to 2 feet, at towers, and no articulation on the sides, should add articulation on the sides, like the iron railings, wood trim and Spanish style, close to a reasonable design; • Wall shown on property line at the front, have a problem with the wall at the front of the project, not in keeping with the rest of the block, the wall is inappropriate, assume that the entry gates are electric remote operated , where are the controls for guests, won’t their cars extend over the sidewalk while they request entry, how will guests get into the building, how is this to be addressed, project has opportunity and proximity to Broadway should be more people friendly at front, remove wall and add lawn and open space along street; • Do not understand the parking, it looks like 20 on-site parking spaces not 24 (all units 2 bedroom, need 2 parking spaces each, 12 DU proposed) need the four guest parking spaces; in the two car garages, it looks like with the location of the columns that there is only 16 feet clear to get in and out, will the cars be able to make the maneuver; spaces b, e, h, k are one car, supposed to have 2 cars for 2 bedroom units, should look more closely at parking is it useable, there are door swings into required spaces; • Would like the project to have more open space, relocate guest parking to the front and increase landscaped area at the rear, perhaps because closer to transit can have fewer guest parking spaces and increase open space; • The private open space is not useable, project has four times as much driveway as open space, a private open space deck 13 inches wide is not useable and does not qualify for the private open space requirement, open space is limited on the site, common space site selected is not pleasant will be shady, should find a more useable space; • Calculations on unit size and building size do not add up correctly; • Should provide a count of the number of on street parking spaces at front of site with and without the project; • Number of units and density on the site is consistent with zoning and right for location, however, not pleased with the appearance of the project; • In the initial study checked box for potentially significant effect for impact on scenic vista, explain; • Should provide information on the height of the structures on either side of the proposed project; • How will guests enter the dwellings, though the garages? Is there another alternative; • Would ask how you could provide affordable housing, what tools are available; • Entry setback needs to be very friendly and to reduce the “motor court” sense.; • Concerned with height, mass, bulk, visual effect on the neighborhood, design lacks articulation, have not stepped in the façade over 12 inches, drawings make it look substantial but it is not, should reduce bulk and increase articulation though out; bridges connecting buildings should be resolved better, used to break the plane of the building, need something more visually substantial to support the bridges between the structures; • The way the building addresses the street could be studied, it is not going to read as being 2 to 3 feet lower, could raise it to address the sidewalk and street better, clarify the height limits, review line and maximum height allowed in the zone; • Foam detail looks heavy, massive sense to the building, should use a more traditional detail; and • Deliveries to this site are going to be a problem if need to be done double parked from the street, better to have access to one of the motor courts, how can this be done; motor courts can be done nicely with special pavers; do not understand the purpose of the connecting bridges, know they tie the buildings together but they only have a clearance of 8 feet, so they restrict use of the driveways for delivery trucks or taller cars, are they necessary. There were no other comments from the Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 3 This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the environmental document has been completed, the redesign work completed and the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 2. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING SIZE IN BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS, NEW CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, AND CHANGE TO ZONING ACTION EXPIRATON. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: how is “substantial taxable sales” defined for Graphic Arts and Design Businesses, and since this is to be located in a pedestrian oriented area shouldn’t the use title include the term “retail” since most graphic design businesses have no retail component; suggest add requirement to definition that 25% of the floor area be devoted to retail sales space. Concerned about review of large footprint buildings; for health and beauty spas, three people for an instruction group is not big enough to be an economic unit, should be 6 people maximum; text on limitation for size of first floor space on Broadway should be the same GSF of first floor as in Subarea A, Commission discussed whether the review line for size in Subareas A and B and on Broadway should be approved with a “sunset”. Conclusion was that development would occur slowly enough and the sunset be so long as a result, that it did not make sense to have a sunset requirement. There were no further comments on the proposed zoning regulation changes. Chairman Vistica noted that this item should be set for public hearing on the next available agenda when the Commission had time for the item. This item concluded at 7:40 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. All consent calendar items were moved to the Regular Action Calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3A. 2000 DAVIS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM AND SUSAN BOWEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Susan and Tom Bowen, property owners, were present. Commissioner stated that this item was moved off of the consent calendar to the regular action calendar to allow the owner to explain the variance request, does not understand the unique circumstances of this property that warrant a variance. Applicant stated that the house has a courtyard design which limits where they could add-on. Proposed porch adds character to the front. When you enter at the front, you have to walk through the courtyard to get to the front door, so that space is already being counted toward the total City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 4 floor area and lot coverage, but is not conditioned, usable space; one reason the lot coverage is so large. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted the clarification by the applicant about the existing configuration of the house and its improved relationship to the street and neighborhood with the added porch addressed the variances requested, so he 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 December 19, 2001, sheets 1-5 and 7, and date stamped January 23, 2002, sheet 6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist’s December 3, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the lot coverage variance shall apply only to the design approved by this application; if the design is amended or altered a design review amendment shall be required and the lot coverage variance shall be subject to review; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Vistica stated that he thought that it is easy to fix the variance by moving the wall back a few feet, this should be done. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-1(C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. 3B. 19 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (THOMPSON STUDIO ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VICTORIA SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. David Thompson, 435 Brannan Street, project architect and Victoria Smith, property owner, were available to answer any questions. Commissioner expresses concern with the existing garage. It is an integral part of the project since it is a good portion of the house at the front. When looking at neighborhood consistency, there are quite a few houses that have detached garages, but the design of the addition with concrete steps off of the kitchen in the side yard does not allow for the future possibility of having a detached garage. Garage, as is, is not with the neighborhood, would like to see it detached. This is a large lot. There is room for a detached garage. Property owner stated that she does not agree with Commissioners review of the neighborhood, some houses do have detached garages, but there are also many with attached garages with second stories over them. This is a modest addition being proposed, not a monster house. The kitchen porch already exists and would encroach into a driveway if there were a detached garage. Detaching the garage would also require the removal of three mature trees. Proposal is not touching the front of the house. The front of the house is modest with an existing front porch, will not be altered, the addition is only addressing the rear and interior wall configuration. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to deny the project because it does not fit into the neighborhood due to the garage placement, doesn’t blend in with existing house, it is an eyesore on the block, the design of the addition is fine. Chairman Vistica seconded the motion, and amended the motion to be denial without City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 5 prejudice, with direction to the applicant to remove the stairs off of the kitchen which would block future access to allow the garage to be detached in the future. Maker agreed to amendment. Commission discussion on the motion: Commission can’t predict future development of the site, the addition is fine, we are not voting on the garage-voting on the addition, can not support this motion; this is a little remodel, garage is not great, but the project is way under on FAR, down the road they could add more and detach the garage, many opportunities for this site, saving three matures trees is a significant issue Commission should look at; even if garage is not detached, it does not fit the design of the house as a whole, design review process for an addition is looking at the house as a whole; everything should blend, design can be made better. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny(wop). The motion failed on a 4-3 vote (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Osterling dissenting). C. Brownrigg made a new motion to approve the application, as is, 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 December 14, 2001 sheets A0.1 through A3.1 and sheets AB1 through AB3, with the 252 SF garden shed in the rear yard to be removed before final inspection; 2) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist and City Engineer’s memos dated December 17, 2000 shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers Keighran, Vistica dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 4. 17 CHANNING ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ATANACIO RODRIGUEZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT) (119 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Osterling asked where the landscape plan was, CP Monroe stated that the Commission could continue the item until a landscape plan is provided. CA Anderson stated that it would be appropriate to bring back on consent, just ask for what it is you would like to see on the plans. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Lincoln Lue, project architect, did the revisions the Commission asked for at the last meeting, didn’t know that a landscape plan was required, would like some guidance on the landscaping. Chris Cook, the neighbor at the rear, stated that the addition will have an impact on his privacy, the second story will look right into his master bedroom, design review criteria says that the addition should interface with adjacent properties, this project meets the code definition of new construction since it exceeds 50% of the total floor area existing, the house is already non-conforming with a 4’ rear setback, should be made to comply. Project architect stated that the addition does meet the required 20 foot rear setback and that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 6 owners do not want to look into the neighbors yard. Commissioner noted that component nine, in the residential design guidebook, address the need for landscaping to be part of the overall design process, should select a trees from the street tree list or hire a landscape architect to help, would like to see massive trees grown to nest the house; nice architecture but landscaping will improve it and help it blend as well as increase neighbor’s sense of privacy. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: design is nice, applicant addressed concerns, addition may look into the rear yard but it is only two windows, one is in a closet (window) and the other is a smaller window in the bedroom; the privacy issue is minimized. C. Keighran moved to continue this item and place it on the consent calendar when a landscape plan has been submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: trees could provide privacy for the neighbor, already some large trees on his site, zoning does not ensure privacy, the second floor addition is held back 20 feet as required by code, the windows on the second story are minimized. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continued the item to the consent calendar for the applicant to address the landscape issues. The motion passed on a 7-0. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.. 5. 840 NEWHALL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WIDTH FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JERRY DEAL, JD AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND GERMAINE ALFARO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 1.28.02,with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Robert and Germaine Alfaro, property owners, were available to answer questions. Commissioners asked if the house was shifted back; owners acknowledged that yes, the house has been shifted back 18”. Germaine Alfaro noted that they increased the tree size. Commission also noted that the tree species has changed to Liquid Amber, and suggested using root barrier to protect the driveway and house; house is shown in the wrong location on the landscape plan, does not match location shown on the site plan, seems that the front setback change from the original drawings with a large front setback variance was not carried over to the landscape plans, all drawings should be consistent. Rear yard is small because of the shed. Owners stated that they need the extra storage space proposed in the shed as well as the two parking spaces. Commission noted that the design is nice, good that front setback variance is eliminated, but concerned that moving the house back may infringe on the rear landscaping as shown on the landscape plan submitted. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to continue this item and place it on the consent calendar when a corrected landscape plan has been submitted. Commission clarified that the discrepancy between the landscape plan and the site plan was approximately 8 feet not 18”, plans were not changed from the very first proposal. Commission noted that when applicant comes back it would be acceptable to have 24 inch box size trees rather than 48 inch box size, which are much harder to handle. The applicant may want to look over the City’s street tree list in selecting species which will be big enough to screen the addition and will do well in Burlingame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 7 The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the consent calendar when the landscape plan has been made consistent with the site plan. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 8:51p.m. 6. 1520 LOS MONTES DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ED NEALE, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Stewart, project architect was present to answer any questions. Commission noted that previous comment was made regarding the mixed architectural styles on the house, asked the architect what changes were made to make the style of the house more consistent. Mr. Stewart stated that the design review consultant felt that with the deck removed, the style of the house was fine. Commission noted that there are a lot of trees in this area, but there is no landscape plan. Mr. Stewart pointed out that there is existing landscaping at the rear to screen the addition. Commission noted that window detailing was only shown on the front elevations, is the detailing proposed to be the same all around; thought the landscaping information on the plans was sparse. Mr. Stewart noted that a drafting error was made, and the window detailing would be consistent through out. There are no added trees at the front since the addition would not have a major impact on the front of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant has complied with the changes requested, nice addition, trees at the back are in scale with the addition, would be a good idea to add two trees to the front. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, including the conditions in the staff report and with a condition added that two trees, selected from the City’s street tree list, be planted in the front of the house. The conditions as amended were include in the motion: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2001, sheets A1 – A8 with no deck at the rear of the house, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building during construction or following this construction shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), decks, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Chief Building Official’s and City Engineer’s November 5, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5)that two24 inch box size trees, picked from the City’s list of approved street trees, shall be planted in the front yard of the house. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 8 Chairman Visitca moved to amend the motion to continue the item to allow story poles to be put up since this property is in the hillside area and they were not required before. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on amended motion: Commission discussed whether or not story poles should be required; should be requesting story poles at the study meeting, since there were no neighbors that complained about this project and the design has screening by the landscaping it is o.k. to process without story poles; looked at subject property without the story poles and other houses in the area, don’t think that story poles are necessary for this project; it appears to be an oversight that story poles were not requested; it is prudent in the future that story poles be put up for all projects in the hillside area; can not ask for them on some and not others, where do we draw the line. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the motion to continue this item to allow story poles to be put up. The motion failed on a 1-6 vote (Cers. Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling dissenting). Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the original motion to approve the application, by resolution, including the conditions in the staff report and with a condition added that two trees be planted in the front yard of the house. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. 7. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL WILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mike Wilson, 1533 California Drive, property owner, explained that he changed the leaded glass window in the bay at the front to keep it consist with the rest of the house and neighborhood, since there are no leaded glass windows in the immediate area. The kitchen window along the left elevation was removed as a result on an agreement with the neighbor. The elimination of the window also allows the stove to be put on that wall, which will make venting a lot easier; has had a lot of problems with flat roofs which is why the change has been made to the bay window framing. Commission asked if work was already done, applicant stated that it has already been done. Commission stated doing work and being stopped by the building department is becoming a frequent occurrence; projects that Commission approves are being changed in the field by applicants after approval knowing approval by the Commission is required; Conditions clearly state that before changes are made to a design, the Planning Commission must approved them; very frustrating for the Commission to deal with this; Commission discussed levying fines for this behavior; the area where the kitchen window was removed is now a large blank wall, should be filled with plants or bushes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, and an added condition that bushes/shrubs be planted along the left elevation where the kitchen window was eliminated in order to break up the blank wall: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 15, 2002, Sheets A.3, A.4 and A.5, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 9 shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist’s May 14, 2001 memos and the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s January 22, 2002 memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 5)that bushes/shrubs shall be planted along the left elevation to fill in the space where the kitchen window was removed. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve, with an added condition that a bushes/shrubs be planted along the left elevation where the kitchen window was removed to fill in the space. The motion passed on a unanimous 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 8. 2115 POPPY DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAY VIOLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Keighran noted that when driving by the site she noticed that construction crews were working at 8 or 9 at night, well after the permitted hours of construction, also noted that construction workers regularly park on dirt within the front setback area. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Lawrence Viola, property owner, stated that he has asked his contractor repeatedly to stop parking in the front setback, also will keep on him to stick to the City’s construction hours. CA Anderson noted that it is appropriate to call the police if there is a violation of the construction hours. Commission asked if owner could do front landscaping now rather than waiting until the project is finished, that way the house will look complete and will not appear as if it still under construction since most of the remaining work is now inside of the house. Commission clarified with owner that the side on which the deck is being added is not the side with the small setback. Commission discussed with staff the frequency of visits to the site from the Building Inspectors. Commission disturbed that work went beyond the scope that was approved. Dick Fuller, neighbor at 2210 Poppy Drive, noted exterior design and quality is good, concern that it gets completed, construction has been going on for two years, please don’t do anything to slow down this project, happy to see a lot of work going on every day now. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: changes are in keeping with the design of the project, neighbors not opposed to second floor deck but disturbed that this work went beyond that which was approved; usually do not support second floor decks. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 17, 2002, sheets A-1 through A-3 (proposed plans) which show revisions from the previously approved plans limited to a new 7’-5” x 7’-10” balcony on the second floor off the master bedroom and a new 3’ x 6’-8” door from the master bedroom to the deck; and the balcony rail design as shown on sheet A-3 (proposed plans) date stamped January 17, 2002; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 10 architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 30, 1998, memo and the Chief Building Official’s January 22, 2002, memo shall be met; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that all work on the property must be done in accordance with construction hours set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code 18.07.130, regulating hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 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; and 7) that no vehicles shall be parked within the front yard (between the house and the front property line) except in the driveway at anytime. Discussion on the motion: C. Keighran suggested adding two conditions; that the project comply with the City’s construction hours and that no cars be parked in the front yard beyond the driveway. The maker and the second accepted the amendment to the motion. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added conditions of approval regarding construction hours and vehicle parking in the front yard. The motion passed on a unanimous 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:38 p.m. 9. 401 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE K – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (DOJI LLAMAS, APPLICANT; MAURICE COHN, PROPERTY OWNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if staff considered changing condition #3 to limit the maximum number of people not just maximum number of employees. CA Anderson noted that Commission should recognize that limiting the maximum number of people on-site is very hard to enforce. Commission asked if the Fire Department has a limit maximum number of people; yes, more than parking requirements allow. Commission noted that mortgage brokerage do have clients that visit the site, and also noted that mortgage brokers are sometimes licensed to be real estate brokers as well. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Doji Llamas, 1616 Marco Polo Way, applicant was available to answer any questions. Commission noted that the office is quite small, asked applicant if he could live with condition #3, allowing only 3 people on-site. Mr. Llamas stated that right now would work, but would have to relocate down the road, would be able to work with limit of 3 employees but not 3 people. Usually 2 or 3 clients come together to the office and stay for one-half to one hour. Commission noted that that conditions for the same uses need to be consistent. Staff noted that concern with this type of use is that they typically have meetings on Monday mornings where all employees and contractors come to the site. Applicant stated they do not have contractors and they do not hold Monday morning meetings. Commission asked applicant how the business currently operates. The applicant explained that there are currently 2 full time employees and 1 part time employee. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with an amendment that condition #3 be limit the total number of employees or contractors to three, and the remaining following conditions: 1) that the real estate use shall be limited to 473 SF at 401 Primrose Road, Suite K, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 7, 2012, Exhibit A and Sheet 2; 2) that the real estate use shall have regular business hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week; 3) that the maximum number of employees or contractors to this business at any one time, including the business owner, in Suite City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 11 K shall be limited to 3 persons; 4) that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 6) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in 12 months, in January, 2003, and each two years thereafter, or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with an amendment to condition number 3, limiting the number of employees and contractors to this business on-site at any one time to three. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:57 p.m. 10. 330 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 512 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (WILLIAM GILMARTIN, APPLICANT; PRIMROSE PLAZA PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 1.28.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted there is a change to condition #2 changing the maximum number of people on-site for this business at any one time from 8 to 6. Commission and staff discussed the reason for limiting the number of people on-site. There would be a lot of people in a small space, exceeding the City’s parking requirement per square footage by quite a lot, and real estate uses usually have Monday morning meetings which creates a parking problem area when all the real estate businesses do this at the same time. CA Anderson noted that the application states there would be 9 people. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Bill Gilmartin, 400 Primrose Road, applicant, stated that a limit on the total number of people on-site would not allow for customers to come to the office since there are currently 6 employees there now; 1 part-time administrator, 1 full-time administrator, and 4 full-time realtors. Usually customers come to the site 2 or 3 at a time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: with a limit of 6 people a 1,700 SF site, is close to 1:300 SF; need to provide for customers, should change limit to 9 people; impact of employees is the main concern here, not customers; condition number one should be amended to acknowledge that customers will be visiting the site. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, including an amendment to condition #1 stating that customers will be visiting the site, and an amendment to conditions #2 stating that there will be a maximum of 6 employees on-site at any one time: 1) that the real estate use shall be limited to 1,700 SF in Suite #512 at 330 Primrose Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 29, 2001, Underground Garage and Fifth Floor Plan with a maximum of 6 employees (full-time and part-time) on site at any one time including the office manager and all employees and contractors, but not including customers that may visit the site to do business; 2) that the real estate office on this site may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends with a maximum of 6 employees on- site for this business at any one time;3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of full or part-time employees, or total number of people on site an any one time which exceeds the maximums as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 12 stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in January 2004, and each two years thereafter or immediately upon compliant. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on motion: title companies now have signing rooms so most of the clients do not come to the realtors office. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve, with the stated amendments to the conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PARKING IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PETER O’HARA, PACIFIC PROPERTY ASSET MGMT., APPLICANT; NEAL MARTIN, PLANNER/CONSULTANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description and the Staff identified potential environmental issues. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment to identify the environmental issues of the proposed project. Neal Martin, planning consultant, Peter O’Hara, property manager from Pacific Property Asset Management Company, were present. They explained the project, issues they are aware of and mitigation measures they are proposing, to address the protected California Red-Legged Frog which has been identified on-site. They explained that recently there was a trespass use of the property by a towing company, and they are gone now. They are also looking into correcting the drainage problem and hope to find and repair a 21” pipe that would be connected with the City pipe that daylights at the easement. They have been in contact with the neighbors at 1606/1610 and 1600 Rollins Road and hope to address their concerns with traffic. Commission questioned the fresh “caterpillar tracks” observed on the site. Mr. O’Hara stated that he was not aware of any heavy equipment on-site, but a fence that was put up by the trespass use, was recently removed and the tracks could have been made when the fence was removed. Commission asked why the parking spaces are not in tandem rows to allow more cars on-site. Mr. O’Hara stated that they are only providing the number of spaces required to satisfy the use. Commission asked the average length of stay for each vehicle. Mr. Martin stated that it is estimated that there would be 16 cars moved per day, and that each vehicle would have an average stay of 12 days. Commission asked if applicant was going to have multiple tenants, applicant stated that they are only going to have one tenant for the long term motel/hotel parking on-site, and have not yet selected a tenant. Tom Chakos, 1600 Rollins Road, and Joseph DiMaio, 1606/1610 Rollins Road, commented. Upset that they had not been contacted before the public notice of this meeting. There is a prescriptive access easement on both sides of the property at 1606/1610 Rollins Road. The parking spaces 5-10 that were approved in 1997 as a part of the conditional use permit on 1606/1610 were never usable, have been painted over. If spaces 5- 10 and 21-23 are enforced, then the loading dock access and circulation for the other businesses will not work. The exiting from this site to Rollins Road is dangerous, having more cars on the site will increase this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 13 problem. Drainage has been a problem for many years, plugs up the street in-front of 1600 Rollins. The creek at the back of 1616 Rollins Road used to have to be cleaned every 6 months by Munkdale, has not been maintained. Because of cross drainage, had to put sump pump on his property at 1600 Rollins Road and pump water back to the creek because both 1616 and 1606/1610 Rollins Road drain onto his property. What will happen when grade is raised 3” with fill/asphalt, major flooding? There were 2 gas tanks on his property (1600) that were recently removed and contamination was found. There are currently samples being tested from this area to determine if the plume is migrating toward the drainage channel, could be big problem. There was never an easement established as part of the 1997 project for 1606/1610 and 1616 Rollins Road, it was only a license agreement between the owners of 1616 Rollins Road and AMR (American Medical Response) the shared tenant. A lot of information is misrepresented regarding the drainage area. This proposal ignores existing business uses in the area, there are loading docks and circulation areas that need to be accessed. Issues for inclusion in the environmental review and/or project review identified by the Commission were: • Is there maneuverability within the parking layout for PG&E trucks to access and maintain towers in the drainage area; Is parking allowed at the base of the PG&E towers, or does it need to be setback, how close to the bottom of the towers should cars be allowed to park; check with PG& E for their comments; • How will the drainage area be addressed in the North End Specific Area Plan study, will its future use be addressed, how will present action on this application affect the SAP; • How did the present drainage issue come to the City’s attention, what is being done; • Is there presently erosion from the disturbed upland area in this portion of the drain into the channel; • Why does ambulance service need 126 parking spaces; • How many rooms at the El Rancho; are this number of spaces required to support their long term parking customer need; • Concerned with traffic, what is the number of trips anticipated for this use plus all the uses in this portion of the drain; • Does the traffic analysis include BART traffic impacts; • Why are only 4 drains with oil separators proposed for the new paved area, does this include the entire drain or just the northern end; how do oil separators work; who will be responsible for maintaining the oil separators and how will compliance be enforced; • Will grading the site insure that the flow of the drainage will go to the proposed inlets and into the channel, and insure water from Rollins Road will still go to the channel; • Paving the site would make the surface impervious when the area is a drainage swale, is there permeable material you could use to increase normal absorption in the drainage area (NPDES); • Would like additional information how the frogs use the ramp; • Would like more information about the wetlands, are there other areas on the site which have been identified as wetlands; • Applicant should study and include measures for improving the environment in this area. • How will raising the grade on the area in the drain area adjacent to the properties at 1600,1606/1610, 1616 affect the on site drainage and surface flow on these properties; • How will the proposed use of the drain area affect the truck access to 1606/1610 Rollins and their neighbor to the south who gains access to his loading dock across the rear of 1606/1610 Rollins Road; Will the project affect the access to and parking on the adjoining properties, if so how; • How many tenants will be provided for on the drainage easement and how will the areas used by the different tenants be distinguished; who will be responsible for seeing that the requirements of the City, State, and Federal governments are met by the users and that the conditions of approval City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 28, 2002 14 regarding the environment are met; There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. Staff was directed to address the identified issues in the Initial Study and environmental document. This item concluded at 11:23 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of January 23, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the City Council at their January 23, 2002, meeting. - Discussion of Special Meeting Dates and Subjects in February and March, 2002. - CP Monroe noted that the Commissioners should take the January 30, 2002, special meeting date off their calendars along with the February 20, 2002, date. The Commissioners agreed to set a special meeting to take public comment on the DEIR for the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue, on March 6, 2002, a Wednesday evening. Staff and Commission discussed the desirability of holding a special meeting in February to discuss process, procedures, and communications. The group decided on a Special meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, in City Hall. The increasing problem with inadequate landscape plans and designs which do not address the intent of the residential design guidelines in recent submittals was noted. Commissi on directed staff to be clear with applicants that one of the purposes of a landscape plan, as noted in the design guidelines was to insure vegetation in scale with the proposed structure (the size of the box the plant is in is less important). All projects, whether new houses or remodel, should include landscape plans which note the species and size of the mature trees. Staff should hand out the city’s street tree list to applicants because it documents species that are big enough to screen second story addition and that will do well in Burlingame. It should be pointed out that the size we are concerned with is the mature size of the tree, not the size of the plant when installed. An appropriate size tree for installed landscaping is 24 inch box. That is what we typically use for street trees. Applicants should think about the intent of the landscaping in terms of the design guidelines and streetscape and be prepared to address it with the commission at design review study. Plans should be to scale and structures placed in the proper locations at the same size as on the plans to be approved. C. Osterling offered to review the city’s handout for what should be included on landscape plans. Staff noted that they would follow up. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES1.28