Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.03.25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 25, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the March 25, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 23, Joint CC/PC meeting were approved as mailed. The minutes of the March 11, 2002, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were amended as follows: Item 3; 1204 Cabrillo Avenue, page 10, paragraph 5 line, 6 was amended to read; “A lot of these problems flow from the fact that the house was built to the maximum. of all the requirements to get the maximum sale price.” . The minutes were then approved. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1881 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A GYM USE (TONY LOTTICE AND PAUL FERRARI, APPLICANTS; TAMARA ICARDI DESIGNS, DESIGNER; SJ AMOROSO PROPERTIES CO., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: • Does applicant have any plans to install or improve outdoor lighting in the parking lot; • Are the other tenants on site aware of the proposed use, can they function without using the parking for this business; • Is the applicant proposing any security measures; • Is the building required to have fire sprinklers; • Will the parking spaces on this site be assigned (labeled) for each tenant; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 2 • Is it necessary that this use remain open until 11:00 p.m.; • The quality of the plans for the application should be improved; There are areas labeled "to be demolished" that are clearly not a part of this application; • An accurate landscape plan for the entire site should be included as part of the site plan and the variance could be eliminated; • There is no justification for the landscape variance; it may be possible to eliminate the proposed landscape variance by adding a few well-placed planter strips and making the existing parking more efficient. 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 7:15 p.m. 2. 1564 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE (TOWING) (HORACIO FREITAS, APPLICANT; HOWARD CHEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: • Applicant should supply a drainage plan for the site to indicate filters, indicating drains with filters for collecting oils and contaminants; • What are the NPDES requirements for this use on this property; • Applicant should provide scaled drawings of the parking plan, including the required striping for 22 code compliant spaces; • What was the nature of the neighbor complaint about this use; • The applicant's February 19, 2002, letter states that there will be no auto dismantling or repair done on site; will the applicant agree to have this as a condition of approval? • A site visit revealed that there is currently a boat and some scrap metal also stored at the proposed storage location; applicant should confirm in writing that the area will be cleaned and the only type of storage will before towed automobiles; and • The Fire Marshal's memo regarding marking required exiting from the building to the public street should be considered by the applicant when the parking plan is submitted. 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 7:22 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 3 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. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 3a; 232 Dwight Road was moved to the regular calendar. 3B. 1133 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS TO THE BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND STORY LEVELS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT (DAVE HOWELL, PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JIM AND KATHY WARD, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 3C. 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY AND MARY ANN NICHOLS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3D. 21 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar items 3b, 3c and 3d based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3A. 232 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BART GAUL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 3.25.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Bart Gaul, owner and applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that the proposed addition was modest and designed to meet the code requirements and fit into the neighborhood. Commission noted that the proposal was a good start, but improvements could be made to the design; windows are drawn with too many panes in varying patterns and details don't look like traditional wood stucco mold, although that is what is proposed; the chimney could be better integrated into the house, the roof and eave lines have not been resolved and could be refined; the project is a good candidate to be referred to t/he design review consultant. The owner responded that the intent is to have as many panes as are shown on the drawings. Commission noted that the addition is well under maximum FAR and at the design review study meeting most of the Commission members voted to place the item on the consent calendar; the applicant has made most of the requested revisions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 4 Rick Escobar, 229 Dwight Road, commented that many of the changes now being discussed by the commission were not mentioned during the study meeting. The applicant has designed a house he is happy with and that meets all of the code requirements, it is unfair to send him through furt her review with a consultant. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there are several minor improvements that could be made to the project to make it a better project. That is the purpose of design review. C. Keighran noted fine job, second story plate height is good, the first floor plan flows well and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 15, 2002 sheets A-1 through A-3, 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 basement, first or second floors, 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 Building Department shall not schedule a final inspection for the project until a 24-inch box size Saratoga, or similar scale species, is planted in the front yard to screen the addition to the house; 4) that the new windows and all the existing windows shall be replaced to be true divided lights with a traditional wood stucco mold; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist's February 4, 2002, memos shall be met; 6) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-2-0 (Cers. Bojués and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 4. 520 FRANCISCO DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM HALLENDORF, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 3.25.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Fred Strathdee, architect, and Tom Hallendorf, owner and applicant were present to answer questions. They noted that several alternatives had been considered to add relief to the flat wall, but that they were unsatisfactory because they eliminated portions of the backyard. The neighbors adjacent to the wall have no issue with the design. Commission asked: are the window dimensions in the garage on the floor plan or the elevation correct? Did the applicant consider switching the deck and the bath, or eliminating 1'-0" from the master bedroom and bath to break up the blank wall? The proposed decorative tiles are not dimensioned, what size will they be? The applicant responded that the tiles will be 8" x 8"; the balcony is facing west because there is better light and a view of a tree in that direction and the other direction looks out on an apartment building and 101; stepping the wall back alters the dimensions of the rooms and resulted in difficulties because it reduced the size of the backyard, involved City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 5 tearing into the existing house, and resulted in unusable interior areas. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have some concern about the flat appearance of the wall, but it faces an equally flat wall on the neighboring house, so the impact is minimal; when trees along the property line are full-grown they will help to break up the flat appearance of the wall; the design is the result of trying to orient the house and the yard away from Rollins Road to the freeway, which is very noisy; applicant has added some articulation with the decorative tiles and wrought iron; still concerned about the length and flat appearance of the wall and removing square footage from the master bedroom and bath at this point is an easy solution to the problem; addition still has a box-like appearance and further articulation is needed along the flat wall; the FAR is maxed out with the current design and removing a little floor area from the bedroom and bathroom to provide interest to the wall is a reasonable request. C. Keighran moved to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: should the project be referred to a consultant or back to the architect with the direction given? Maker of the motion noted that the suggestions for the flat wall were brought up during the design review study session and the changes were not made; believe referral to a consultant is appropriate. Disagree with this analysis; the wall in question is facing a similar wall or another house and will barely be visible; only a portion of the flat wall is visible above the fence and only for a distance of about 40'-0", which is minor. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 4-3-0 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, and Osterling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 5. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE #100 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (TERRY PEROZZI AND ALLAN BERNARDI, RE/MAX DOLPHIN REAL ESTATE, APPLICANTS; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (101 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 3.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted there was an amendment to the conditions and condition #5 should be removed. Commission asked of staff: is it normal for real estate uses to be open until 9:00 p.m.; when will the Fire Marshal review the plans? CP Monroe noted that the applicant could address the question about the hours of operation and that the Fire Marshal would review plans when they were submitted to the Building Department for tenant improvements, the occupancy of the site will be posted. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Allan Bernardi, applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that regular staff and business hours are from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., but that clients frequently requested after hour appointments and that there are security measures on site. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 2,397 SF in Suite 100 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 2002, Partial Ground Floor Plan City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 6 and Floor Plan for Suite 100, and that the Fire Marshall shall post the occupancy on the site and that should the posted occupancy limits be exceeded at any time this permit shall be reviewed; 2) that the real estate business shall have a maximum of 13 full-time and part-time agents and 2 full-time and one part-time employees (maximum of 8 on-site at any one time except for group meetings); the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents and employees for this business shall not be increased without an amendment to this permit; 3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week and that the applicant shall hold no more than 12 group meetings at this site each year; these meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; 4) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 5) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6. 1344 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR SIGN HEIGHT FOR A NEW WALL SIGN (ALAN FORD, C/O FLUORESCO, APPLICANT; CHANDLER SIGNS, DESIGNER; NAGHI HATAMI, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 3.25.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Ford, applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that the owners had found business was not as good as expected at the site and by adding the proposed sign, they hope to increase the visibility of the shop on Burlingame Avenue; architecturally, it is not desirable to put the signage at the allowable height because it covers the transom. In addition, the sign cannot be wired illumination if it is on the transom. For the record, although a nice architectural feature a permit has been issued to place the proposed sign at a lower lever; it has not been installed because of the rapid processing of this variance request. The applicant decided to wait to hear tonight’s decision. Commission asked the following questions of the applicant: was this the design of the original storefront, or was it altered by Lucky Jeans when they took over the space a year ago; why is an illuminated sign necessary; can the type of illumination be clarified; are you aware of any properties on the Avenue with such high signs and what type of signage they currently have; are there different ways to illuminate the sign rather than interior neon lighting? The applicant responded that he did not know if the storefront was original; illumination is necessary because during the heart of the shopping season, October, November and December, it gets dark outside early; there are several other properties on Burlingame Avenue with similar projective signs, including Left at Albuquerque's, Polo, and the luggage store; the letters on the sign are clear channel letters with neon in the body of the sign that shines through, there is no background illuminated; believes the design of the sign is to achieve a retro look to match other signs on the Avenue and to match the style of projection sign, only the work “Jeans” is lit on the existing projecting sign. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: signage, height and amount is appropriate and in keeping with what other merchants have, but feel illumination is not necessary; agree that the attractive transom should not be covered by a sign; see no justification for a variance on the site; a computer mock-up to show the lumens or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 7 brightness of the proposed neon sign would be helpful to evaluate the application; the sign would be more appropriate if the illuminated portions were not so large and included just the name and logo, not "America's favorite jeans" also. C. Bojués moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Discussion on the motion: if project is denied, the applicant cannot return with a similar project for one year; denial without prejudice would allow applicant to make revisions to the current application based on the commission's comments and return as an action item. C. Bojués amended the motion to deny to project without prejudice. C. Keele agreed to the amended motion. Discussion on the motion: the following direction was given to the applicant to consider in revising the application: • Do not cover the transom, nice architectural feature, signage inside from the street (pedestrian level) would be more tasteful; • Provide a mock up if illumination is proposed; • Reduce the size of the sign; reduce the size of the illuminated letters; • The size and height of current application acceptable, but the illumination is not; • Could reduce sign size by removing advertisement and just have store name; • Address the questions on the variance form, provide justification for the proposal hardship of this property not clear; Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the sign variance request without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:53 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY (ST. CATHERINE OF SIENNA CHURCH, APPLICANT; KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNER) (125 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Maritza Delgadillo, architect, Father Al Vucinovich, pastor represented the project. Noted that the project had not changed from the scoping meeting; have done additional study of the intersections, they will have a service level of LOS B after the project is built; Father Vucinovich indicates that overlapping large events occur about 5 times a year, the school has no sporting City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 8 events on the site; there are about 35 weddings a year at the church, they all occur on the week-ends; have discussed the pick up-drop off proposal with the Police Department as commission suggested, the police are pleased with the change, see it as an improvement, would like to see it work and the school to be flexible to consider improvements; they looked at a connection with the city lot and feel that it raises security and legal issues which would not make it work. Discussed with commissioners: reports indicate that only 12-14% of the children are picked up by cars on site, how are the other children picked up? Some walk, some are picked up elsewhere, some stay in the after school program. What happens when there is a funeral during the week? There is no parking on site while school is in session; if it is a very large event would make special provisions with the school and people could park on the site. Will staff parking be left after the pick-up-drop-off is redesigned? Yes, four spaces on the Park Road side of the rolling gate. Why is this not a two story building, could still be wood frame, would encroach less on parking/playground area, would have a smaller footprint? Evaluated a two story building, had a greater cost and did not save that many parking spaces, office space provided was less accessible, lost the benefit of first floor offices presence. Was the cost to the city considered in terms of parking demand/in lieu fees? Did look at putting part of addition as a second story over the sacristy, would add staircase, raised structural issues, impacted stain glass windows, in end tried not to tie into the church in anyway. Did you look at creating a better entry gate and adding some landscaping? Will trees be removed with the two driveways on Primrose? No. The portion of the site around the rectory garage seems to be poorly used now, can it be used? The garage is used by the priests for off-street parking. The church does not have a parish hall now, it uses the school facilities, to have a parish hall and offices together, near the church will improve the function. Did you look at putting the parish hall elsewhere on the site? The proposed hall barely meets minimum parish hall standards at this location and there is no other place for the structure; church owned more land which is now the public parking lot, at the city’s request they sold it; finances are an issue here, the parish must fund the cost of this construction. How is parking provided for attendees at mass during the week? Have a daily masses at 7 a.m. and noon, have 60 to 70 attend, many walk and parking has never seemed to be a problem, they cannot park on site for these day time events. After school pick up seems to be a bigger problem, will two lanes increase capacity enough? Principal’s experience is that it will take parents 6 weeks to implement any plan, then it will be fine. Has the new drop off plan been discussed with the owners/tenants of the apartment building? Had a meeting, invited, 2 came they did not object; have asked if they ever want to sell, could church have first right of refusal. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Osterling noted that there were a number of items to be addressed and moved that the application be sent to a design reviewer to resolve the issues identified before commission action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commissioners discussion identified the following items to be addressed: • Would like a comparison of congregation size, facilities and on site parking available at OLA and St. Dunston’s. • Where will the 10 staff members displaced by the playground park, what provisions can be made? • Landscape plan, with attention to the entry gate, should be included in submittal. • Provide a written response on your thinking about how you arrived at the best solution regarding the single story vs. the two story structure, can base on the conceptual studies previously done. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2002 9 • Will traffic back up on Park Road before and after school when children are being delivered/picked up? • Does parking study need to be updated, observation is not confirmed by numbers shown in report; may be parking at 7:30 a.m. but not at 9:00 a.m. • Will mullions in the windows match those in the existing buildings? Plans should show window pattern. • How did the city obtain the church land now used for public parking? • Need verification of some information concerning parking, week-end use of parish hall and weddings. • Design reviewer should look to see if there is a way to alleviate difficult parking. • Design of church should consider community interest, based on the impact of the project on parking. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a roll call vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of March 18, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related items from the March 18, 2002, City Council meeting. C. Auran noted that a building permit had been issued at 1109 Bernal for an interior remodel and window replacement. Because none of the requirements for design review were triggered this applicant is not required to have consistent windows through out the building. The replaced windows in this case are vinyl without stucco mold while the first floor windows, not being replaced are true divided lights with stucco mold. The resulting house will not be consistent with the neighborhood, in fact will detract from it. Should there be design review of window replacements? Chairman Vistica noted that this item should be placed on the agenda at the next Design Review Subcommittee meeting. C. Osterling asked if there was a way to discuss street tree replacement with the City Arborist, and perhaps limit choice of tree where there was a significant pattern or scale established by existing trees. CP noted that she would pass this concern on to the city arborist. - FYI – Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1219 Vancouver Avenue Commissioners acknowledged receiving this item and felt that the changes were minimal and consistent with the design previously approved. - FYI – Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1322 Carlos Avenue Commissioners acknowledged receiving this request and noted that the changes proposed were minor and consistent with the design previously approved. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES3.25 S:\MINUTES\PROTECTE\2002\minutes3.25.doc