Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.04.08 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 8, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the April 8, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed were approved as mailed by a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Chairman Vistica noted several changes to the Minutes of the Special meeting of March 6, 2002, those minutes were amended to read: “p. 3; GENERAL, bullet 5… like to point out that commission has been voicing concerns about this project for several years and has been ignored, all this concern has been voiced by the community but the DEIR does not find any significant impacts, it makes the project seem like a benign little project, needs to be revisited; P. 4; AESTHETICS, COMPATABILITY, MASS AND SITING, bullet 9… the initial study in the back of the Draft EIR noted that aesthetics was considered potentially significant, but this is not mentioned elsewhere, please clarify; and p. 5; WEB BASED DELIVERIES, bullet 1… the EIR has no reference to the proposal for web-based home deliveries, needs to be articulated in the report there would be less pedestrian shopping, more small trucks, higher trip volume and more large truck deliveries; would like to see a complete analysis of the project which includes the Web Based Delivery Business Plan projected volumes.”. No other changes were proposed . Chairman Vistica moved the approve the March 6 minutes as amended; C. Osterling seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the public. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 920 MORRELL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS TO ALTER AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 2 (RAY BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: • When was the driveway removed/abandoned? why was the driveway removed? • Was the driveway removed by the current or a previous owner? • When was the fence built? • Plans should clearly document the number of bedrooms in the house; • Where do the fence height requirements change on this property? Provide diagram on site plan; • Applicant should provide other examples of garage doors at property line in Burlingame; • Noticed several 130-watt light bulbs on the fence posts, light from these bulbs extends past the property line and violates the residential illumination ordinance, needs to be corrected; • Applicant has not identified a hardship, need to look at hardship finding more seriously; • Not normally grant variances when there are other solutions, could replace the driveway, build new code compliant garage with access off Linden Avenue, or add curb cut at north end of property with a driveway to the back of the garage, there are many solutions which will not need a variance; • Existing site plan indicates that there is an existing shed attached to the rear of the garage, it appears that on the proposed site plan the shed is being incorporated into the garage, please clarify; • Please clarify if window in the walk-in closet in being increased in size; and • On Adeline Drive there are numerous examples of garages immediately off the sidewalk, like landscaping and open space in the front yard, provides a direct access and reduces paving; 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 7:20 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. There were no items for review on the Consent Calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1415 BENITO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PETER AND SHIRLEY CHIANG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 04.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 3 Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Johnny DaRosa, DaRosa & Associates, designer, and Peter Chiang, were present to answer questions, noted that this is a completely new design. Commission noted a concern with the 11’ x 12’ second floor deck off the master bedroom, concerned about privacy and view into other yards, asked the designer if he would consider reducing the size of the deck, typically see a six foot deep deck, would have to cut deck in half; designer noted that the deck could be reduced; Commission noted that vinyl double-glazed windows will be used and asked if they will have divided lights? Designer noted that the windows will be custom made to match the existing style; Commission noted that this project has come a long way and asked the designer how did the design review process work? Designer noted that the process worked very well, has worked with all of the consultants on different projects, each consultant has their own preference, provide solutions of benefit to the property owner. Randy Vandenbrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue, noted that he would like to see a condition added that the basement height be measured before a building permit is issued, tree at the rear of the property is in poor condition, has vines growing on it and appears to be dying, City Arborist inspected the tree, would like to see a condition added that an arborist report be provided to protect the existing tree during construction, if the tree is ever taken out will be able to see the deck, wrought iron railing is out of character, prefer to see solid wall of stucco to prevent seeing anything stored on deck, this is a better project, not overwhelming one way or the other, built to maximum regulations; Commission noted that the wrought iron railing is consist around the house, solid stucco railing will make the house look massive, hedges would screen the deck; neighbor noted he would rather see a solid wall than materials stored on deck. Designer noted that the trees in the rear yard will not be removed, will maintain for privacy, trees screen deck from neighbor, used wrought iron railing to reduce the mass and bulk, could do a combination of stucco wall and iron railing on the deck. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the designer has done a nice job and 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 March 12, 2002, sheets 1 - 6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, replacing the decorative iron with stucco 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 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;5) that the large existing tree at the rear of the site shall be inspected and an arborist report provided which indicates ways to protect the large existing tree during construction; the inspection shall be completed and arborist report submitted and approved by the city arborist before a building permit is issued;6. that the basement ceiling height shall be less than 6’-0” in height and shall be measured and confirmed by a building inspector at time of a foundation inspection, should the ceiling height be greater than 6’-0” the floor shall be raised by a permanent method approved by the Building Official before the next inspection is scheduled for the project; 7) that the second floor deck at the rear of the house shall extend a maximum of 6’-0” from the second floor wall and shall have a wrought iron railing which matches the iron railings on the rest of the house; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 4 Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: would it make sense to require replacement of the large tree at the rear if it is in poor condition if its life is limited; no. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 3. 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, 04.08.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the this project is two square feet below the maximum allowed floor area ratio, can a condition be added that the FAR be double-checked? CP noted that a condition could be added requiring a survey of the building corners before a foundation inspection and the inspection would not be scheduled until the elevations of the foundation installed match those shown on the approved plans. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Tom Hallendorf, applicant and Fred Strathdee, architect, were present to answer questions, thanked the project planner and design review consultant for processing this project, project was previously reviewed as an action item, now back again, accepted all of the design reviewer’s comments, consultant visited the site, presented four design concepts to the consultant, narrowed it down to one design, met the six criteria of design guidelines, especially #6 regarding maintaining the character of the existing house, time is of the essence, does not want the house exposed during the rainy season, added a window to the existing bedroom, brought more detail and light to this side of the house. Architect considered moving the addition over by one to two feet, but prefer to have more open space on the other side of the house. Commission asked if applicant will be the contractor for this job and how long has he lived in this house; applicant noted that he will be the contractor, he just bought the house and plans on living here. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted that this project has come a long way, the north wall has been broken up nicely, and that the applicant has addressed the Commission’s concerns, and 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 April 1, 2002, Sheets 1 through 3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 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 approval; 3) that the corners of the house shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor and shall be approved by the City Engineer before a foundation inspection scheduled; 4) 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; 5) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist and City Engineer’s February 25, 2002 memo shall be met; 6) that the project shall meet all the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 5 requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 7) that the applicant shall contact the city and arrange and pay for planting. The tree shall be a 15-gallon street tree in the planter strip at the front of the subject property; the tree shall be selected from the City of Burlingame, Parks Division, Official Street Tree List and shall be consistent in size and growing pattern with the existing species of trees on that block. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: applicant is an engineer and understands tolerances, feels that the applicant will build according to the plans; spoke with the design review consultant regarding the lack of articulation on the north wall, consultant felt that the addition was in keeping with the original design and the existing house next door, felt that the applicant satisfied concerns, would like to add a condition that the corners of the house be surveyed before foundation inspection to confirm compliance with the approved plan. Maker of the motion second agreed. Further comment: not in favor of the project, mass and articulation has not been addressed on 75’ long wall it is not in keeping with the style of the house, chimney at the rear is straight and rectangular, not consistent with the chimney detail at the front, original house has recessed windows, looks like a box added to the house. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojués and Vistica dissenting, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 4. 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) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. Variances and Condominium Permit b. Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Merger and Tentative Condominium Map Reference staff report, 04.08.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: this site is close to the Broadway commercial area and on a narrow, one-way street, where will the people working on the construction park. CE Murtuza noted for bigger projects a construction staging plan including worker parking is required, can make this a condition of this project. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect represented the project. He noted that in response to previous review they eliminated the wall which enclosed the front yard and the gates at the driveway, removed the bridges and replaced them with archways. The apartment buildings on the rest of the street take up most of their lots, the archways increase the uniform look which is similar to the rest of the street. The entrance has been enhanced with corbels to add detail. Regarding the front setback variance, the existing average without the three houses on this site is 15’-2”, they are asking for a 15’-6” setback. Commission felt that the common open space was too shady so took out some of the existing trees and replaced with shrubs to increase light access. Parking meets city code requirements, removal of one existing driveway will increase the number available on the street; when completed there will be 6 to7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 6 parking spaces on the street at the site. Building is one-quarter of a mile from the railroad station so perhaps not as much parking is needed. Commissioners asked: In previous review raised the issue of affordable housing, ha ve not addressed it. Applicant noted they received information from staff but the city does not have a specific requirement for affordable units now and feel that they could not proceed at this time to provide affordable units without a city requirement; the project is increasing the number of dwelling units in the city which will help the overall price. Commissioner noted that because there was no law did not mean that providing affordable housing was bad policy, should address. What is the front setback of the apartment next door? 15’-1”. Did you consider additional guest parking since on-street parking in this area is almost always full; the towers are quite tall, is it possible to lower them. Applicant noted could add more parking only if reduced landscaping or removed a unit. What about removing a unit? Owner was concerned about the economics of the project, number of city parking lots within a half block in two directions, these lots are not full so provide lots of parking opportunity. Applicant noted that the tower could be lowered some, would be reluctant to make it flush with the other roof line because it provides articulation in the elevation. Purpose of the outdoor common area is to be useable to residents, what you have provided is what is left over after you sited the maximum building size, lot coverage is maximum, units are large, building is nicely ornamented, height is right at maximum 35 feet, after lowered on site 2 ½ feet. Tower space is not useable, could make it lower so not dominate ridge line and then you could raise the building so the entrances are at natural grade which is more in keeping with the neighborhood. Where will all the meters go and the backflow? Applicant noted: felt that the common open space was at the best location , west side, rear; felt that passive area would provide future users more flexible use; could lower the tower and raise building out of the ground would alter the entire appearance of exterior; lot is zoned for medium density 12-30 units to the acre, project is on the lower end, reducing the density (remove unit) is contrary to zoning; did not want underground parking, there is none in this neighborhood. Should look at connecting drain directly to storm drain in street. The plant code shown on the landscape plan does not correspond to what is called out, please check and be sure all match, especially the larger trees, might show Linden street trees on front elevation. Need vertical element but also need to split entrance so it is level with grade, it is move inviting. Members of the Public: Rudolph Horak, Burlingame Hills; Sandra L’Heureux, 1113-1115 Paloma: want to stay in the area and live near Broadway, units in new condominium on Capuchino are too small 1000 to 1100 SF, these units are a good size for two people 1500 to 2000 SF, 5 public lots within ½ block – 150 parking spaces, often underused; unreasonable to request affordable unit when only 12 units in complex, these will be affordable at $500,000 to $600,000; will there be an electric al meter for each unit; 9 foot ceilings are very attractive. There are 24 properties from Broadway on this part of Paloma, almost all developed with multiple units, concerned with traffic, adding more units will compound the problem, can’t park on week-ends. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: there is an utility easement behind this property, can it be used for additional parking? CE noted these areas are hard to access, full of utilities, must be accessible at all times, do not use even in public parking lots. There are a number of issues which the architect needs time to work on, needs to come back with a revised design; would like to see parking plan during construction, how will materials be delivered, location of tradesman parking; residents and business noticed in advance for demolition; project does not need a front setback variance; concerned with parking, stepped down design has effect of lifting the building, needs more common area; variance means a hardship on the property, with a new structure where is the hardship, if going to give an exception need something in return, affordable housing. C. Auran moved to deny this application without prejudice. Seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 7 Comment on the motion: would you consider continuing this item to give the applicant a chance to respond? Maker and second agreed to amend the motion to a continue the item. Additional comments: sensible to have parking below the grade, lowers the mass; building needs to read as if it is at street level, parking a little lower is OK; moderate income housing is $400,000 staff noted this varies by county. CA noted that owner does not need to sell the affordable unit it could be a permanent rental managed by an outside agency. Concerned about the towers, prefer to lift the building to grade, would like more open space, if accommodate front setback eliminate variance existing open space is OKay. Mass and bulk is an issue, if address could support application for a variance since setback is similar to existing on block, raising the building would make it a part of the street pattern. Add street trees to the elevation. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this time to the item when revisions have been submitted and reviewed by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) voice vote. The continuance applies to the Tentative Map application as well. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 5. 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, 04.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Staff noted that this was a resubmittal and no changes had been made to the project. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Ford, 1290 Waterfall Way, Concord and Doug Hallen, Chandler Sign Company representing the applicant owner of Lucky Brand Jeans store presented the project. Have not installed the sign on the transom, it is difficult to illuminate but not impossible; that sign is the same as the one proposing on the wall 2’-4” higher; prefer the sign higher on the building it will look better and it will be easier to illuminate; the visibility of the store is poor with the present sign, critical to add a sign to the front of the store someplace; brought a letter “L” which is the largest on the sign, open neon, for commission to see, plugged it in . Can put a Plexiglas cover over open neon to diffuse light, reduce brightness; can also ask client about removing sub-copy; the clover is outlined in open neon tubing; purpose is to distinguish the store. Commission asked how bright is this sign compared to others on the Avenue. Applicant said he did not measure, lots of different signs on Avenue, could cover face so not see neon, would reduce intensity 50-60%. Consider reducing sign size? Could eliminate trademark, smaller letters are only 4 to 5 inches now. Applicant felt principal issue was height, surprised about questions about design. Has applicant thought about removing the blade sign and putting up this wall sign? Most of the stores have both kinds, the problem is the design of this store front, useable fascia is over 12 feet, hardship is the design of the building, across street don’t know where the store is without wall sign. Alternative illumination? Could do a neon halo, not want to place on transom covers and costs more to install. Not all the letters on the blade sign are illuminated. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: do not see the hardship for a variance, applicant wants an illuminated billboard, have a good sign with store name clearly visible; have lucky on the windows, will see a big neon sign a long distance; if grant this variance other merchants will want the same consideration. Could accept with proper City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 8 diffusion of light, if applicant can confirm what it would look like, can continue item and have him answer concerns expressed. Commission issues: • Illumination- already have two lit signs, why would more not harm the Avenue, too bright for the Avenue. • Size can be reduced or other sign removed document window signs. • If sign is placed above transom should be because others are have signage above 12 feet. • Can reduce sign and have no illumination • Would like to see the actual brightness of the sign, can that be arranged some how? Could put fabric or paper sign to scale on the wall for a short time as a mock up. Some one made an error in using so much of the square footage allowed over 12’ in the blade sign, that is not justification for a variance, do not see hardship, place a sign above the transom but reduce the blade sign size. C. Brownrigg moved to continue this application to give the applicant an opportunity to provide more information and respond to commission’s concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item so the applicant can respond to commission’s concerns. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 6. 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) (19 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 04.08.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if building was built before the 60% front setback landscaping was required; yes. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Tony Lottice, applicant and Josh Amoroso, property owner, were present to answer questions, noted that he tried to address the Commission’s concerns. Commission asked the applicant to provide a landscape plan, plan does not show irrigation or species of plants and trees, hard to tell what is being proposed; Planner Hurin noted that staff directed the applicant to generally show the landscape areas and trees; property owner noted that a landscape company currently maintains the site landscaping; Commission noted that a landscape variance is difficult to grant and is opposed to it, asked if additional trees could be planted at the front, some paving could be removed to add some trees. Applicant noted that he did not want to take away parking spaces or affect on-site truck maneuvering by adding landscaping, also needs parking spaces when space in middle building is leased; Commission suggested that large trees or shrubs be planted instead of a lawn at the front, the use is appropriate for this site but would like to see additional landscaping. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that because of the layout of buildings on this site and the limitations it creates, moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 9 built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 29, 2002, site plan and floor plan; 2) that the gym shall operate as indicated in the application dated stamped March 13, 2002, with hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week, and no more than 4 employees; the gym shall be used for basketball only, any change to the operation of the business, including expanding hours of operations or services offered shall be brought to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval; 3) that 1,772 SF of landscaping in the front setback area and 12,688 SF of total on-site landscaping shall be property maintained and irrigated; 4) that two 24-inch box size large scale trees, selected from the City’s Official Tree List, shall be planted within the front setback area; 5) that the landscape variance shall become void if there is any expansion to the existing of the buildings on site or if any of the buildings are removed; 6) that the conditions of Chief Building Official’s February 26, 2002 memo shall be met; 7) that there shall be no more than 30 people (including staff and parents) on-site at any one time; 8) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain daily, more often if necessary, trash receptacles on-site which will be placed by the door in front of the gym; 9) that all existing and proposed landscape areas will be irrigated regularly and will require ongoing maintenance including weed control and replacement of plant materials as necessary to maintain the landscape design; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: two trees to be planted in the front setback should be 24-inch box size of a larger scale to fill in the space, trees should be selected from the City’s official tree list, feel that more landscaping should be added so that a variance is not required, could remove some asphalt and add trees, currently working on specific area plan for this area, landscape variance will affect what is trying to be accomplished by the specific area plan; landscaping could be added to a triangular area adjacent to space #80, but in many cases there is a shortage of parking, will need parking spaces if another use is added in vacant building, reluctant to remove parking for trees, there is not enough area to add enough landscaping to offset the variance, would like to see the variance eliminated, could add a planter bed in front of spaces #80-85 and next to space #79; need to consult with Bekins before adding trees, would not want to plant trees and then have them run over by trucks, could be a problem; should consider irrigation, will be difficult to irrigate small isolated landscape areas, this is a pre-existing condition, not opposed to variance. CP noted that a condition could be added that the variance is void if the buildings are demolished; this is a good idea, landscape variance will become void if there is any expansion to the envelope or removal of any building. The maker and second of the motion agreed adding these conditions. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 330 CLARENDON ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JERRY AND JORDANA PEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, and Jerry and Jordan Peil, property owners, were present to answer questions; architect noted that this is a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 10 straight forward addition with no variances; property owner noted he talked to neighbors about the proposed addition before hiring an architect, provided a petition signed by the neighbors in support; Commissioner suggested that the washer and dryer be moved from the garage to the house, owners agreed with the suggestion; architect noted that all windows will match and will use traditional wood stucco mold trim and wood windows as shown on the plans. David Jonson, 336 Clarendon Road, noted that he objects to the project, has a small house and small rear yard, second story will look into his yard, bedroom and kitchen, concerned with loss of privacy, will devalue his property, does not object to a second story addition if it was built within the existing footprint, understands their need to accommodate a growing family but can be done without invading his privacy, concerned about windows on the second floor, will look into his bedroom. Jim Steiner, 326 Clarendon Road, and John Parkin, 333 Dwight Road, spoke in favor of the project, noted that the owners spoke to him about the addition, design is tasteful, architect has worked on many other houses in the neighborhood, likes the design since it will help to reduce wind and noise, will increase property value, large trees at rear yard will screen the addition, project is not overdone. Property owner noted that landscaping will be added to help screen the addition and add privacy, has existing windows on the left side already facing the neighbor, have happily co-existed for several years. The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and noted on the plans: • Move the dryer/washer from the garage to the inside of the house, will eliminate the nonconforming width dimension in the garage; • Add a window in the second floor master bathroom on the left side elevation to eliminate the blank wall, consider using obscure glass; and • Should strengthen landscaping by adding larger size shrubs or trees on each side of the house, will help to screen the addition and provide privacy. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded C. Auran. Comment on motion: this is a good example, in regards to privacy this is not a hillside area construction permit and therefore no views are affected, Burlingame lots are small, all neighbors have to deal with privacy by using blinds, curtains, shutters, etc., design is appropriate, property owner has a right to build a second story addition if it is in scale, suggested that this project be placed on the consent calendar. The maker and second of the motion agreed to place this item on the consent calendar. Comment on the motion: might consider swapping the master bedroom and study room to reduce the impact on the neighbor, addition at this location has the least impact, privacy is not in the Commission’s purview, but appropriate landscaping will be effective. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 11 Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 8. 1540 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EARL GUSTAFSON, PROPERTY OWNER (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, and Earl Gustafson, property owner, were present to answer questions, noted that the property owner talked to the neighbors regarding the addition, submitted a petition signed by neighbors in support of the project. The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and noted on the plans: • Concerned with left side elevation, suggested that the applicant consider adding more than a belly band for articulation along this side; • Only one bay window on the left side elevation breaks up the structure horizontally, architect should study the left side elevation more; and • Suggest planting trees in smaller containers, they will grow faster. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the architect has done a nice job with the design and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:31 p.m. 9. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT FOR TWO HOUSES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ONE HOUSE TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH DETACHED GARAGES (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked: the environmental review should address events during construction; can staff get information on the existing setbacks, square footage etc. of the development on the site now; the arborist should address the rooting in the driveway for the middle house proposed, this should be evaluated and necessary mitigation proposed. There were no other questions from the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 12 Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Michael Kendal and James Chu architect, and Otto Miller, property owner, represented the project. They presented a rendering of the project, as built, briefly reviewed the findings of the arborist’s report, noting that they had worked around the redwood trees and still developed a house within the city’s guidelines. They noted the large number of new trees they were proposing to add to each lot. The existing house is 4500 SF with a number of support structures, it will be replaced by three houses within the style of Burlingame. Between December 4 and January 4, 2002, they contacted all the neighbors, they will address all the environmental issues; the encroachments of the proposed houses are caused by the design, they are eliminating two on street parking spaces and adding two driveways. Commissioners asked the applicant: how long do you anticipate construction taking? About 6 to 9 months, all three houses will be built at one time; anticipate parking problem and neighborhood impact so going to do all construction at one time, can do some staging on site after rough grading, also park in front yards during construction. Need to address sewer and water problems on Drake. CE noted that there have been some recent improvements made and the city will need to do long term maintenance, can address in the environmental document. Chairman Vistica asked the public to comment: Liz Valardi, 1540 Drake; Natalie Taylor, 1566 Drake; Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake; Jenna O’Neil, 1516 Drake; Margaret Whipler, 1535 Drake; Jay Garcia, 1561 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake spoke. Problem is the addition of three houses in place of one existing at the narrow end of the street, will increase traffic, cars will not be parked in the garages, live across street have enjoyed the openness of the three lots with only one house, now have to endure 9 months of port-a- potties on the front lawn, with three postage stamp front yard across the street in the end. This is a dead end street, not a cul-de-sac, there is no bulb at the end for turning; need to listen to neighbors concerns; concerned about public health, the sewer on Drake over flows regularly into the storm drain which flows into the creek; city did repair four laterals recently, don’t know yet if that was a band aid or the solution, this development would add two more laterals, want to be sure that this increase in sewage will not cause existing houses problem or impact Mills Creek. Proposed houses are 106 feet from Mills Creek, if within 200 feet of a creek need special permit from Fish and Game, this should be investigate; will increase impervious coverage with this project, water will run into storm drain, is the drain size sufficient so that there will be no flooding of existing houses; there should be no construction debris in the creek; all property owners on the street need unobstructed access to their houses at all times during construction, no material should be stored or staged in the street; construction hours should be strictly limited and no construction should occur at night or on Saturday and Sunday, there should be no noise and no vibration; with five bedrooms these houses are not consistent in size with other houses in the neighborhood, should stay design review until the environmental issues are resolved. There are 22 structures on the street, the median number of bedrooms among them is about 3, this proposal exceeds the historic use of a single family house and swimming pool. Four on street parking spaces will be lost to three driveways; the increas e in parking demand will be 12 cars, since people do not use their garages for parking there will be a net loss of 4 parking spaces with loss on street. Redwood trees are shallow rooted and easily harmed by excavation. The height variances will affect the sun light to current residents; the infrastructure in the street will not support 3 more houses, water pressure will be low and there is only one fire hydrant and it is at the end of the block. The dead end street emphasizes the character of this street of small houses, it increases the sense of privacy. Believe that recent trimming of the redwoods took out more that then allowed 30%, who will monitor any protection measures established; many people and delivery vans needing to turn in the dead end street use the existing wider driveway serving the house, how will they do this when three smaller driveways are in place; how many toilets, sinks, fixtures and chimneys will be added; can the site be re-divided into two lots? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 13 Does not seem correct to require only one covered parking space for a four bedroom house, does the building code allow this. How will the construction area be made safe for the children during demolition and construction. If equipment or material are staged in the street the developer should be financially penalized each time a violation occurs; the developer should have to post a bond for three years to guarantee construction according to approved plans; there should be only two houses with three covered parking spaces on site for each. Although it is signed by the property owner as being accurate, the environmental disclosure form does not seem to address all the existing environmental issues, there is a school 206 feet from the site; there is a storm drain 50 feet from the site, project will affect the drainage pattern in the area by adding so much impervious surface. CA Anderson noted commission should delay design review until know that the environmental document will not require the houses to be moved. Applicant responded that he has tried to involve the property owners in the process, and as property owner he has property rights. Have a number of specialists who have been involved in the project so far, am asking to replace one house and add two new ones. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners comment: in addition to items mentioned the following environmental issues need to be addressed: • Sewer and storm drain capacity and condition; • Management of construction debris and drainage during construction; • Developer needs to prepare a parking plan to address how material will be delivered to the site so that the street can be kept clear; • The city’s hours of construction should be confirmed, how are they enforced during construction; • Does the location of the creek within 200 feet of the site require special environmental analysis, if so it should be done; • Parking impacts during construction should be addressed and plan evaluated; • Environmental analysis should address the impacts with two lots as well as with the 3 lots requested; • What will be the change in water consumption and sewage generation, is there supply, distribution and collection capacity, what will need to be done as a result of the project; • Environmental effect of all three proposed houses being built to the maximum, or more, of the code allowances, particularly FAR; • All the issues identified in the neighbors’ letters should be addressed in the environmental analysis; • Environmental analysis should be done then the project reviewed for design; • Tree protection should be detailed, including the driveway of the middle house; and a tree protection plan developed; • Would like environmental evaluation to include two houses, two car garages for all houses (three); • Review the heights, all lots are flat, houses are together so they become more visually prominent; • Since use (number of houses) is an environmental issue, it is too early to comment on design; • Potential for sewer system over flow needs to be addressed before design review; and • Requirements of NPDES need to be addressed. Staff was directed to prepare an environmental evaluation based on the oral and written comments received. CA Anderson noted that can’t determine design review until see environmental data, sending the project to a design reviewer too soon could cause confusion. CP Monroe noted that when the environmental review is completed and the project is ready for design review, the city will renotice the property owners for a design review study with public comment opportunity. This item concluded at 11:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 14 10. 1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIGN HEIGHT (SEPHORA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT; THOMAS BOND, THOMAS BOND & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the plans noting that the presentation of the blade signs was confusing, could this be clarified before the project returns. Could the height of the signs be clarified and how parts are measured, a clearer presentation would be helpful, for example, which parts of the signs are between 12’ and 24’. Staff noted that because of the fact that the two businesses overlap primary and secondary frontages for signage, this is a difficult application to present. Staff will take another look at presentation approach. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Thomas Bond, 14471 Chambers Road, Tustin, represented the project. He showed a rendering of the blade signs, noting that there is a blade sign on each frontage, the awning sign is on the primary frontage; on the secondary frontage there are two plaques one in each arch. The intent of the design is to bring Saphora onto the street; the front of the store will be redone and the entire building repainted; they will close all the windows at the rear. The basement will be accessed only from the hotel space. The intent of the signage program was to provide signage to cars and pedestrians, the blades are needed by the pedestrians, the awning announces the nature of the business. Do not want the signs higher on the building elevation, but the design of the structure dictates a natural location, want the keep the clear story windows which go to 14 feet, have an open ceiling inside, so the sign band is the only place to put the signs. The lighting of the signs will be will low voltage fixtures over each letter, on the secondary frontage three fixtures will be enough to light the 7 feet of signage; the fixtures will extend 4 inches and have a 50 watt bulb. Commissioners asked: if the sign on the primary frontage were 15 inches smaller it would not need a sign variance for height (that’s 8 percent less). Applicant noted that they would be glad to reduce by 8% to avoid a variance. Can something creative be done in the two arches on the secondary frontage. Have you considered keeping the arched windows (at clear story), they are integral to the existing building. Applicant noted that these windows are 80 years old, wooden, and require a lot of maintenance, if they are not reglazed they will leak; would prefer a cleaner look more consistent with tenant. There seem to be a lot of pigeons, would removal of these wooden arched windows reduce the number. Applicant noted that with proposed design they would remove all the bird wire which was place to discourage the pigeons. Are the blade signs lit? No. Commercial design guidelines support retaining features which are integral to the façade of the building, the arched windows are integral, these features work together- see commercial design review item 5; more concerned with fitting Burlingame than Sephora. Applicant noted that he felt that retaining the arched wooden muntins was subjective and he has not seen the Commercial design guidelines; tenant not adamantly opposed to the windows, if in view of commission it is important to retain arched look would evaluate keeping them, wanted to get rid of recessed areas which the birds like. The arches should be tied in, can be done by matching fenestration of the existing windows. What is entry finish? Black granite at the base with lighter stone above. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran moved that the applicant seems to understand the issues and he should make the revisions discussed and come back to an action meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: summary of the revisions needed: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2002 15 • Eliminate the signage variance for signage between 12’ and 24’ on the primary frontage, reduce the sign from 42 SF to 39 SF; • Keep the integrity of the exterior architecture including wooden window inserts at clerestory, provide detailed information on the window wall system; • Provide a profile of the mullion to be used, also in the arches; and • Clarify the presentation of the signage request by frontage. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to put this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6 -0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 1, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions at the regular council meeting on April 1, 2002. She also reviewed, briefly, the high points of the Council’s special meeting on the budget status on March 28, 2002. She noted that the loss of revenue in FY 2001-2002 would affect the capital improvements budget for FY 2002-2003 as well as the operating budget for the Planning Department for the next Fiscal Year. - FYI – Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1532 Burlingame Avenue The commissioners reviewed the request to adjust windows and approved the changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting in memory of Commissioner Keele’s mother who passed away on Sunday. The commissioners noted the moment. The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES4.8