Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.05.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 13, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the May 13, 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; Planner Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS Chairman Vistica stepped down as chairman of the Planning Commission. He thanked the Planning Commissioners for all their hard work this past year; they made the right decision on a lot of projects. C. Keighran was seated as the new Planning Commission Chair, C. Bojués was seated as Vice Chair, and C. Osterling was seated as Secretary. IV. MINUTES Chair Keighran noted that on page 10 of the minutes of the April 22, 2002 meeting, for 1128 Juanita Avenue the vote was 5-0-2, not 7-0. The minutes were approved as corrected. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VII. STUDY ITEMS Chair Keighran noted that as part of their job, the Commissioners visit each site before the meeting. 1. 826 ALPINE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID MANI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE _ CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: if the garage were detached, does new gym room meet accessory structure requirements; besides gym and office, what new uses are proposed for this space; what is the hardship on the property for the setback variances, cannot see hardship; the illegal construction required removing the rear portion of the existing garage building, can the addition be reconfigured to eliminate the variance; looks like this area can still become a second unit. There were no further questions and the item was set for regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2. 329 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 208 - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (LINDA VRNAK, APPLICANT; G.W. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 2 WILLIAMS COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: what is the projected number of clients in the next 2 to 5 years, application does not show increase; applicant should be able have more clients as business grows; what hours is the office expected to be used on the weekends. There were no further questions and the item was set for regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 3. ZONING AMENDMENT - RETAIL SALES AND HEALTH SERVICES ON BROADWAY _____ CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: on page 2, can we re-word graphic arts definition to more clearly define “substantial taxable sales”, can it be defined as not less than 25% of the gross revenue; concerned that allowing health and beauty services above the first floor on Broadway is a change in policy from having the two areas match regulations of the standards on Burlingame Avenue-can we get minutes from the City Council meeting where this issue was discussed. There were no further questions and the item was set for regular action calendar. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE -ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT_________________________________________________________________________ 4b. 1323 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE _ 4c. 1336 PALOMA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ALEXANDER HIDCHENKO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN ______________ C. Osterling noted he did not want to call off item 4c but asked for clarification on the garage situation at 1337 Paloma Avenue. CP Monroe explained that a condition has been added that a new garage shall be built with the house. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 3 C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. AMEND REGULATIONS TO EXTEND TIME FRAME FOR SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE _______ Reference staff report, 05.13.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see program extended 2 years until 2004. C. Vistica moved to recommend to City Council the ordinance extending the second unit amnesty program for two years until 2004 and giving applicants one year following the approval to make nay required improvements. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to City Council that second unit amnesty program be extended for two years to 2004 and requiring any improvements within one year. The motion was passed on a 7-0 vote. 6. 2304 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOSE L. AND MARIA R. REALYVASQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON ____ C. Osterling noted that he lived within 500 feet of this site and recused himself. He stepped down from the dias. Reference staff report, 05.13.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, and Lou Realyvasquez, property owner, were available for questions. Commission asked if the roof pitch was the same, it just continues up. John Stewart noted yes, that at the front there is still a flat roof at the rear of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the applicant had addressed the design issues discussed by the Commission. The design is good and fits in the neighborhood, 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 April 26,2002, Sheets A1 through A7, 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 4 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 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; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s March 20, 2002 and the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s March 25, 2002 memos shall be met; and 5) 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. Comment on the motion: applicant made suggested changes; design has improved; commend architect for work on this project. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. C. Osterling took his seat on the dias. 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____________________________________________ Reference staff report, 05.13.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted that a condition has been added requiring the church to have valet service for large church functions, they have also arranged to use parking on nearby properties. Commission asked for clarification on FAR calculations for areas in the building with 12-foot height or greater, is all of the FAR area counted toward the parking requirement, should financial limitations be considered for variance findings, and could a conditions be added that the parking will be evaluated on an annual basis. Staff explained that areas over 12 feet in height are counted as a two floors for FAR calculations, but only the first floor is counted toward the parking requirement. Financial limitations should not be considered in making findings for a variance. Staff stated that a condition can be added regarding annual parking evaluation, it works best if it is reviewed each year for a designated time like 5 years and upon complaint. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Maritza Degadillo of Kodama Diseno Architects represented the project. She explained that the at the last meeting the Commission had expressed concern over the parking situation and asked them to look at a two-story option for the parish hall. They have submitted a response packet to address the Commission's comments, which all the Commissioners have in their staff report. Have addressed parking concern with valet service that would accommodate 90 cars off-site. Met with design reviewer, Jerry Winges, and went over two-story options. Design reviewer made a positive recommendation based on the one-story option and has suggested some design changes, which have been made and are on the plans before the Commission. Jim Veehill, civil engineer working on lot merger, was available for questions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 5 Commission asked: design reviewer noted that original roof design has various slopes, why; new northeast wall on parish hall in courtyard area between the church and parish hall shows greenscreen or lattice grids on landscape plan, but this wall does not seem appropriate for landscaping, could be a good dodge ball wall, landscaping would not survive here; please clarify why two-story alternative would not work; would two-story option encroach as much into usable parking lot; does the school have safety guards around the exterior of the school, the Primrose and Park intersections, as well as on-site; is the new fence shown on the landscape plan wrought iron; has the opening between the corner of the parish hall and the adjacent apartment building been reviewed for appropriate exit width, seems very tight. The project architect responded and explained that the roof slopes were originally designed to address drainage, but have been changed per the design reviewer’s recommendation; they are not opposed to removing the landscaping and greenscreen from the northeast wall, they were responding to design reviewer’s comment to visually soften the area with landscaping; a two-story structure would require the parking layout to be reconfigured and they would only gain three or four parking spaces, would not gain a whole aisle of parking due the large footprint required for a two-story structure to accommodate two stairwells and elevator; there are safety guards that are on the school site, and Sister Theresa will work with the parents on new drop-off and pick-up procedures, usually takes about four weeks to train everyone; the separation between the parish hall and adjacent apartment building was reviewed with the Fire Marshal early on in the processing of this project, and it meets the required existing width. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: excellent job responding to the Commission’s concerns; would like to add a condition that the applicant will provide a construction employee parking plan along with a construction delivery schedule and safety precautions during construction; would like to add another condition that one year after the completion of the project, and every subsequent year for five years, the parking plan and drop-off, pick-up circulation shall be reviewed, and will always be review on a complaint basis; what is history of public parking lot G, how did the City obtain this lot from St. Catherine’s. Staff noted that in the 1960’s assessment district for parking used revenues to buy public parking lots; part of the was purchasing the church site; troubled by loss of parking caused by this project; once building is constructed there is no remedy; design element is nice; looking to the church to enforce conditions; there is no going back once this building is constructed; history of this project is unique, could have had parking on adjacent lot that City bought for the beneficial use of the community; this is a highly developed urban area. C. Keele citing comments made to support the mitigated negative declaration, the conditional use permit and the parking variance, 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 May 3, 2002, site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations, tentative and final parcel map, sheets A0.1 through A4.0, sheet 1 and sheet, figure 6, and landscape plan, sheet L1.0; 2)that the church shall require valet parking on-site for large groups using the church facilities outside of school hours or in special circumstances during the school day and the church shall maintain cooperative agreements for joint use of available off-site parking lots nearby to alleviate the on-street parking demand created by single large events or overlapping large events using the church facilities; failure to maintain the valet parking opportunity shall be cause for the conditional use and parking variance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3) that one year after the completion of the project(2003) and every subsequent year for five years (2008), and/or anytime upon complaint, the applicant shall submit a parking and circulation status report to the Planning Department for evaluation; 4) that if the applicant wishes the greenscreen shown on page L1.0 on the plans date stamped May 3, 2002, proposed for the northeast elevation, shall be eliminated and the area converted to usable play area for the students at the school; 5) that any changes to the size or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 6 envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6)that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 14, 2001 memo, the Fire Marshal’s September 6, 2001memo, the Chief Building Official’s August 27, 2001memo and the Recycling Specialist’s August 29, 2001memo shall be met; 7) that an application for a parcel map to merge the four lots shall be processed and granted before the foundation inspection is scheduled; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall provide to the City a construction employee parking plan, construction delivery and staging plan, and a safety plan demonstrating what safety measures will be implemented to ensure the children’s safety on-site during the construction of the parish hall; a building permit shall not be issued until the proposed plans have been approved by the City Engineer;10) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;11) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;12) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 13) that no vehicles or equipment (construction) shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designated areas where runoff is contained and treated;14) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 15) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment controls prior to, during, and immediately after each storm event; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals;16) that trash receptacles shall be placed throughout the common pedestrian circulation areas and shall be regularly emptied; 17) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that, if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self - contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor;18) that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19)that St. Catherine of Siena School shall compile a set of guidelines to distribute to all parents with clear and detailed instruction as to the new drop-off and pick-up configuration. The following criteria shall be included as part of the guidelines: 1) that each parent shall be required to stay with his/her vehicle during the drop-off and pick-up process and shall not leave their vehicle unattended in the playground area; and 2) that all vehicles shall enter the school drop-off and pick-area from Park Road and shall exit onto Primrose Road, with all vehicles in the left lane making a left turn only onto Primrose Road, heading southbound on Primrose Road and all vehicles in the right lane making a right turn only onto Primrose Road heading northbound; 20) that St. Catherine of Siena school shall provide teachers, staff and/or volunteers to monitor the morning drop-off and escort the children to the appropriate vehicles for pick-up in the afternoons to ensure that children are safely making their way to and from the vehicles and keep the flow of traffic going through this area; 21) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 22) that the existing water meter in the proposed driveway on Park Road shall be relocated to outside of the driveway approach in the public City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 7 right-of-way; 23) that the project shall comply with City of Burlingame’s exterior illumination Ordinance 1477; and 24) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts selected by the City, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: do not support the parking variance based on finding that church land is now being used for City parking lot, community use, do not owe a parking variance because City has parking lot that was once church parking; church must continue with cooperation on valet parking; church should consider assigning a parking coordinator to monitor this process; beautiful project, it is unfortunate that parking is being lost as a result; could have a two-story option, but would not generate good architecture; parish hall has good vocabulary, nicely executed with the existing church structure; project is benefit to the community; applicant has cooperated with the City and will continue to work with the City to make things work with (valet) parking; church needs to make sure there is someone to oversee construction on-site; are there NPDES measures incorporated into this project. CE Murtuza explained to the Commission that in general it is common to have a construction manager on the job site; this person will submit construction plans to the Public Works Department; that includes access routes and anticipated encroachments onto public property. Public Works can require that a construction manager is available on-site throughout the construction process and that this person’s phone number is available to anyone affect through City Hall. General practice also includes the contractor fencing off the main construction areas, and using measures to keep any stormwater run-off from flowing off-site onto other properties and other areas of the church site as required by NPDES. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER Chair Keighran noted that the action on this item is a recommendation to City Council. C. Vistica made a motion to recommend approval of this tentative and final parcel map for a lot merger at the St. Catherine of Siena site at 1310 Bayswater Avenue, with the conditions found in the April 30, 2002, memo from the Engineering Division. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the tentative and final map to City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. 8. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD - ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND EXPAND RENTAL FLEET FOR AN EXISTING AUTO RENTAL BUSINESS (XABIER BERRUETA, ENTRPRISE RENT-A-CAR, APPLICANT; HONERLAN TRUST, PROPERTY OPWNER) (23 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON _________________________________________________________________ Reference staff report, 05.13.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for clarification on the fleet numbers since previous approval noted 50-75 vehicles on-site; is this proposal for 30 additional vehicles? Staff explained that this permit will replace previous permit, this proposal is for a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 8 total of 60 fleet vehicle on-site plus employee and customer vehicles on-site. As part of employee benefits, 6 of the 8 employees on-site go to and from work in fleet vehicles. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Xabier Berreuta, regional manger and applicant for Enterprise Rent-a-Car, was available to answer questions. Commission asked if cars are washed on-site. Applicant stated that no, the cars are driven to two local carwashes, one on Broadway the other on North Carolan. Commission noted that although the applicant has stated that they are going to have landscaping maintained on a weekly basis, they currently are doing business at the site, and the landscaping is unkempt. Applicant stated that they know that the weeds were really overgrown on the Carolan side of the property and recently had them removed. Commission recommend that they not use sod on the site on Rollins Road, but instead plant small-scale shrubs, they are easier to maintain and look nicer, add color. Commission suggested that a condition be added to require maintenance of landscaping, that if a car wash area is ever added that an oil/sand separator shall be required and that all loading and unloading of vehicles shall be done on-site and there shall be no loading or un-loading of vehicles within the public right-of-way. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)that the project shall be built and the site shall be configured as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 3, 2002, site plan and floor plan; 2) that the existing 1,830 SF of landscaping on-site (5.5%) shall be retained, automatic irrigation shall be installed and it shall be maintained by the tenant regularly on a weekly basis; 3) that the car rental business shall have regular business hours from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., closed on Sunday; 4) that the car rental fleet operated from this site shall be limed to a maximum of 60 vehicles; all fleet vehicles, employee and customers shall park on-site at 1409 Rollins Road; there shall be no parking of fleet vehicles along Rollins Road or North Carolan; 5) that no off-loading or on-loading of vehicles from trucks shall take place on the public street or on any public right-of-way; 6) that the applicant shall stripe the parking area on-site to accommodate all 60 rental fleet vehicles as well as the 9 required parking spaces for the office and customer parking; and no employee or fleet vehicles shall ever be parked on the public right-of-way or across the public sidewalks; 7) that there shall be no maintenance or washing of vehicles on the site unless approved by the City Engineer; 8) that any on-site car-washing facility approved in the future by the City Engineer shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; and shall not encroach upon the on-site storage area for the 60 fleet vehicles or employee or visitor/customer parking, or required landscaping or on on-site area used for loading or off-loading rental vehicles; 9) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s memo of February 11, 2002 shall be met; and 11) that crushed aggregate between 3/8” and ¾” shall be laid over the existing dirt/gravel area at the rear of the lot to address NPDES concerns and to allow stormwater filtration.The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 705 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION EUGENE A. BORDEGARAY SR., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EUGENE JR. AND LORRAINE BORDEGARAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) ( 64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON _ City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 9 Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the rear yard trellis counted toward the overall FAR, and asked why the applicant did not submit a full floor plan. Staff stated that the trellis count toward both lot coverage and FAR, and that the proposed project only changes the area shown and that the rest of the floor area not shown will remain unchanged. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Eugene Bordegaragy Sr., project applicant, was available to answer any questions. He explained that this property is owned by his son and daughter-in-law. Commission noted that on the top floor there is an area called out with “new rock” fascia and asked how the material is applied. Applicant stated that it is a manufactured stone that is applied to the stucco surface. Commission asked if the applicant was set on applying this fascia or would they consider removing it. The applicant stated that they would not be opposed to removing it from the top floor. Commission noted that the stone fascia is also along the bottom and doesn’t seem to blend well with the new stone all the way at the top of the house. Applicant noted they had considered adding stone around the front door, that would tie to the stone on the second floor. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: all the massing is articulated; nothing has big plane; a lot of time was taken to design this addition, nice job; design has a homegrown quality; stone work on top floor enhances home craft feel, but it is o.k. either with or without it; stone appears to stand out too much and becomes focal point, should eliminate; nicely landscaped project; either add more stone to connect the bottom obscure stone fascia to the new stone fascia proposed on the top level or do away with it completely; add wrought iron work that is found on the first floor front façade to the second floor to tie them together. Chair Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: nice job overall; no consensus on the Commission regarding the stone fascia, it is up to the applicant to work out; if stone work is retained, there should be more stone work added around the door to pick up the stone work on the new addition above. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m. 10. 2821 TIBURON WAY ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GEORGE TAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT __ Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. Staff noted that a memo dated May 7, 2002, was submitted by John Stewart, project architect, stating that to address view concerns of the neighbors they will reduce the plate height from 9’6” to 8’6”, and the overall height will be reduced by 2 feet by adding a flat area to the top of the roof. He submitted a rendering showing these changes. There were two letter in opposition received after the preparation of the staff report. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, presented the project. He noted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 10 the project was originally designed with the garage on the left, but the redesigned to tuck the garage back into the hill, they are trying to be sensitive to the neighbor’s view. Since the May 7, 2002 memo was submitted to the Commission, they met again with the neighbors and have made some more changes to the plans. In order to reduce the height of the new house to a height not taller than the existing ridge height, the plate height will be lowered to 8 feet. They also suggested having a surveyor hired to shoot the floor elevations before the framing inspection to give the neighbor’s reassurance that they will not exceed the height limit. Also plan on giving neighbors color samples to ensure that they will not be using a reflective roofing color. Architect also suggested putting up story poles. Homeowner, Mrs. Tan, put notices regarding the project in her neighbor’s mailboxes, but the neighbor to the right was the only one who asked to meet. Vivian Lee, 2834 Arguello Drive, Ann Marie Umland, 1600 Sebastian Drive, Dan Su, 2830 Arguello Drive, John Roman, 2839 Arguello Drive, and Lauren Wells 2818 Arguello Drive spoke with concerns about the project. Would like written guarantee from owners that grading for the project will have no effect on their property for 10 years; how can this work be engineered; this is a big dig into the mountain; soil in this area has a lot of movement subsurface creeks; the proposed house has a different character than the rest of the neighborhood; will this addition divert water onto other adjacent properties, what are the ramifications of the project; new bedroom will be next to existing bedroom on adjacent property, privacy will be lost, can a larger fence be built; can the project be scaled back , take neighbors concerns into consideration; need soils report and story poles; concerned with loss of view, noise, extra cars and possible second units. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Visitica stated that the architect understands the concerns stated and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • entry shown on rendering has a heavy shadow line over the door, makes entry a predominant feature, entry is grandiose, shape of entry is not consistent with the neighborhood; need to scale back; • full bathroom on bottom floor next to bedroom with direct exterior access appears to be a possible second unit; guest room on lower level o.k., should be adjusted so can not be a second unit, remove exterior door, reduce size of bathroom (no shower); • make sure that the lights shown at the front are not too bright and stand out; • applicant needs to address geologic survey/soils concerns; overall appreciate the architect taking the garage out of the front element; need to see revised drawings that reflect the changes that were discussed; and • before action meeting erect story poles with netting in between, story poles should reflect modified design. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: public comments well taken, but the architect did a good job on keeping the height down; project is below allowable FAR, this is not a monster house. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:22 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 11 11. 1128 CAMBRIDGE ROAD ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND TRICIA HAGEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GREG HAGEY, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN _ CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked what is the size of the window exception allowed to encroach into the declining height envelope. Staff explained that the Code allows a window enclosure that creates no more than 35 SF of floor area within the structure. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Greg Hagey, property owner and architect, was present to answer questions. He explained that he and his wife came up with a complex roof design for this addition to do away with the boxy look of many additions on other houses in the neighborhood. Wanted to include a lot of variation and have tested roof design and know that it will work. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: great improvement to the neighborhood; charming addition; articulation is found on all elevations. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • need to check with Staff to make sure that the window enclosure on the left side does not exceed 35 SF; • concern with roof height compared to adjacent structures, may be out of place; scale down; • concerned with compatibility of top floor; • look at height; can get design you want within 30 foot height limit; • make sure that the roof structure can be built as shown; • need to see roof pitches on revised drawings; look at reducing pitch; special permit for height is used to enhance architectural style, see if some height can be reduced; This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: nice design, project is on the right track; mass and bulk o.k., way under FAR; sharp pitch does not have much bulk, won’t feel as tall as it looks. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 6-1 (C. Keele dissenting). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m. 12. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TOM BAZZONE, APPLICANT; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; MIKE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON _ CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Staff noted that there was a one letter in support and one letter in opposition at the Commissioner’s desks received after the preparation of the staff report. Commissioners asked the CA Anderson the following: clarify how this is a new application; is this processing setting a precedent, doesn’t builder have to bear some of the burden for the unpermitted changes City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 12 and what options for action are available to the Planning Commission; does the Planning Commission have authority to suggest removal of a red tag; who is the owner of the property and can the owner pull permits or does it have to be a licensed contractor; can the original project be built as approved last year. CA Anderson advised the Planning Commission to look at the entire house as a new application, not the changes from the original approval, will this design fit in with the neighborhood, what is best for the neighborhood; what was built without permit does not exist as far as the City is concerned; red tag has stopped work on the site for a few months now and is a significant impact on the builder; building permit penalties will be assessed on the new submittal for additional plan check; comments the Commission makes on the request to continue work on the site will be passed along the Building Official who issues the red tags; and the person who took out this permit was a licensed contractor; old application that was approved still entitles the applicant to build the old project but they are proposing something different tonight. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Michael Kaindl, Chu Design & Engineering, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, presented the project. He gave a packet to the Planning Commission including a rendering of the proposed house, photos of the existing conditions, 4 pages including 13 signatures of neighbors in support of the project. The property is in escrow to a new buyer but can not close escrow because of the red tag. Second floor interior finish is done, need to do first floor finish now, can’t because of red tag. New design includes a belly band, oval window in the laundry room, arched entry, ornamental planters, shutters with working hardware, and a new side gate. The roof will also be lowered below the 30 foot height limit. The neighbor on the corner that would be most affected by the declining height envelope encroachment on the right side has no problem with the project, declining height exception. The left side of the house is totally within the declining height envelope. The second exhibit was passed up to the Planning Commissioners which shows a diagram of the house with the reduced second floor plate height, plate height varies to under 5 feet. This would result in a loss of 187 SF of living space verses 150 SF of voided area. Reducing the plate height requires demolition of the roof structure, and would require expensive demolition to the project, the second floor finished interior would need to be protected, and bedroom number 2 would be reduced by 30%. The landscape plan has been redone with a specimen tree added along the right side. The dormers have been changed from hip to gable, design is articulated. Actual usable space in this house is 2,800 SF (84%) where the Code calculations come up with 3,413 SF of floor area. Reducing the plate height would require very careful dismantling and would take 4 months. Commission asked the actual height of the structure and the separation between the roof ridges on the right side; the applicant stated that it is 2’8” above the height limit, 32’8”; and that there is about a 4’ setback total for the 3 roof ridges on the right side. Bill Tatum, 1205 Cortez Avenue, Pat Harding 1205 Cortez Avenue, Nancy Kux, 1208 Cortez Avenue, and Betty Blumer, 1702 Broadway spoke in opposition to the project. They had the following comments and concerns: original plate height was suppose to be 2’6” lower, now taller causing loss of light and privacy to homes and backyards; looking at project as new application is against the purpose of the Planning Commission; what is cost to lift, excavate and rebuild the foundation; if project is approved as currently presented it will be rewarding applicant for circumventing the rules; height is a concern; house should be built as originally approved; the neighbors have been intimidated by the people involved in this process, so neighbors do not want to show up at the public hearings; had a garage, small projects which had to go through the entire Planning process and comply, not fair to let this large project go on through without complying; don’t want to give message that it is easier for the applicant to come ask the Commission for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission; there have been too many violations on this project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 13 The Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project: • should be no voided areas on the second floor, should be counted toward FAR or eliminated; concerned with precedent; there can be future expansion of living space in these areas; pull in exterior walls where there is dead space; • need more contextual information, footprint and height of adjacent structures and how this structure will fit in; provide elevations showing adjacent structures to see how they are affected; • front elevations does not blend in with itself; roof pitch should be lowered; • FAR is only 7 SF under maximum allowed; • look at elevations, massive and bulky; • special permit for declining height envelope is usually granted to enhance design, this declining height envelope does not enhance the design, eliminate the special permit; • rear elevation looks like it has a tower that is separate for the rest of the house, should blend; • look at design review guidelines, mass and bulk of this structure is too large, needs to comply; • if voided areas are retained, the interior wall should be a shear wall to prevent the area from being opened up and used as livable floor area; • roof over entry is awkward, roof line could tie in with bedroom on the right side; • bay window on the left side needs more detailing, perhaps a cooper roof; • dormers on the right side should be similar; and • service door should have a vent or louver. Chair Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: project architect has a lot of experience and understands how to revise the project incorporating the above comments; may help to have a third party looking this project; design reviewer will be put in an awkward position since it is impossible not to be in conflict with the cost involved with the changes; there is a lot of work to be done regarding mass and bulk; may help to send to design reviewer and will save time in the long run. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant with the direction given by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-2-0 (Cesrs. Keele and Osterling dissenting). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:36 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 6, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the City Council at their May 6, 2002, meeting. She noted that they directed the staff and commission to undertake a review and update of the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan as well as approving the consultant contract for preparation of the North End Specific Area Plan. - Planning Commission subcommittee appointments CP Monroe noted that the work program for the coming year indicated that the Commission would need four working subcommittees. Chair Keighran suggested assignments and asked the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 14 commissioners to consider them and tabled the appointments to the next Planning Commission meeting. - FYI Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1404 Hillside Circle. Planning Commissioners noted that they had looked over the changes proposed, they seemed consistent with the approved design and no further action was required. - Next steps in review of 1450 Howard Avenue CP Monroe reminded the Planning Commission of the Special Study meeting scheduled for the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue on May 23, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room at the Library. She noted that the Commission agenda for the regular meeting on June 10 was already filling, and that it might be preferable to set the public hearing on the environmental document and project for a special meeting. Commission discussed this and determined that they would all be available on Thursday, June 20, 2002, for the hearing. CP Monroe said she would schedule and advertise the meeting accordingly. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary MINUTES5.13