Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.09.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 23, 2002 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the September 23, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 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, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Phil Monoghan III. MINUTES Chair Keighran asked if there were any changes to the unapproved minutes. Commissioner noted changes to Item 8, 1537 Drake Avenue: page 8 Vice Chair Bojués chaired the meeting, first line second paragraph; page 9, second paragraph, line 13 delete “no matter what the rules say” and insert “just because a project does not require a variance does not mean we suspend judgment as planners”; and same paragraph line 10 add following “on three lots… or a modest house on the third. There were no other changes proposed. The minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Don Corey, 833 Alpine, there is a problem with the Public Address system, cannot hear some Commissioners; came to complain about the house you approved next door to a property I own at 728-730 Laurel, this is a 3800 SF, two story house, size is out of place in the neighborhood, was not noticed of project; had to give up one foot of my property so that the developer could have a 10 foot wide driveway; should be as concerned about big duplexes as you are about monster houses on the west side. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon, congratulate the commission on its diligent work on Safeway, disappointed in Safeway they are not looking at Burlingame as unique; want a building that fits Burlingame. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 380 LANG ROAD – ZONED O-M- APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT ON A SECONDARY FRONTAGE (DANIELA PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELIZABETH HAMMACK, OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Provide data on signs on surrounding properties, height and size; • Provide information on the height of the letters on both proposed signs; • Would there still be a sign variance if the primary frontage of the site were that side facing US 101; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 2 • Why is the sign so large, with so much information on it (web site, phone number), appears like a billboard, could be 10% to 15% smaller and still be visible from the freeway; • Does the commission have the authority to change the primary frontage designation; and • How large is the Scuba Lessons sign? Does it meet our signage requirements now? Since there were no further comments Chair Keighran set this item on the regular action calendar when all the questions had been addressed and staff has had a chance to review them and prepare a staff report. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. 2. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD/350 BEACH ROAD – ZONED C-4 – (GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) A. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARATE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD. PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG B. APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM C-4 TO O-M FOR THE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Will the rezoning proposed still allow a daycare center on the 350 Beach Road site; • Is the parking requirement different for a daycare center in C-4 as opposed to O-M; and • Is this proposal spot zoning. Since there were no further comments, Chair Keighran set this item for the regular action calendar by the Planning Commission when all the information has been submitted . This item concluded at 7:23 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 on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. DETERMINATION ON WHETHER PERSONAL SERVICES QUALIFY AS RETAIL SALES AT HEALTH AND BEAUTY SPAS (KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ, APPLICANT; LOEZ AND LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MEG MONROE Reference staff report September 23, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commissioners questions: have any conditional use permits for Health and Beauty Spas been requested? CP noted none. What was the recommendation regarding class size when this was reviewed before? CP noted that the code defines classes associated with a retail use as three or more people, such classes require a conditional use permit in Subarea A; the purpose of a conditional use permit is so that the class use can be carefully regulated to have the least impact on parking in the area. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Jay and Karen Scheikowitz, spoke in support of the change, noting she provides a community service, had the impression that the Planning Commission indicated that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 3 when they stayed the code enforcement for 6 months that you would find a way for this fitness use to stay and still not allow a gymnasium use at this location. Did not understand that one-on-one and one on two training was excluded from inclusion in retail sales for calculating the gross revenue from this use for compliance with current definition; now know that basement level will not support 25% of gross from retail sales; this is not a sweaty gym, customers do not stay all day, they do not come without appointments; have been at this location for 4 years would like to have closure; 95% of clients live in Burlingame, 80% walk or take the train; business is active before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m.; we are prepared to eliminate group training , room is small and maximum number we can have in a group is 6 anyway, groups just make activity affordable to more people. Commissioners asked: when I visited the site there was a client there exercising by themselves, how often does that occur; about one-half of one percent of the customers work out by themselves. What percentage of your gross is sale of hard equipment and apparel; less than 2%, people do not want to spend $1500 to $1800 for equipment. Is all the instruction done by appointment; in 55 minute instruction hours. Are there more than 3 people on site at one time; yes average 2 instructors with three clients, after 6 p.m. average three instructors and 5 clients ; between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. hardly any people, so quiet don’t have a receptionist. There were no further comments or questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: sounds as if this decision revolves around semantics and understanding what constitutes a class; like to see business thrive, change definition so that just one-on-one and one on two which can be a personal service, can’t seem to make retail sales work; could count one-on-one and one on two personal service as part of the required 25% retail sales activity; have a predicament crafting code in terms to accommodate continuation of a given business, present code is clear to operate at this location need 25% of gross revenue from taxable retail sales, to create an exception is contrary to expressed terms of the city code. Does other businesses have 25% retail sales requirement; CP Monroe, yes Graphic Arts and Design Retail Business, where the retail was required to differentiate these businesses from an office use and allow in the “pedestrian oriented” Subarea B. Can applicant buy parking, as a retail business this business is nonconforming in parking (replaces a previous retail business) so is not required to provide parking on- site. Processing choices? CA noted can determine personal service activity equals retail taxable sales; amend the code to drop the 25% retail sales requirement; change code in some way so that 75% of the activity on site is retail sales and personal service (one-on-one and one on two); or limit to one-on-one and one on two and address group activity separately. Commission discussion continued: could it be regulated based on headcount? Applicant said that group training was not needed, if they do not have more than one or two people per trainer it will reduce the parking problem and 75% of the business could be retail sales and personal service; could change the definition of Health and Beauty Spa to a personal service use. There are no basements in the Broadway Commercial area so where is this use allowed now; CP noted in Broadway is allowed on the first and second floors. If eliminate groups will cut a lot of people off from access to this activity, could group activity be limited to 10% of gross; how would group size be monitored; difficult to monitor and there is a parking issue in this area. C. Bojués moved to direct staff to modify the code definition of Health and Beauty Spa as a personal service use with a maximum of two customers per personal trainer, that the personal service would be included with retail sales, and that there would be no group instruction allowed with the use. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 4 CA noted that staff would redraft the ordinance and bring it back to the commission, at which time there could be more discussion. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to direct staff to revise the code definition of Health and Beauty Spa to call it a personal service with no group instruction allowed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ONE ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2002) Chair Keighran noted that there were several letters regarding this project that were before the Commissioners as desk items. She also noted that she lives within 500 feet of the proposed project site and recused herself from this deliberation. She stepped down from the dais. Vice-Chair Bojués took the gavel. Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description, noting this was continued design review study item. Commission asked staff: can applicant provide a table to show FAR relative to lot size, particularly for the larger houses on the block, such as 1540 Drake; wasn't this project already referred to a design review consultant; did the applicant provide all of the information that the Commission requested at the September 9, 2002 meeting? Staff responded that the requested table would be included in the next staff report; the previous application for three houses went to a single meeting with a design review consultant and then the application was withdrawn; and the applicant has provided all of the requested information and it is included in the staff report. Vice-Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, was present to address the Commission on behalf of the owner. He made the following points about the project: the mitigated negative declaration prepared by staff indicates that there are not any significant environmental impacts involve d with the proposed project; the information gathered by the applicant from DataQuick for the houses in the neighborhood typically does not include the floor area for garages, where this floor area is included in calculations made by the City; an overhead projection sheet was submitted to show that there are approximately 6 houses in the immediate neighborhood that, when the floor area is adjusted for garage space, match or exceed the floor area and the number of bedrooms for the two proposed houses; and feel that if the Commission's concerns are with the size of the house and not with the designs, then referring this project to a design review consultant is not appropriate. Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue; Janice Ochse, 1512 Drake; Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Bob Bear, 1510 Drake; Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo Avenue spoke concerning this project: why has Chair Keighran recused herself from voting on the project; all of the larger houses shown in the information submitted by the applicant are on larger lots, not on 6000 SF lots like the proposed houses; 1509 Drake appears to have many non-conforming structures and elements on the property and should not be used as an example for other houses being built in the neighborhood; feel the mitigated negative declaration does not adequately address the parking impacts to the street because of the additional curb cuts and causing a loss of street parking; mitigated negative declaration seems inconsistent regarding City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 5 the protection of the Redwood trees and the proposed mitigation measures are not strong enough; if two lots and two houses were proposed instead of three, there would be a better fit with the fabric of the neighborhood; current proposal is a step backward because now the neighbors will have to deal with two stages of construction, one construction period for the two houses proposed now and another construction period when the third lot is developed; many of the issues raised by the design review consultant for the original proposal of three houses were never addressed by the applicant; feel the current proposal should also be referred to a consultant and should include a house on the third lot; the two proposed homes are not consistent with the masses of the existing homes in the neighborhood; the new plumbing for the homes will create an added burden on the problematic sewer system in the neighborhood, Mills Creek is presently contaminated due to sewer back-ups on Bernal Avenue; neighbors are willing to pay for independent studies of the sewer and Redwood trees to insure that unbiased and accurate information is obtained; this is a multi- unit development that is threatening the character of Burlingame; three new houses built to the maximum FAR allowed does not fit into the fabric of the neighborhood; and multi-unit developments should be held to a higher standard because of the impact they have on a neighborhood. CA Anderson noted that Chair Keighran's decision to recuse herself from deliberations and voting on the project was the result of regulations in the Fair Political Practices Act, City staff supports her decision, and members of the audience should contact the Fair Political Practices Commission if they have additional questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the Commission has a duty to protect the character of the town, but must balance this with progress, with the protection of private property rights, with providing viable housing stock in the community; legally there are three build-able lots in the proposal and it is not realistic to think that only two houses will be built; concerns expressed that the tree protection measures are not strong enough, think neighbors' idea to retain an independent arborist to study the Redwood trees and an engineer to study the sewer issue is a good one; would like record to show that there are 20 plus citizens of Burlingame in the audience this evening to provide input about the two multi-unit developments proposed by Mr. Otto Miller at 1537 Drake and 1036 Cabrillo Avenues; the applicant has provided the required information and feel that the Commission has the tools to make a decision, would support taking this item to an action hearing; concern with referring this project to design review consultant when Lot 11 has a "stealth" home on it; how will consultant be able to look at the project as a whole without the third home; the Commission is working with a certain set of rules to govern development and the applicant has complied with those rules, the proposed houses do not require any exceptions to the code; do not feel this property owner should be subject to different rules from surrounding owners, any of whom could choose to build their property to the maximum allowable FAR at any time in the future; feel that the environmental document adequately addresses the sewer and tree issues; have discussed with the City Engineer the impact of the proposed houses on the sewer system and it is the Engineer's professional opinion that the impact will be negligible; Burlingame is an evolving town, new houses and additions to existing houses are a part of the fabric of the town and its history; and we must judge the current application by the rules and regulations in place at this time, the current application meets all the regulations. Continued Commission discussion resulted in the following concerns about the design of the project: • believe that houses in current proposal are simply too big to be supported by the neighborhood; • the proposed houses should reflect the existing sizes exhibited in the neighborhood so that they will into the neighborhood; • designer should consider mix of FARs, architectural styles, garage pattern, and setbacks for the proposed houses; • do not believe the neighborhood can support three homes built to the maximum allowable FAR; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 6 • review by design consultant should assume the development of a third house on Lot 11; • mass and bulk are just as important as the maximum FAR; and • the issues for design review consultant are not to tweak the architectural elements, but to reduce the size of the houses and to provide variety in design. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Vice-Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran and Osterling dissenting, Chair Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. Chair Keighran returned to the dais and called for a five-minute recess at 9:27 p.m. Recess ended at 9:37 p.m. 5. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGEAND FRONT SEBTACK VARIANCE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2002) Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. Commission asked of staff: has the City Engineer reviewed the soils report; what is the significance of the 7 foot mark above the creek; is the existin g retaining wall sufficient for bank protection? Staff noted that these items would be addressed by staff or by the applicant in the next staff report. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, representing the owner, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the variance for the front setback for the porch was mentioned as a possible solution by some members of the Commission at the last hearing to provide interest at the front elevation, the porch can be removed, but a variance may be justified on the lot by the presence of the creek; designer has made several design changes in an effort to connect the house better with the creek setting; and the method of construction will include a pier and grade foundation, which is preferred for minimal impact to the creek. Commission noted that Sheet A.4 shows cross-hatching that is not labeled and Sheet A.3 does not have cross-hatching for the deck located off the breakfast nook. Mr. Chu replied that these items would be revised in the next set of plans. Commission asked for further clarification regarding the ownership of the property. Mr. Hudak responded that presently the properties at 1032 and 1036 Cabrillo Avenue are owned by Eugene and Maureen Supanich, that Otto Miller has a lease on both properties with an option to buy, and that this option expires in 2003. Mr. Miller is currently subleasing the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo Avenue to a tenant that has expressed an interest in buying the property. It is not know whether the tenant, if he purchased the property, would keep the existing house. Sandra Yee, 1800 Carmelita Avenue; Vitus Viskanta, 1704 Sanchez Avenue; Dan Griffen, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue; Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo, Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, and Garret Smith, neighbor, spoke with concerns about the project: do not believe that the owner has any intention of keeping the existing house, the result will be a multi-unit project, like the development at 1537 Drake Avenue, but staggered over time; have concerns with traffic on the street and the protection of the Redwood trees along the creek; the proposed house does not fit into the neighborhood, the style only matches the existing corner house at 1032 Cabrillo, which may not be there in 5 years; the rest of the neighborhood is Craftsman in character with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 7 smaller-scale homes, the proposed house would stick out like a sore thumb; the proposed house size does not fit the creek lot, it is crammed off to one side of the lot and not i ntegrated with the creek; the lot is 12,000 SF but because of the creek only about 6000 SF is build-able; and the foundation of house will be close to Redwoods, which have shallow roots, and an arborist report should be required to ensure that the health of the trees is maintained during and after construction. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion identified the following concerns about the project: • this creek lot is unique and the proposed house does not take advantage of the natural setting; • a split level floor plan, a wrap-around porch, and other design options are available to connect the house to the creek setting and make the house less massive and to reduce the impact of the house on the street; • there is an upstairs deck proposed on the house that looks out on a telephone pole, where it could be re-located to the other side to have a view of the Redwoods; • concern over the front setback variance, this a large lot and house is starting from scratch, where is the justification for a variance; • the porch should be retained, but look into decreasing the length of the house to eliminate the front setback variance and also keep a sizeable backyard; • feel the site supports a house of the proposed size, but as currently designed the house is too massive and bulky; • concern with the impact of the construction on the Redwood trees and the creek; • designer should look into shifting the center of gravity of the house to the South and reducing the left elevation so that there will be less visual impact if the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo were demolished at some point in the future; and • it is important to have early review of impacts to Redwoods and the creek, would like to see an initial study for environmental review prepared by staff with the appropriate studies submitted by the applicant. C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made and directed staff to prepare an initial study for the project, with particular attention given to the protection of the existing Redwood trees and impact of construction on the creek. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: strong interest in having the owner, tenant, and Mr. Miller attend the next hearing and speak to the Commission and the community about the project; and what is the time line for both design review and environmental review? CP Monroe note that the design review and initial study can proceed in parallel. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to prepare and initial study and to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 6. 121 CRESCENT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A LOWER FLOOR, FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE AND LISA LARRATT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ANA BALAREZO, INGLESE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 8 Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Inglese, architect, was present to answer questions about the project. He noted that the existing porte cochere would be retained to add character to an otherwise uninteresting elevation at the front; one of the goals of the proposed design is to give the house articulation that it is currently lacking; Pittosporum shrubs will be planted in the rear yard to screen the addition. Commissioner asked for reasoning behind different style windows, three different exterior materials, and the narrow clear story windows along the left elevation. Architect responded that the mixed window types and exterior materials were traditional for Craftsman architecture and added variety to the existing house and proposed addition. The narrow windows along the left elevation were to provide light in the stairwell and breakfast area without having a view of the neighbor's house and yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the front and rear elevations are nicely done, but the visual interest was not carried to the side elevations. Commission had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address these items: • would like to see centered design element on the second story of both side elevations to add interest, such as a bay window or gable with the appropriate treatment; • consider extending the shingles down towards the first floor on the side elevations to tie the two floors together; • the windows on the second story addition at the rear elevation look a bit crowded; • provide more details about the garage door and materials of the garage; it will be a visible element from the street and should be tied into the details of the house; and • more large-scale shrubs or medium scale trees are needed on the property for screening of the addition and can be added to the site plan. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 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 11:04 p.m. 7. 1320 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that this is a straightforward application for a house to be built by a developer on a singles lot; the design is French chalet and does not require any exceptions to the code. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the overall design of the house is a nice one. They had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address these items: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 9 • the house is bulky; look into reducing the plate height on the first floor to 8 feet and seriously consider eliminating some floor area to reduce the mass; • the two windows at the upper right side of the right elevation should be a split casement with a mullion in the center; • the porch appears massive, consider a larger opening or an element that would allow visibility through the brick to lighten the mass; • the half moon roof vents do not match the scale of the roof; the vents should be increased in size or moved to the rear so they are not visible from the street; • there is a blank stucco wall along the left elevation that needs rel ief; consider adding a trellis or landscaping at this elevation to fill the space; and • the spruce in the front yard is a great asset and want to have an arborist=s report showing how the tree will be protected and maintained during demolition and construction, report should be approved by the City Arborist. C. Bojués made a motion place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: proposed house is right at the maximum FAR allowed and some floor area should be eliminated to address the massive appearance of the house. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. 8. 512-516 PRIMROSE ROAD – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING IN THE SIDE SETBACK, AND FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT CONDOMINIUM. (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City Planner Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that the purpose for tonight’s review was environmental scoping for this 8-unit residential condominium project. CP noted that it had come to staff’s attention that buried in the mass of vegetation at the rear of these lots were possibly some protected size trees, identification of the location and number of these trees and an arborist report on their condition as well as appropriate action would be included in the environmental review for this project. Commissioner asked if the city had any affordable housing requirement at this time. CP Monroe responded no, the Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee was working on this issue at this time. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, architect, represented the project. He noted that he wanted to clarify that the building at 516 Primrose presently contained four not three apartment units. He also noted that they had discussed the trees in the rear of the two lots before they began the project and felt that their condition was poor and removal would not be an issue; however, they would not object to preparing an arborists report on them. They could remove the circular driveway and meet the front setback landscaping requirement at the front of the building, but felt that off street loading/unloading area at this location in this busy area across from City Hall would be valuable in reducing circulation impacts. The guest parking in the side setback could be removed to increase landscaping but it would mean that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 10 garage would have to be redesigned, reducing the common open space at the rear of the project, presently offering 2000 SF of common open space where 800 SF is required. The front setback variance is based on 4 properties, the two at the end are dropped because they are corner lots, so the two properties composing this site are the basis for the average for the front setback. The 19’-6” setback is measured to the columns supporting a balcony at the front, the rest of the façade is 22 feet back from the front property line. Commissioners comments addressed environmental as well as design concerns as follows: • the large street trees at the front will produce a lot of shade, check your proposed plantings to be sure that they are shade loving. • feel that the iron work balustrade chosen is not consistent with Burlingame, more ornate like New Orleans, inappropriate across the street from city hall and the library. • the rear common area is going to be uncomfortable for use because it will be in constant shade, have you considered some other use than barbeque. • Do not understand how at the rear the exiting stairs work with the patios, it looks as if there is a conflict between tenant access from above to the common open space and the privacy in the master bedrooms of the first floor units; • A separate storage unit for each unit does not seem to be provided, some storage units shown are not easily accessible. • Reduce proposed height by lowering plate lines to 9 feet of at least those units with 10 foot floor to floor. • Are there any other front setbacks equal on interior lots in the area. • Curved driveway is a good amenity at this location, front landscaping could be increased by taking out guest parking in side setback and putting all guest parking in garage, since 2.5 spaces per unit, 3 or 4 spaces in the garage could be designated for guests with proper activating access provided from each dwelling unit (placement of the call/access box will be important on this steep driveway). • Should have one storage locker per unit in the basement, also bicycle racks should be provided for resident’s use. • Confirm that gas meters can be inside the building, if not where would they be placed. • On the rear elevation the iron on the balconies does not match, should be consistent with the rest of the building. • The three statues in the niches should not be identical. • Niches are not necessary to design. • Wrought iron is over done, solid corner pieces are heavy on thin balcony slab, address visual heaviness. • Not want garage bigger, address parking requirement below in space provided, put guest parking in garage. • Do not increase impervious surface on the lot. • Gravel stop edge may not be possible on roof, may need a parapet that would affect the height of the building, check and redesign if necessary. • The cornice is weak, parapet might help this. • Fences on either side are important to the view from the street (see rendering of front of building) their fence design should reflect the building design. • Discouraging not to see any affordable housing component in this design. • For environmental analysis would like the following analyzed: o Sun analysis for the common open space; o Landscaping at the front is important, can front setback variance be removed; o Street trees need to be retained and protected, need to scale down such a large building; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 11 o Setbacks are important, they reduce the visual impact, address parking in side setback; o What plant material will the planters over the garage in the side yard area support, how will they be designed, irrigation? o No area for recycling is shown on the plans, add. o Provide a photographic perspective or visual as we do for environmental documents from the rotary in the street looking across the office building parking lot to address visual impact. o Provide photos of existing buildings in the area showing their heights. Commissioners noted that this is a new building with a lot of exceptions to the code, what are the hardships; this building is very tall, all the others in the area are three stories, this is a prominent location across the street from City Hall so development will have a big impact; how does this design fit the exis ting neighborhood. Chair Keighran noted that this item will be brought back to a study meeting with the Planning Commission when the environmental document is complete and commission's concerns have been considered. This scoping action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12: 00 a.m., midnight. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 16, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting briefly noting that the council upheld the commission’s action on the appeal of the determination of the second unit at 826 Alpine, failing to find the unit was built before 1954. She also noted that among the correspondence at the Commissioner’s desk was the HCD certification letter for the 2001-2006 Housing Element. Congratulations go to the commission, the community and city staff. - Next steps in processing project at 1450 Howard Avenue Chair Keighran noted that she and C. Brownrigg had met with Councilman Coffey, CM Nantell, CA Anderson and CP Monroe to discuss how to proceed with the processing of the Safeway project at 1450 Howard Avenue. They felt it would be beneficial for the Citizens for a Better Burlingame to meet with Safeway, facilitated by John Glaser, to discuss their proposals and see what solution the two parties could arrive at for a solution for the community; after that meeting the project would move back to Planning Commission. It was noted that this was not a move to add time, its purpose was to facilitate consensus. Staff would contact both parties to see if the meeting can happen. CA noted that the Mayor and Vice-Mayor support this approach. It was noted that direction was to focus on good points of each proposal would work best; to move project for this discussion City constraints can be placed in abeyance, so that if solution changes city guidelines, willing to consider within reason. Commission endorsed this approach to processing the project. Staff will contact the parties. - FYI – grade and roof changes on DSR approval at 2115 Hale Drive Concerned about the two major changes proposed with this change which affect the design, particularly when taken together: elevate the building which affects approved height and changing the roofing material from slate to composition shingle, which affects the design. The elevation of the building, caused by not grading out the site, will change the roof as well as making 10% of the mass of the building more visible; the commission should not have been enticed with a design element like a slate roof if it was not to be installed. Commission agreed to place this item on the action calendar at the next meeting. The item will be noticed for a public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 12 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES 9.23.02