Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.08.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 13, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the August 13, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Keighran, Luzuriaga arrived (7:11 p.m.), Osterling left (9:50 p.m.) and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Bojués and Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Civil Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 23, 2001, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Luzuriaga arrived (7:11 p.m.) V. FROM THE FLOOR Richard Quadri, 530 Francisco Drive, asked that item 5c, 531 Corbitt Drive be called off of the consent Calendar and a public hearing be held. There were no other comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1705 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION TO RETAIN AN EXISTING FENCE (DONELSON BERGER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) ZT Lewit presented a summary of the staff report. It was noted that the bamboo hedge has been cut down to 8 feet, which is one foot over the maximum 7 feet allowed in the fence regulations. Commissioners asked: When was the fence height changed from 8 feet to 8’-4”; why is this issue being brought up now if the 8’-4” fence has been in place a long time; it appears a fence exception was granted in 1982 for the fence on the left side of the property, now the applicant is asking for an exception for the right side, is that correct; how will it be insured that the bamboo will be maintained at 8 feet; staff should review the time line of all of the pervious permits for the next staff report. There were no further questions an the item was set for the regular action calendar at the next meeting if all the information required is submitted in time. This item was concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 211 CHAPIN AVENUE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LAP POOL AND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE (PABLO PEREZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: as noted this is a triangular lot, unique according to the requirements for a variance, this request should be put on the consent calendar for action on the variance; would like to applicant to consider carefully the location of the pool equipment house, is it placed in the best location given this beautiful yard? This item was set for action on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 2 consent calendar at the August 27, 2001, meeting if all the information needed is received in time. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 3. 1147 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GAS STATION REPAIR SHOP TO A MINI-MART (GUS GRECO, APPLICANT; H.P. ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, DESIGNER; CLOVER TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: how many customers currently come to this site each day; why does the city have its present policy about selling alcoholic beverages at gasoline service stations; this is proposed to be a 24 hour operation, can staff provide information on the other 24 hour mini-mart operations in the city, also the nearby 7-11, in terms of size, number of customers, amount of parking provided, number of employees, police activity; reconsider the interior layout with the bathroom opening into the mini-market space might be a health problem, certainly is unsightly for shoppers; investigate what the police problems are when a mini-mart business operates at this location, compare police concerns with Chevron Station at Broadway and 7-11; think the 7-11 use presents a traffic issue, how many customers go there and when do they come, what are the number of movements in and out and at what times. This item was set for the regular action calendar on August 27, 2001, or the next available calendar when all the information is available to respond to the commission’s concerns. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 250 – ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (HOME MORTGAGE) (DOROTHY LOW, WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC., APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) C. Auran recused himself from this item noting that he has leased property in this building recently. He stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: how does the applicant justify that the maximum number of people on site at one time will be 15; will this office space be used at all on week-ends; how long has this business been at this location; why are several of the agents whose offices are at this location rarely there. There were no further questions and the item was set for the regular action calendar at the August 27, 2001, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:30 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. Chairman Vistica noted that item 5c, 531 Corbitt Drive, will be moved to the action calendar as requested earlier from the floor. Chairman Vistica noted he had a business relationship within 500' of Item #5d, 1522 Los Altos Drive, and he would abstain from voting for that project. Chairman Vistica then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 3 There were no additional requests. Remaining on the Consent Calendar were: 5A. 1471 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (NESTOR C. REGINO, DESIGN ADVOCACY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENNETH AND VANESSA KAMMULLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) 5B. 1730 ESCALANTE WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RONALD KO, PROPERTY OWNER) 5D. 1522 LOS ALTOS DRIVE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) 5E. 207 CLARENDON ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN AND LYNN LAZCANO, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, 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. Keighran. C. Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 for Items # 5a,5b,and 5e (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent) and 4-0-1-2 for Item 5d (C. Vistica abstaining, Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5C. 531 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEREK AND LUCIE KOBER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, applicant and designer, and Derek Kober, owner, were present to answer questions. The designer noted that he had spoken with neighbor Rich Quadri about the special permit for the proposed project. The designer and owner feel that changing the peak would affect the massing of the dwelling by putting the ridge of the dormer the same height as the cloped ridge of the roof. Clipping the roof and adding a flat area would also result in higher construction and maintenance costs. Rich Quadri, 530 Francisco Drive, owner of the house behind the subject property, noted he is not opposed to a second story addition but cannot see why the height of the addition cannot match the height of the existing roof. Nobody will be able to tell that the roof is flat unless they are looking at an aerial view of the neighborhood. A special permit should be awarded only in cases where there are no other options; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 4 and a flatter roof to match the height of the existing peak is an option for this project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling had a question for the applicant and the Chairman Vistica re-opened the public hearing. C. Osterling asked for the dimensions of the roof area that is higher than the existing peak. The designer responded that the area is approximately 5'6" x 15'-6". There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: The roof section in question is only 2'-2" above the existing peak; this is a very small infringement; if the roof on the addition is flattened to match the height of the existing peak, the rear elevation will be altered; the peak of the dormer at the rear will be the same height as the roof and the resulting design would not be as pleasing as the proposed peaked roof; there are quite a few houses in the neighborhood with peaked roofs even higher than the proposed project; and the special permit process was created to allow the freedom of designing a peaked roof where it is consistent with the architecture and in this case, the proposed peaked roof will enhance the house and the neighborhood. C. Luzuriaga 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 June 26, 2001, sheets 1 through 7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's June 4, 2001, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 6. 713 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (PHILIP HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OLIVER AND DEBRA BROWN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Phil Hyland, designer, was present to answer questions. There were no questions and no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: This is a beautiful design for a house and it will greatly enhance the neighborhood. C. Auran 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 July 2, 2001, sheets A4 and A5, and August 3, 2001, sheets A1 through A3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 5 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 hei ght or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Building Official's, City Engineer's, and Recycling Specialist's June 4, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 7. 808 PARK AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JUANCHO C. ISIDORO, JR., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ERIC AND ELIZABETH STARKS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Juancho Isodoro, designer, was present to answer questions. The Commission noted that the treatment for the windows was not called out on the plans. Windows on second and first floor are different, will windows on first story be replaced? The designer noted that the intention was for all the windows to be double-glazed type with wood trim. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this design is a great improvement over the original proposal. The design review process has worked well. The concerns identified at the study meeting, such as the metal railing and the chimney issue, have been resolved in the revised plans. Would like to see condition added to ensure that trim at the windows is wood. C. Keighran 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 August 1 2001, sheets A1 through A4, and that an y changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s November 3, 2000, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that all the windows for the proposed project shall have wood trim; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m.. 8. 117 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES TO PROVIDE ONE OFF-SITE COVERED PARKING SPACE ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL AND TO PROVIDE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 6 NO UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE (MARTIN AND ALISON WESLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration for each property, 117 Dwight and 119 Dwight; CP Monroe suggested an amendment to condition 2 for 119 Dwight Road – that the paving in the rear yard of 119 Dwight extending from side property line to and in front of the two car garage as shown in the plans date stamped July 18, 2001, shall be installed, maintained and never removed. Commissioners asked why the drain had been relocated on to the property at 117 Dwight and who was responsible for the maintenance of the drain and sump pump- staff noted that these were subject to private agreement and the commission should ask the applicant. The City Attorney was asked if it is possible to have an easement which is not demarcated by meets and bounds; he noted that is was adequate to note that there was an access easement across a given area without defining on it a map, it provides for flexibility and is legal, but may not make the city happy. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing, noting that it was going to be a long meeting and he would like to limit testimony to three minutes per person. Charles Wesley, representing his son, the property owner of 117 Dwight, who is working overseas at this time, presented the application for 117 Dwight. Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma Avenue, designer assisted others testifying were; Janet Jennings, 119 Dwight Road, property owner; Joan Davies, 112 Clarendon Road, Brad Yee, 123 Dwight. Applicant noted that he had reviewed the conditions of approval and agreed with them except condition 5 which required, in the future, if the existing house were ever removed that covered and uncovered parking be provided on the redeveloped site; he noted that the site is only 25 feet wide, with the 9 feet removed to provide access to the rear of 119 Dwight and city setback requirements there is only 12.5 feet left, not enough space to build on the lot; he would suggest a modification that he be required to meet the parking requirement on site if the access easement with 119 Dwight is ever extinguished. He was not sure that his neighbor understood that building this garage would provide covered parking for both 117 and 119 Dwight Road where there is none now; 119 becomes compliant with cit y requirements, 117 comes closer to compliance; no additional on-street parking would be created by this request. On the issue of the sump pump, they have agreed to take the line across 117 to the street, they do not want to add another easement to 119. His son bought the property at 117 with the knowledge that there was a garage on 119 at one time, purchased the house with the understanding with the seller that the sale was dependent upon the owner at 119 agreeing to let them build a garage on 119, now they need a variance to do that. They will prepare an arborist’s report to protect the neighbor’s Elms. This lot split happened years ago, the lot is substandard but it is existing; garage placement at property line in rear 30% of the lot is consistent with current city code requirements, neighbor’s garage is also at rear of his lot; legal description of the easement is included in the packet. Commissioners asked: can garage be placed even closer to side property line, saves 119 rear yard area and makes access easier. Applicant noted that it would make it more difficult to back out; also noted this was the location agreed to by both property owners. Property owner at 119 Dwight noted all the comments made were not true, did sign a settlement agreement in November 2000, still not settled; asked to see correct location of the driveway and garage, if the plans were revised she should have been shown them; the sump pump was not part of the settlement agreement; if commission approves this she will have no say in the construction; if the driveway to the garage from the side property line is 9 feet wide and the garage one foot from property line, half of her property will City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 7 be taken for the garage and paving; if relocate garage for neighbor’s tree will affect tree on her site which is in the back-up area; thought that the one foot from property line was the required location for the garage, want it as far over as possible. Commission noted that the size of the driveway is not sufficient on the plans, property owner responded feels 8 feet is more than wide enough, and the concrete part at the side property line is 9’-3” wide. Commission noted that need some asphalt to get to garage; property owner noted driveway access needs to be provided, but easement is not defined and continues to be in dispute. Commission asked was a settlement reached in November 2000? Property owner noted she agreed in effect to cooperate with neighbor to get off street parking, did not understand would build garage thought just driveway, no sump pump, owner at 117 is determining location of easement where building garage, is opposed to sump pump and drain and location of driveway. Have not seen plans showing sump pump and drain all on 117. Neighbors commented: feel that it is a special privilege for 117 to take away the rear yard of 119 Dwight Road for a garage; garage could be put in front yard of 117, house has a big setback, or could put in rear yard; would solve easement issue and give 119 back her rear yard. Disagree that this project would not cause an off-site parking problem, they are asking for a variance for one uncovered parking space, it will increase the parking problem in the neighborhood, the drive way is not 9’-3” but 8 feet, if the code requires 9’-6” then 8 feet is not enough for access. Applicant’s designer noted he had not had any conversations with the property owner at 119 Dwight, the code requires that the drainage be taken to the street, plans have been redrawn to show drain and sump on 117; the rear yard of 119 is almost all covered with asphalt now, the proposed garage is to replace a garage which was there before and removed without a permit, Planning Department requires that the new building meet current code requirements; both attorney’s seem happy. Applicant noted that his son is the victim, the limitation on the property was clear when he bought the property, part of the settlement was that they go to mediation if they had a problem with the Planning Commission; seem to be two issues the location of the sump and drain and who will pay for maintaining the drainage system; the driveway is not a part of the application it is there now, paid $3000 to revise the plans, other attorney wanted the building place one foot from property line, they agreed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: to CA who is responsible for maintaining the garage? CA noted it is not for the city to adjudicate. Commissioners noted: need to address the issues on the plans, need an accurate record of what is going to take place; accurate location for the sump pump and drain, easement should be documented with a recent survey, can use the boundary of the pavement as documentation; move the garage to property line to reduce impact on the rear yard of 119 Dwight; concerned about moving the garage when the attorney at 119 asked for it to be placed as shown; why is an easement needed for the sump and drain when it is wholly located on 117. Asked the CA if the property is destroyed will the easement continue to exist and will it apply to new construction; CA noted yes, even if 117 does not need it as the result of new construction, 119 will still need access to the rear; Commissioners noted that the letter from property owner at 119 says she does not oppose, to expedite ask them to come back with revised plan and resolve their differences, should move to continue this item until the applicant can return with an agreement which reflects what both parties want; too many issues unknown and some planning issues need to be resolved. Chairman Vistica moved to continue, ask the applicant to return when they agree on the planning issues including the location of the garage and a clearly defined easement. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 8 Comment on the motion: condition 5 should be clarified by staff. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). The chairman noted that this action is not appealable and the applicant should return after mediation is completed. It was noted that the item would be renoticed to the neighbors within 300 feet when it returns to the agenda. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 9. 1160 BROADWAY – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING (RAYMOND LEE, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LIMITED, PROPERTY OWNER; SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jeff Akef, architect, was present to answer questions. The changes made to the project after it was referred to the consultant include: removing the faux stone façade and mansard, lowering the parapet wall, exposing the front façade, bringing the design elements to a pedestrian scale, lowering the window sills to 3'-0" to enhance views into the store, adding landscaping where possible in the parking lot, and adding tile along the base of the building to break up the scale and match the existing neighborhood. The Commission inquired about the color scheme for the building. The architect replied that a color scheme has not been determined, but would likely be earth tones. The Commission noted that Broadway has a very eclectic streetscape with many different colors; they suggested that the applicant keep this in mind when choosing a color scheme and that the color scheme of the shopping center on the corner of Broadway and California should not be emulated. The Commission commented the revised building looks great. There are still a few small concerns: the light fixtures on the original plans were better suited to the design; the present jewel-type fixtures will appear to jump out from the building. What is the "spandrel glass" proposed for the North elevation and why isn't this glass repeated on any other elevation? The applicant responded that spandrel glass is opaque. Commission commented that the design would be improved by replacing the spandrel with clear glass on this elevation and this option will also bring natural light into the store. The Commission suggested that the applicant keep the original sign if possible; the sign is a marker for the Broadway area. The Commission commented they would like to see some additional articulation at the windows along the front façade; windows might be inset to create more depth in the design. Not satisfied with the 5'-0" display wall shown behind the front windows; this wall creates a barrier between the pedestrian and the interior of the store; could have wall only at every other window. The trash enclosure should be shown on the elevations because it has the potential to be a real eye-sore. Can the access door be relocated and landscaping added? The roof equipment is not shown on the elevations, will it be inside from the street or parking lot? This should be addressed. The applicant noted that all roof equipment would be on the flat portion of the roof and should not be visible above the building parapet, but will show this on elevations. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this project has been greatly improved since the study hearing and only needs a few additional revisions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 9 C. Luzuriaga moved to continue action on the application and to place the project on the next con sent calendar available when revised plans have been submitted to address the Commission's concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: the direction of the Commission included: • The proposed light fixtures should be changed back to the fixtures proposed on the original plans; • Show the trash enclosure and roof equipment on the elevations; • In-set the windows at the front façade and have some of them visually open into the store; and • North elevation windows should be of clear glass instead of the spandrel, windows can extend only to the walls inside. The Commission suggest the applicant choose a color scheme that was different from that of the shopping center at California and Broadway Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. 10. 1115 CALIFORNIA DRIVE – ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (ROSE HOCKER, REALTY EXECUTIVES VISION, APPLICANT; CHRISTINE CREMA, PROPERTY OWNER; DANIEL EWALD, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked staff for clarification regarding condition #4 which states that the total number of persons on site would be limited to 18; does this number include any real estate agents from other offices that might attend the monthly meetings? Staff noted that 18 persons is the total number allowed on site and if more persons were on site as a result of the monthly meetings, the applicant would have to amend the conditional use permit. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Rose Hocker, applicant and Mike Gallegos, business owner, were present to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant agreed to comply with condition #4, which limits the number of persons on this business site to 18 persons? The applicant agreed that this condition was acceptable. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the concern with original application was the non-conforming parking; feel it is better to provide fewer parking spaces that are easy to get in and out of rather than more spaces that are non-conforming in dimensions and hard to use. The variance on site is warranted because the real estate use will be low-impact. Commission asked of staff: can condition of approval be added that will require review of the conditional use permit and variance if the uses on site change in the future. CA Anderson confirmed that such a condition could be added. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 10 C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution with the with the following amended conditions: 1) that the real estate office use shall be limited to 1,742 SF at 1115 California Drive (the front tenant space), as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 1, 2001, site plan and floor plan; 2) that the real estate office shall have regular business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with weeknight use not to exceed two times per week and weekend use to be limited to two times per month for a limited number of agents; 3) that there shall be no more than two monthly meetings for all agents on this site and they shall be scheduled at a time when business for the adjoining tenant business is least, and that if there are any complaints by the adjacent tenants regarding the parking impacts from this meeting this use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 4) that the maximum number of employees on site (including both tenant spaces 1115 and 1117) shall be limited to 20, 18 for the real estate office and 2 for the remaining tenant space; 5) that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6) that any change in use from the approved uses on site, a real estate office at 1115 California Drive and a combined graffic design office (400 SF office – 1850 SF warehouse) and wholesale distributing business at 1117 California Drive, shall require Planning Commission review of the conditional use permit and parking variance on site; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:31 p.m. 11. 1832 & 1860 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AND FOR VEHICLE PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AN INCREASE OF OFFICE SPACE [GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, C/O PACIFIC BELL, APPLICANTS; AMVALL INC. (1832 ROLLINS ROAD) AND ART MICHAEL (1860 ROLLINS ROAD), PROPERTY OWNERS; GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 8.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted an amendment to condition 9 for 1832 Rollins Road and condition 8 for 1860 Rollins Road which requires regular inspection and replacement of the filters as required to meet the manufacturer’s requirements and failure to do so would require review by the Planning Commission. Commission asked if the pillows in the drains were not maintained as required in conditions 9 and 8 would the application be back before the Planning Commission; staff responded that if the drains were not maintained the applicant would be in violation of their conditions of approval and would need to appear before the Planning Commission to determine if they could continue the use on the site. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. David Wagner, architect represented Pacific Bell, he summarized the issues regarding the inter-related use of these two sites and their willingness to relocate and redo the landscaping on 1860 Rollins so that it is more visible from the public street and irrigated so it will survive. PacBell will establish a program for maintaining the oil filter pillows in the drains. He also noted that PacBell had agreed to have employees work out of these sites on a shift basis to reduce the traffic impacts at the critical intersections, particularly after BART is opened. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 11 C. Osterling moved to approve the use permit amendment for 1860 Rollins Road to allow the site to be used for parking support for Pacific Bell’s Field Operations Center to be located at 1832 Rollins Road with landscaping variances for both sites, by resolution, and with the following amended conditions for 1832 Rollins Road: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 29, 2001; 2) that the use for service business on these properties shall remain only so long as 1832 and 1860 Rollins Road are both in use for a single service business which operates from the building located at 1832 Rollins Road, and provides parking for the service vehicles at 1860 Rollins Road; if the service business use no longer occupies the two sites or the use at 1832 Rollins Road changes from service business, then the Conditional Use permit for parking company vehicles off- site (variation from performance standards requiring on-site parking for all company vehicles) and the Conditional Use permit amendment for supplemental parking for permitted or conditional use in the M-1 district shall be automatically revoked; 3) that the resolution of action for this application shall be recorded against both 1832 and 1860 Rollins Road; should the service business use as proposed (parking company vehicles off-site) be discontinued, then the use of the properties shall be limited to permitted uses which can be supported by the existing parking on-site in accordance with the parking requirements in effect at the time of the change; 4) 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; 5) that no more than 4,979 SF (49.10%) of the existing 10,150 SF building located at 1832 Rollins Road shall be dedicated to office use, as shown the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 29, 2001; a separate conditional use permit shall be required if the square footage of office space exceeds 50% of the gross square footage of the building; 6) that the service technicians dispatched from both sites shall work in three staggered shifts, with 50% of the technicians working from 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., 33.3% from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. and 16.7% from 12:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m., with the total number of technicians not to exceed 90; any change to the shift hours and/or maximum number of technicians shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 7) that areas where landscaping will be installed will be irrigated by an automatic system approved by the Superintendent of Parks prior to occupancy by the applicant; a full landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to permit issuance; all introduced landscaping will require ongoing maintenance including weed control and replacement of plant materials as necessary to maintain the landscape design; failure to install and maintain the planting areas and irrigation system to these areas will result in Planning Commission review of the conditional use permit a nd variances; 8) that parking at 1832 and 1860 Rollins Road shall be exclusive for employees and service vehicles of the business located at 1832 Rollins Road and all vehicles parked here shall be in operable condition; and 9) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from this site shall be required to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Runoff shall be collected and filtered into the storm water drainage system through a collection system whose size shall be approved by the City Engineer before it is discharged into the channel; the property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the system and regular inspection and replacement of the filters as needed to meet the manufacturer’s requirements and failure to maintain these filers would require review of this conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. and Amended Conditions for 1860 Rollins Road as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 29, 2001; 2) that the use for service business on these properties shall remain only so long as 1832 and 1860 Rollins Road are both in use for a single service business which operates from the building located at 1832 Rollins Road, and provides parking for the service vehicles at 1860 Rollins Road; if the service business use no longer occupies the two sites or the use at 1832 Rollins Road changes from service business, then the Conditional Use permit for parking company vehicles off-site (variation from performance standards requiring on-site parking City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 12 for all company vehicles) and the Conditional Use permit amendment for supplemental parking for permitted or conditional use in the M-1 district shall be automatically revoked; 3) that the resolution of action for this application shall be recorded against both 1832 and 1860 Rollins Road; should the service business use as proposed (parking company vehicles off-site) be discontinued, then the use of the properties shall be limited to permitted uses which can be supported by the existing parking on -site in accordance with the parking requirements in effect at the time of the change; 4) 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; 5) that the service technicians dispatched from both sites shall work in three staggered shifts, with 50% of the technicians working from 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., 33.3% from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. and 16.7% from 12:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m., with the total number of technicians not to exceed 90; any change to the shift hours and/or maximum number of technicians shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6) that the maximum number of vehicles parked at 1860 Rollins Road shall not exceed 200; 7) that areas where landscaping will be installed to comply with the variances granted in 1997 will be irrigated by an automatic system approved by the Superintendent of Parks prior to occupancy of the parking area by the applicant; a full landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to permit issuance; all introduced landscaping will require ongoing maintenance including weed control and replacement of plant materials as necessar y to maintain the landscape design; failure to install and maintain the planting areas and irrigation system to these areas will result in Planning Commission review of the conditional use permits; 8) that each storm water catch basin on the site shall be equipped with one Pig Sump Skimmer #SKM403 at all times; all catch basins shall be inspected on a weekly basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the Sump Skimmer filter; any filters found to be at or close to absorption limit shall be immediately replaced with a new filter product; and adequate inventory of new filter product shall be kept on hand to assure no replacement delays; and failure to maintain these filers would require review of this conditional use permit by the Planning Commission; 9) that the project shall be required to obtain necessary permits and to meet all requirements and conditions of approval of the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, the Fish and Game Department, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Land Use and Planning); 10) that demolition and construction activities shall comply with the construction hours of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Water); 11) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from this site shall be required to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Runoff shall be collected and filtered into the storm water drainage system through a collection system whose size shall be approved by the City Engineer before it is discharged into the channel; the property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the system (Water); 12) that the maximum elevation of the improvements over the drainage channel shall not exceed elevation 4.0' mean sea level (MSL) to insure the holding capacity of the drainage easement during flooding (Water, Utility and Service Systems); 13) that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility of the property owner (Water, Utility and Service Systems); 14) that the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance on the drainage easement (Public Services); 15) that the City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement and adjacent spur track right -of-way (Public Services); 16) that no fencing shall obstruct existing drainage into and thro ugh the easement from the adjacent parcels (Utility and Service Systems); and 17) that all fencing which is visible from the street shall require landscaping outside the fence which is visible from the public right -of-way (Aesthetics). The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit and off -site parking and landscape variance for 1832 Rollins Road and the conditinal use permit amendment and landscape variance amendment for 1860 Rollins Road. The motion passed 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Bojués and Drieling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. C. Osterling noted hie had a business obligation and left the meeting at 9;50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 13 Chairman Vistica called for a five minute break. The Commission reconvened at 9:58 pm. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 733 FARRINGDON LANE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A N EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (TONY AND LENA CHEDID, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STANLEY E. PANKO, PANKO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Stan Panko, architect, was present to answer questions. The Commission commented: • That the front facade does not fit with the design of the house or the fabric of the neighborhood; it is too large. • The former conditions of approval for the accessory structure prohibited plumbing in the structure; in addition, the Commission does not generally support plumbing fixtures in accessory structures because the potential intensity of the use for recreation purposes creates a larger impact on the neighbors and the structure can be converted to a second living unit. • Commission commented they could support a sink and a toilet in the bathroom to serve the pool, but cannot support the wet bar and shower. • Concerned about accessory structure being conv erted to a second unit; the applicant has offered to remove the second story storage area and this would reduce the likelihood of the structure being converted. • Have noticed on the plans that there are also three wet bars proposed in the house; which is an indication that there will be a lot of entertaining at the site which might alter the residential character; feel this project is a good candidate for the design review consultant. • The proposed house does not match the design of the existing garage. Neighbors commented on the following: in light of the history on the property (code enforcement on an illegal home occupation and previous illegal second dwelling unit), intensifying the use of the accessory structure by allowing plumbing to be installed is a mistake because the structure can easily be converted to second unit or office; if the planters are over 3' high and are counted , the lot coverage would be closer to 50% than 40%; the house is on a knoll in the neighborhood and the design appears ver y massive; the design of the new house is Mediterranean with stucco and this will not match the existing wood-siding garage; concerned about the proximity of the house to the garage, distance looks as if it might not meet code requirements; if plumbing is allowed in the accessory structure, any parties or entertaining in the structure will greatly impact his property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 14 C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given by the Commission and the comments from the neighbors included on the recording of the meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to the design r eview consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Dreiling, Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:27 p.m. 13. 1323 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOSE A. JIMENEZ, J AND M DESIGN, DESIGNER) C. Auran commented that he had a business relationship within 500' of the subject property and would abstain from voting on the project. Chairman Vistica noted that there was no longer a quorum present and the project could not be voted on tonight. The applicant was present and was informed that the project would be placed as the first design review study item on the August 27, 2001, agenda. 14. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Krisjon Swanberg, architect, was present to answer questions. The Commission had the following concerns: • The windows at the front elevation are not well-coordinated; they are miniscule and not pedestrian- friendly. • The north elevation is lacking windows, which might be added to help reduce the massing. • Would like to see consistency with the windows on the first and second stories. • Applicant should provide clarification for the proposed awnings; what are the materials, colors and dimensions to be used. Proposed awnings might not be the best option to add detail to this style of house; could consider wooden trellis. • There is a certain simplicity in the design that is valuable, it needs detail, but does not need to be “dolled up”. Neighbors commented on the following: will the envelope of the proposed project cast shadows on his property; fewer number of windows on the north elevation is better because it will insure his privacy; the design of the house is not consistent with the neighborhood, it is just a box over a box; what is the need for the deck at the front elevation which looks onto the street; there is no symmetry to the design; detail could be added by putting Spanish tile on the parapet; the design that is existing on the first floor is okay City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2001 15 but does not necessarily work for the second floor addition; the design is overwhelming because there are no details; the house is unique in that most others in the area have tile; the cantilever over the driveway will make the driveway appear closed off and it is likely that no cars will ever park there; for clarification, the windows on the existing house were changed out about a year ago and the existing windows are beautiful Andersen windows that are in good condition, second story windows should match these; the proposed house has no windows on the north elevation because the owner is trying to accommodate our concerns. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made and also a copy of the audio tape so that the concerns of the neighbors could be reviewed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to the design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Dreiling, and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:47 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe noted that the City Council cancelled its August 6, 2001 meeting. Also she noted that the next Housing Workshop would be September 19, a Wednesday evening, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. On the next Council agenda will be a discussion about whether the Council would like to appoint a Citizen’s Advisory Committee to help in the preparation of the draft of the 2001 Housing Element update. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary MINUTES8.13