Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.09.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, September 10, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the September 10, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:12 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Luzuriaga Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 27, 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 (7:15 p.m.) V. FROM THE FLOOR Denise Spanek, operator of a make-up and skin care studio at 329 Primrose Road, wants to expand business to include individual yoga lessons for small groups or one-on-one training, will just be another service added to her current business, under zoning code there is not a category this falls into, the closest definition is for gymnasium, this would be in an 875 SF space, know this issue has been brought up before, space was hair salon before, new business would bring in no more people than before; wants to know next step, can definitions be reviewed. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: would like clarification regarding the parking requirement for the project, five bedrooms but garage space is 16' x 23', is this a nonconforming condition, please clarify in staff report; ask the applicant to clarify on the site plan what is existing and what is being proposed, it is difficult to tell what is being added; this proposal involves a situation with nonconforming floor area ratio, could a condition be added that if the residence is demolished, that the floor area ratio variance would go away; are there permits in place for the existing floor area on the site; ask the applicant to provide story poles of the proposed addition so that can see how the new roofline will impact views. There were no further questions and the item was set for the regular action calendar at the next meeting if all the information required is submitted on time and the story poles can be installed the Wednesday before the next meeting. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 2 2. 340 LORTON AVENUE #214 – ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE (ELIZABETH GRAHAM, APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. C. Auran recused himself from the discussion because he has a business relationship with the property owner. Commissioners asked: the previous use of this space was a personal service, what was the nature of the business, provide a comparison of the number of employees for that type of business and what is proposed; the application states that the hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week, but in the application materials it states there would be no clients after 5:00 p.m. on weekends, please explain; could the applicant provide an estimate of when clients would be present during the day, also explain why the business is not expected to grow in the next two to five years; how did it happen that this building has a 26 parking space deficit, were there funds paid to a parking district in the past. This item was set for the regular action calendar for September 24, 2001, provided all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. 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 asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting on item 3B, 1361 DeSoto Avenue, because he lives within 500 feet of the project. C. Auran asked to have item 3A, 1700 Hillside Drive, removed and a public hearing held. Chairman Vistica noted that items 3B, 1361 DeSoto and 3C, 1615 Willow, remain on the consent calendar. 1700 Hillside Drive will be moved to the first item on the regular action calendar. 3B. 1361 DE SOTO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN AND CATHY GARAGOZZO/LARRY MORSELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) 3C. 1615 WILLOW AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN REAR 40% OF LOT (JERRY WINGES, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ANN PHILIPS, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion to approve the project at 1361 DeSoto Avenue passed 5 -0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) on a roll call vote. The motion to approve the project at 1615 Willow Avenue passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3A. 1700 HILLSIDE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHN AND CAROLYN LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN LEUNG, DESIGNER) Reference staff report 9.10.01, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the staff report, reviewed the action criteria staff and comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Leung, architect/designer, represented the project. He indicated he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that he called the item off the consent calendar because he felt that all the requests from the design review study had not been addressed, for example it did not appear that all the iron work was of the same design. Applicant noted that they had tried to show the stairs behind the iron gate at the entry and that made the design look different, also the span of the gate at the drive way required that the shape of the gate be different, so the spacing of the bars which is the same for all three areas looks different. There were no other comments from the commission or from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that he would move approval of the project by resolution including the conditions in the staff report and with the added condition that all the iron work would have the same vertical spacing between the bars for all the iron elements on the building. The following conditions as amended were included in the motion: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 29, 2001, sheets 1, 6, and 8, and date stamped June 14, 2000, sheets 2-5, 7, and 9, 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 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 driveway gate, front entrance gate, and balcony iron work, shall have the same vertical members with the same separation between them and the same style top and bottom railing; and 4) 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 with the amended condition that all the iron work at the front of the property and on the front façade be the same. The motion passed on a unanimous 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. 4. 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) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 27, 2001 MEETING) Reference staff report, 9.10.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked does condition 3 mean that there could not be a microwave on the site for heating food? CP Monroe responded yes. There were no further questions from the Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 4 Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Gus and Gladys Greco, property owners 1147 Rollins Road, represented the project noting that they wanted to improve the appearance of the site and gave the commission pictures of the remodel that they recently completed at their similar structure in San Carlos which had a service bay area of about the same size; they indicated that they could not accept conditions 3 (no sale of alcoholic beverages and hot food) and 5 (no ATM on site). They felt that there was a big difference between a restaurant and someone heating a sandwich to eat in their car; they now have an ATM machine it is built into the gas pumps and also they have a separate cash machine inside; they will have an alcohol license which only allows selling in bulk (six pack or bottle of wine) not open containers or one can at a time; the sale of alcohol is expected to be an important part of their future business profit; they do not plan on having tables or chairs so can agree to that limitation. Commissioners asked how the projected number of customers was determined, noting that this is a busy intersection, recently signalized, and an increase in traffic movements at this location is a concern; applicant noted that most gas customers come from the south on Rollins Road and are entering into the complicated intersection, not crossing it to get to the station; he noted the number of customers is based on their current volume and they do not expect the mini-mart to increase the number of customers at the gas station. The difference between the number of customers at this station without a mini-mart and those with smaller mini-marts in the area was noted by commission, in all cases the other stations had a larger number of customers; the 7-11 nearby had six times as many customers with only a third more floor area. Commission noted that if the applicant’s business increased to a per square foot level of the 7-11, it could add 900-1000 vehicles to the intersection. Applicant noted that he has not noted an increase in customers in his San Carlos location three weeks after opening the mini-mart. There was discussion about the free standing ATM on site, the applicant established that it was a cash only ATM, can not deposit checks. Regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages the applicant noted that the liquor cooler automatically locked between 2 am and 6 am; employees would have to be 21 years or older. Commission noted that based on the information in the staff report to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at this mini-mart would be a change in city policy. Applicant noted he felt that the economic return to the city and himself from the mini-mart would be greater than from the service business. Applicant noted that Union 76 had done a study regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages at gas stations and determined that people were as likely to drink and drive if they purchased the beverages at Safeway as they were if they bought them at a gas station mini-mart. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have trouble supporting this request, on site visit noticed all the 7-11 customers have to pass this site, if this business diverts those customers it will have a big impact on the intersection and traffic will back up on to Broadway, increasing problems for the already troubled traffic in this area; also have problems with the sale of alcoholic beverages and the microwave to enable sales of hot food; the customer numbers and discussion raise questions, if expanding to 1700 SF of mini-mart and it will not increase the number of customers; why do it; all other stations with mini-marts have more customers than expected here; think city should not change its policy on the sale of alcoholic beverages from gas stations, we should be consistent have prohibited at other service stations should do so here; feel that there is a strong potential for added congestion at this difficult intersection, this is not a good location for this use; ATM and microwave are there already so do not have a problem, but share the traffic concern, should continue this item to have a proper study and evaluation of the accuracy of the trip generation numbers for 7-11. CA Anderson noted that there were two procedural options: one was to continue the time and ask the applicant to have a traffic study prepared so that the impacts could be better estimated; and the second was to deny the application. Commission noted that given the options it was better to offer the applicant the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 5 opportunity to do a traffic study so the Commission would have a better understanding of the impact of the change in use. C. Osterling moved that this project be continued until a traffic study could be completed to include the issues identified in the discussion and as discussed with staff. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: one commissioner noted that if undertaking a traffic study is considered by the applicant to be too complex would be willing to consider a reduction of square footage in the mini-mart by at least 50%. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item until a traffic study could be prepared and presented to the Commission. The motion passed unaminously on a 6-0 voice vote. Since no action was taken on the application the item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1424 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JON AND KELLY MC GOVERN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart, Stewart Associates, 1351 Laurel Avenue, San Carlos, applicant and architect, noted that this is the type of project he likes to do, addition enhances the Craftsman style of the existing house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners wanted to complement the architect on the plans, specifically sheet A-4, it distinctly shows the existing versus proposed; overall the design is very attractive. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a next Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 2001. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the next meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 6. 750 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if the applicant had been given a copy of the Design Review Guidelines handbook. SP Brooks noted that these are given to all applicants for design review. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 6 Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Thomas Woo, ASI Consulting Engineers, applicant and designer, was available for questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment on the design: ❑ Propose 11' plate height on the first floor and 9' plate height on the second floor, would be more comfortable with a 9' plate height on the first floor and an 8' plate height on the second floor; ❑ Window proportions quite big, not at a residential scale but at a commercial scale; ❑ The two-story entry looks like a commercial style building; ❑ Floor plan is square with rounded edge at back, this is normally seen on much smaller buildings, this is overpowering to the neighborhood, should be variation in wall masses, roof types to help break up the mass; ❑ Mass and bulk is inconsistent with the neighborhood, the vertical two-story walls make it large and bulky, could reduce width, this is a deep lot, it would have less impact on the street. ❑ Need to interject details of the old world style of the neighborhood; ❑ Need articulation on east and west elevations; ❑ Regarding the garage, agree most of the houses in the neighborhood do have attached garages, but it would be nice to break up the garage door into two single doors; ❑ Need an arborist's report with a tree protection plan that addresses how the trees to be saved will be protected during construction; ❑ Curved area in front does not match the neighborhood, modern look in a traditional neighborhood; ❑ Propose foam stucco mold and vinyl clad windows; would like to see wood stucco mold with divided light windows; C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 7. 325 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FORBAIRT, L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNER) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 7 Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 248 Lorton Avenue, applicant and project designer, was available for comment. Commissioners asked if there is a basement proposed, it is shown on the plans, but not mentioned in the staff report. The applicant noted that there is a 400 SF basement proposed. There were no comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. Commissioner comment on the design: ❑ Front second story balcony does not fit in with the old world style of the street; ❑ Is there a way to change the five gables in the front, transition to hip roofs or bring something forward to keep it from being busy, make it simpler; ❑ Front entry looks left over from the rooms on either side, needs articulation ❑ On south elevation, bay window not really consistent with the rest of the house, could consider a dormer, roof in this area is funny shape, the left over area to the right needs either a window or continue the roof across; ❑ On west elevation, doors seem out of proportion, looks busy, need to soften look of the doors, height of doors should be reduced; ❑ On north elevation, need to work on the area with the basement windows; ❑ Need more detail on windows, eave and fascia, add shadow lines on fascia, emphasize the rectangular vents to make them a special detail; ❑ Would like to see a more detailed landscape plan; ❑ Would like to see an arborist's report to address protection of the trees which are to remain on the site; ❑ There are a few large italian cypress to be removed within the footprint, show on landscape plans trees which will meet requirement for replacement. Commissioner Luzuriaga made a motion to send the project to a design review consultant with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. The commission's action is advisory and there is not appeal. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 4, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at the September 4, 2001, Council meeting. In discussion it was noted that the Council would like the Commission to consider limiting the size of retail businesses on Burlingame Avenue and on Broadway. Staff pointed out that there was also an unresolved use issue relating to wellness/fitness businesses in these two commercial areas. Chairman noted that at the moment the resources of the Commission were pretty well taxed and suggested that staff put together the existing data relating to these two issues and bring it back to the commission for consideration. Staff indicated that they City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 8 had some older data they could put together. It may be a couple of meetings before they could evaluate it and return to the commission for further direction. Commission suggested that staff also look at how other communities had handled both these issues. The CA noted that the issue here is the size of the store not the type or ownership. C. Luzuriaga noted that this would be his last meeting as a member of the Planning Commission. The press of family and business required that he resign. He thanked the commission for their support and for all that he had learned during his three years of service. The commission thanked him for his leadership and judgement and for all he had helped them learn. Chairman Vistica noted that there were now two vacancies on the commission and he hoped that the Council could find replacements. - Discussion of Legal Requirements for Planning Approvals CP Monroe noted the paper on legal requirements for planning approvals prepared by the City Attorney and encouraged the Commissioners to ask staff or the attorney any questions regarding it. CP Monroe also handed out a copy of the executive summary of the “Letter Plan” for transit oriented residential development in Burlingame sent to the city by Glenborough Partners. She noted that this had been sent FYI to the City Council earlier; they had made no comment regarding it. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES9.10