Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.11.13-1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the November 13, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Key, Mink and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES C. Bojues noted that he had voted no on the application at 247 California Drive and the minutes needed to be corrected to reflect his vote accurately. Chairman Vistica noted the correction and that the October 22, 2001, minutes as mailed were approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 416 BAYSWATER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MATTHEW AND LAURA HESSELGREN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: will there be a stove, refrigerator or sink in the 175 SF study; there is not a bath on the first floor of the main house, why not make the study addition to the house or not include a bath in the garage; why do they need a full bath, this could easily become a second dwelling unit; provide reasons for including a shower; will this be a personal office or will it be used for a business, will clients come to site; is the applicant aware that the excess square footage over 400 SF counts towards the floor area ratio for the house, this could affect a future addition to the house; is there an alternative to placing the French doors and windows within ten feet of the property line; can the number of permits requested be reduced; concern with the overall size of structure and that it will not match style of existing house, especially the wall with the garage door. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE – ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE (CLOTHING STORE) NOT RELATED TO AUTOMOBILE SALES, SERVICE, OR STORAGE (ELLA MEYDBRAY AND ELIZABETH YUKHTMAN, APPLICANTS; ISAAC AND EVELYN BAUMELGRUEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 2 Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: on the drawings, 12 parking spaces are shown on property leased from the railroad across West Lane, how many of these are designated for this tenant space; how did the applicant arrive at ten customers per day for the first year, 15 in the second year, and 20 customers per day in five years; where will merchandise delivery vehicles park; where will employees park, how will they get to work. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. 3. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD –MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED 1.0 FLOOR AREA RATIO, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO VARY FROM THE PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE-STORY MEETING ROOM SPACE ADDITION (PAUL ZEN, TODAY’S III, INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GUMBINGER/AVRAM ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is it time for commission to look at the parking ratio requirements for hotels, this issue should be brought up at the join t Planning Commission/City Council study meeting in February; is the one to one parking ratio for hotels still valid, can the applicant provide information on how that ratio works for them especially now that there are parking controls on the site; have concerns about landscaping, the site has heavy tree cover except on the north and back side, would like to see detailed landscape plan. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:27 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 are no items for review on the Consent Calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 131 LOMA VISTA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VINCENT AND DOREEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Doreen Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista, applicant, noted that she had received a call from the architect and he was not able to come to the hearing. She noted that a permanent redwood fence has been installed along the left side property line, and the shrubs along that side are healthy, pictures of the fence and landscaping were submitted for the record; she notes that in response to the commission's concerns the plans have been revised, the height of the turret has been reduced and the chimney has been revised so it now complies with building code. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 3 Michael Magalong, 138 Loma Vista, Jerry Piazzo, 55 Loma Vista Drive, Corrine Piazzo, and Vic Borelli spoke in support of the application; noting that this project is coming along beautifully, height of the turret is not an issue, look forward to the project being finished. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant made attempt to lower the roof, only a small portion exceeds the allowed height limit, prefer the windows on the first proposal but this proposal is okay, the way project is now proposed is a positive change, unfortunate that it was delayed, but there was a reason, the construction was not done according to plans approved, it needed to be corrected, the applicant followed the suggestions made and it will be a nice project, would like to be sure it is built the way it is shown now, should add a condition that the height be surveyed before final inspection. CA noted that City approval does not give anyone permission to go on another person’s property, and permission from that other property own er is required C. Auran 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 June 15, 2000, and as amended by plans date stamped September 14, 2001 (proposed second floor plan) and November 1, 2001 (proposed front, side and rear building elevations) documenting building height at 30’-5” above average top of curb and change in the size of three window locations: an increase in the size of the three windows on the turret facing the street from three 2’-6 x 5’ windows to one 3’-6” x 6’ window and two 1’-6” x 6’ windows; an increase to the size of the second floor master bathroom window, on the left side elevation from 2’ x 2’ to 2’ x 5’; and removing the 2’-6” x 6’-8” door on the rear elevation and replacing it with a smaller 2’ x 2’ window; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the property owner shall install and maintain a temporary construction fence along the left and right side property lines until construction on the property has received an occupancy permit or the fence is replaced with a permanent property line fence designed to cit y code standards; the temporary construction fence shall be installed within 10 days of the date of this approval; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 10, 2000 memo shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that the fountain shown in the front yard on the landscape plan shall be removed and no fountain shall be placed in any portion of the front yard visible from the street; 6) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge of the turret shall not exceed elevation 126.25' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Loma Vista Drive (95.75'), and that the top of the turret shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer prior to scheduling the final inspection. Should the turret height exceed the stated elevation, it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height of 30' –5" as shown on the approved plans; and 7) 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. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1– APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (LILLIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ, DESIGNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 4 Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were4 no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Lillian Vasey, 1562 Cypress, applicant and Vera Vasey were available for questions. Commissioners noted that the staff report states that the existing wood shed has not been removed, it still exists within the partially completed concrete structure, is this correct. The applicant acknowledged that this is correct, the wood shed was falling down, wanted to replace it, and did not think permits were required. Commissioners noted that they are disturbed that the concrete block building was built without permits, applicant should have done her homework, would like to see the height reduced, the new structure will be larger and taller 13’ at property line than what was there, not proposing wood siding or paint. Dan March, 1569 Newlands, lives in house in back of this one, the proposed structure is along his side yard, object to the height and design of the structure, concerned that construction started without permits, if approved it should be used as stipulated for storage only, not by tenants for night parties, the original storage structure was not objectionable, it was lower than the fence height. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there have been classic problems with this project, proposing to take a nonconforming use with multiple units and expand it, applicant should rethink the project and change it to be closer to code, don't have the right to infringe on rights of neighbors, purpose of the code is to protect the community, the new structure is a lot different than the storage shed that was there, it isn't consistent with the neighborhood, would have rather seen a straight forward application, not one that came in after the fact; structure should be smaller, shorter, applicant should come back with a different project closer to code requirements. C. Keighran moved to deny the application based on the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 6. 1423 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if there is a State agency that regulates licensed surveyors and can their licenses be revoked. CE Murtuza noted that there is a State board for surveyors, and if complaints are filed, they could act to revoke a license. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Con Brosnan, 609 Barroilhet Avenue, San Mateo, property owner, was available to answer questions. Commissioners asked what the solutions are for remedying the excess height. The applicant noted that the house would have to be dropped three feet more, it was already dropped by one foot, would have to regrade the site and there might be problems with site drainage, main City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 5 floor is at grade line now, if plate height were dropped from 9 feet to 8 feet it would affect the look of the house quite a bit. Karen Delee, 1429 Balboa Avenue, resident to the north side of this project, noted that there was a letter submitted from the neighbor to the south at 1421 Balboa, on the original plans the height was proposed at over 35 feet, it was redesigned and came back with height at 30 feet conforming to code, roof height could be lowered, three feet is a large error, will impact light to her kitchen, bedroom and breakfast room. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concerned that this is coming back with such a large error, we have seen a lot of applications come back with errors, the design is good, the regulations for special permit are meant to allow more height given this type of roof pitch, as proposed may be too high given the neighborhood, would like to see a compromise between 30 and 32 feet; the design guidelines encourage high pitch roof if it compliments the design, inclined to think this project fits criteria, design is good, it breaks up the mass, the portion of the roof that encroaches above the height limit is minimal; should go back to drawing board and find solution that falls within the 30 foot height; did not approve house of this height, because the height on the lot was not known, it has changed significantly. C. Bojués made a motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. Discussion on the motion: the house is not changing, the grade is different, at least we know ahead of time, code does allow for special permit for height up to 36 feet based on design; this design is nice, mass is reduced, there are a variety of roof pitches; the options for lowering the height have drawbacks, would be waterproofing issues if house were sunk below grade, if the first floor plate line were lowered it would affect how much could be built on the second floor since roof lines extend down to first floor; if the top were chopped off, it would compromise the integrity of the architectural style; still too tall for the neighborhood, it will stand out, would like to suggest that go back to the drawing board so it fits in with the neighborhood. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote (Csrs. Auran, Keighran and Vistica dissenting, C. Osterling absent). Since the vote was tied Chairman Vistica asked if there was another motion. Further discussion: There are options to explore which could reduce the height, reducing plate heights, flattening roof, note that house is well designed aside from the height, is articulated well. C. Vistica moved to continue the item with direction that the applicant come back with a revised project that significantly reduces the height. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Osterling absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 7. 1224-1228/1225-1229 PALOMA AVENUE, 1225-1229 LAGUNA AVENUE, AND 1224-1228 CAPUCHINO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONING FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO R-2 (DUPLEX DWELLINGS) (JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT; JERRY DEAL, MARGARET JOSCHER, BELINDA AND NICHOLAS CAIRUS, ALDO AND LOU ANN GHIOZZI, MARK AND TERESA DASZYNSKI, ELENORE LINDQUIST, RON AND DAVINA DRABKIN, AND ALBERT A. MEYER, PROPERTY OWNERS) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 6 Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed the action and the staff comments. Commissioners asked if the number of parcels proposed to be rezoned was fixed. Staff noted that planning laws do not allow “spot” planning e.g. the change of land use designation and implementing zoning of a single or small group of lots within a larger area with a different zoning; one of the issues in this request is how many parcels constitute a meaningful transition area between the higher density multiple family R-3 area and the adjacent single family R-1 area. Have we created an R-2 (duplex) overlay zone any where in the city? No, we have placed multiple family (R-4) zoning over commercial zoning to encourage transitions from commercial uses to residential uses and have created mixed use zones with residential and commercial uses on the same lot. C. Key noted that she received called from two residents in the area Banlkowsky and Bukelman regarding this item, she referred them to the Planning Department. There were no other questions/comments from the Commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing asking the audience to keep their comments to three minutes. Jerry Deal, owner of 1226-1228 Paloma, an existing nonconforming duplex, presented the general plan amendment and rezoning request. He noted that the city has taken a number of actions since 1990 to allow improvements to nonconforming second units including the new second unit amnesty ordinance, but his duplex, although built in 1923, does not qualify under any of these provisions. His personal needs have changed and his family has grown, he would like to continue to live there and enlarge the first floor unit to create a dining room. There were a couple of choices open, one was that he and his neighbor to the south ask to be rezoned R-3 since they are adjacent to existing R-3 zoning; another was that the two lots be rezoned R-2, but staff told him that this was “spot” land use change; another choice was to create a transition land use between the existing R-3 and R-1 zoning using R-2 or duplex zoning. He felt that the R- 3 multiple family option would not be good for the neighborhood, so went with the transition R-2 choice. He became aware today of a petition prepared and signed by his neighbors and noted in response that this proposal would affect 6 parcels on three streets for a total maximum of 6 new units; that this proposal would not substantially increase traffic, the reason traffic is bad on the street is the proximity of the Broadway commercial area; the parking on street would not be further impacted because the on-site parking requirements for duplexes is greater than for single family houses, so development as duplexes would increase the off street parking opportunities in the area, in addition because of parking requirements and lot size the largest duplex unit which would be built would have two bedrooms, single family houses would probably be larger; there has been no documentation presented to establish that the rezoning of these 8 parcels will negatively affect the value of the single family homes in the area and he does not believe that to be true; finally, this would not represent a permanent change to this stable neighborhood, it would create a maximum of 6 units over the distance of three streets; the proposal works toward the community goals of more housing within walking distance of shopping and transit, it is what the city should do; it is important to understand just how limited this request is; also this is not proposal to remove any existing houses or add any more dwelling units at this time, would like to extend the breakfast nook (6’-5.5’) in a first floor existing unit of a duplex to make a dining room. He have never built or developed a property for sale in Burlingame, he intends to live on the site. Would be happy to have the commission reduce the area to be rezoned down to his and his neighbor to the south’s properties. Commenting from the floor were: Akia Devashi, 1236 Paloma; Linda Field, 1249 Paloma; Jeff Stevens, 1244 Paloma; Paulette Sudono, 1247 Paloma; Ash McNeily, 1236 Paloma; Allan Banlkowsky, 1304 Lincoln; Tom Starr, 1233 Paloma; Mary Carson, 1200 Lincoln; Liza Verbertile, Capuchino; Debby Dequants, 1232 Paloma, Renee Harold, 1235 Paloma; Skip Braun, 1228 Laguna; Debbie St. Brilo, 1245 Laguna; Mark Zuckerman, 1233 Laguna; Amanda Kargill, 1241 Laguna; Manny Gomez, 1235 Paloma; Aileen Mayer, 1228 Capuchino; Susa Rano, 1232 Capuchino; Anna Marales, 1215, Capuchino, Mike Gail, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 7 1237 Laguna; Bill Hoskinson, 1209 Lincoln; Laurie Banlkowsky, 1304 Lincoln. Issues discussed were: not object to applicants need for more space, but in 19 years living on Paloma have seen the sense of quite, quaint neighborhood decrease because of the increase in traffic, children cannot play on the front lawn, real litter problem from many users, parking in use all the time by the commercial users during the day and the residents at night; the change in zoning would make the applicant’s site more saleable and someone else might build to full potential of R-2; change in zoning would have big impact on narrow street and lower the value of the existing single family houses, the negative declaration should be questioned and the low density land use designation and R-1 zoning retained; neighborhood is united against this change in zoning, concerned when purchased home that it was in a solidly single family area, duplexes would decrease the value, sees this as a benefit to a few to the detriment of many; lot of negative changes in this area in the past 21 years, the appearance of the block changes and improves now at Jerry Deal’s units, okay to change one or two properties but not more, concerned that change would move down the block, on-site tandem parking is inconvenient so people park on the street, need to consider the quality of life of the tax payers, living close to commercial area has its good and bad benefits; think spot zoning Jerry Deals site is okay, not want to see bigger with more renters in the neighborhood, people who don’t care about property maintenance or appearance, there is a new base of homeowners in this area and they should be protected. Comment from the floor continued: this would change the character of this neighborhood, adding 6 units on these properties would double the number of people living on these lots, to okay a petition around, it demonstrates the grass roots opinion and 99 people are opposed; concerned that this change will result in loss of pride of ownership in the area, once the zoning is changed cannot go back; bought an R-1 house and expect to live in an R-1 zoned house, to change it is a serious matter, it will change the neighborhood character; there is no application to build on these 8 lots now but there could be in the future, Capuchino is particularly impacted by multiple family units, not just commercial parking in the day time but renters on El Camino Real park on the street at night, this results in lots of litter and pests; live next door to Jerry Deal, concerned that when he no longer lives there the property will be rebuilt and will loose privacy of their house; have owned two different houses in the neighborhood, am flabbergasted with this request; such as change in zoning and land use will change the neighborhood; parking limit in area is two hours but police do not have enough manpower to enforce, have personal experience with selling a car; concerned that intensifying development in this area will result in tree removal; looked at 8 properties, six of the eight have new lawns, 5 new landscaping, 2 single family houses are not maintained, do not want to reward these by increasing the zoning; children cannot ride bicycles because with the on street parking from the apartments and cars exiting driveways there is no visibility, Capuchino already looks bad, big apartment buildings and small single family houses, a mish-mash of inconsistent architectural styles; what is the applicant’s concern now about his property being nonconforming, has been for a long time, he needs to follow the rules, not destroy the neighborhood; there has been a lot of change in this area, traffic has changed with an increase in residents and guests with a greater impact over the past 10 years than expected on Laguna; applicant needs to explain how the change in zoning will enhance and protect the neighborhood character, protect the values of the existing homes and make the neighborhood a safer place; protested making Laguna one-way and now the traffic travels much faster, protested massage parlor one-half block away, the impact of this action has not been thought through duplexes are big; have listened tonight to long discussions about 3 feet in height, this rezoning is a significant attack should be considered in detail; live in house inherited from parents, she looking forward to moving in an maintaining the house, now it will be rezoned, did not agree, am concerned about the domino effect of this action. Comments continued: did a survey of the first blocks zoned R-1 on Capuchino, east side of the street she occupies the only single family house in a group of multiple family structures, the survey results were: 74 rental units (34 two bedroom, 31 one bedroom, 7 studio), two in-law units, 11 single family – total 85 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 8 dwelling units; think there are enough rentals, in addition there is a 12 unit condominium which was installed despite the protests of the neighbors, what is the minimum number of lots needed to qualify the transition R-2 area and can Capuchino be left out; if city would just allow Jerry Deal to have his addition, the city could avoid all this protest; live in house on Capuchino, have teen aged children with 4 cars to the household, others will too, need to park on street but can’t because people who work for the airlines and who work on Broadway park on the street, along with people who live in the apartments on El Camino; negative declaration notes the project does not propose development but the rezoning would cause the single family houses to become duplexes which will result in a change in character in the area over time, with current uses given Jerry’s duplex and the 5 unit apartment building plus 8 units there are 13 units now, with the rezoning and conversion there would be 19 units in the area; next step will be to continue the R-2 zone transition to the lots on Rhinette facing that R-3 zoned area; believe renters are less likely to park on-site; over the years the quality of life in Burlingame has been reduced by an increase in traffic, people and density along El Camino Real, request for two new apartments on Paloma next to Broadway now your are continuing to affect the quality of life. Chairman Vistica asked if the applicant would like to comment: Applicant noted that originally asked to rezone his property and his neighbor’s to the south from R-1 to R-2 city noted that since there was no contiguous R-2 zoning this was “spot” zoning and more properties needed to be included; what he wants is to make his duplex built in 1924 made conforming so that he can add on to it. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: do not know how this grouping of properties was decided upon, but know that the Commission cannot spot zone, noted the causes of nonconformity, feel that the parcels on Capuchino should not be included because the area is already impacted from the R-3 zoning on the El Camino side of the street, the street is narrow and one way and impacted with on-street parking because of the pattern of zoning and development of older apartment buildings along El Camino built with different on-site parking requirements; understand that a pattern not a spot is required for rezoning but want to protect the neighborhood; cannot support this change because it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, feel that there must be some creative way short of rezoning to assist the applicant; agree that parcels on Capuchino should be exempted, since the 2 nonconforming uses are on Paloma perhaps the rezoning can be limited to the four properties on Paloma, single family value can be affected if residents in duplex use on- site parking for storage or if both units are renter occupied; the problem being addressed by this request began twenty years ago, change has occurred in the Broadway area, should note that it is an important feature that a city is a living being and modifies itself or it dies; do not know multiple family development would damage this area, know people have come out in part to protect themselves and in part to protect the city; the system is working, all have been heard but that does not mean planning will benefit all; with people living there change will occur, appears that transit corridors on the Peninsula will make a greater impact on housing, Broadway is at typical transit center, need to think into the future. It is the natural evolution of cities that the density in this area close to shopping, pedestrian activity, transportation will increase, the ultimate fate of the area around Broadway is more urban and less suburban, it is just not time for this change to happen yet; the Planning Commission represents the values of the community and while the state has mandated the city to find place for additional housing, this is not the location at this time; appreciate the involvement of these neighbors and hope that they continue to be involved and stating community values on planning issues in other areas, feel that the current R-1 zoning is probably appropriate for this location in these special circumstances. Commission comment continued: CA Anderson noted that in California it is not possible to grant a variance to the allowed uses in a zoning district; commission could change the definition or regulations around non- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 9 conforming uses, but this change would affect all properties in the city; the Commission could review the second unit amnesty ordinance and provide for circumstances such as this; Commission can also define how many lots need to be included in each circumstance to create a meaningful transition or area with a single, and different, zoning designation. A Commissioner noted would like to consider the four lots on Paloma/Laguna as being sufficient to establish an R-2 transition zone (1228-1224 Paloma, 1229-1225 Laguna) the result of this rezoning would be to add a net of two dwelling units with maximum build out. C. Bojues moved to recommend denial of the request to change the zoning designation from R-1 to R-2 on the 8 parcels suggested on the north side of Broadway; suggest that city explore revisions to the second unit amnesty program or other ways to address nonconforming units such as this. C. Auran seconded the motion. Comments on the motion: what is the process from here; CP Monroe noted that the applicant can go forward with Commission’s recommendation to City Council for action, can modify his request within suggestions made by the Commission, or can withdraw his request for the rezoning. CA Anderson noted that it seemed to be a consensus of the Commission that the existing density of development was sufficiently dense on Capuchino, that to add more density there would be unwise, so the two parcels on Capuchino should be dropped from the rezoning request. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the recommendation that the request for the rezoning of eight parcels adjacent to the R-3 zone on the north side of Broadway be rezoned from R-1 to R-2. The motion for a negative recommendation passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Commissioners suggested four lots might be considered to create an adequate transition zoning unit, suggest that Council consider looking at modifying the second unit ordinance to address this type of issue in existing long time nonconforming duplex developments. It is up to the applicant if he wishes to proceed with this rezoning request. The neighbors will be noticed if this item is scheduled for Council action. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m. Chairman Vistica called for a break. The Commission reconvened at 10.28 p.m. 8. 1838 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 111 – ZONED C-1– APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (MARY J. WONG, APPLICANT; NOLAN WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mary Wong, applicant, and Ryan Jesus, broker of record, noted that their business is based on referrals, most often they will visit clients at home or in their place of business, the broker is at the office about two to three times a week, there is a designated office manager to attend to business in the broker's absence, primarily they are working with commercial clients and renta l properties, there will be no other agents on the premises, there will only be three people working in the office, the business owner, the broker and the office manager. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: think that this project will have a minimal impact, they are going from another office use to real estate office, there would be no more than four people there; could impose a time limit on the application, that it be reviewed in two years or upon complaint. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 10 C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the real estate use shall be limited to 1,048 SF in Suite 111 at 1838 El Camino Real, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 25, 2001, First Floor Plan, with a maximum of 4 employees (full-time and part-time) on-site at any one time including the office manager and all employees and contractors; 2) that the real estate office on this site may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of ten people on-site for this business at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of full or part -time employees, or total number of people on-site at any one time which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in two years from the date of approval (November, 2003) or upon complaint; and 5) that the use and 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. Key. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 9. 1416 CHAPIN AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO EXPAND ON THE SECOND FLOOR (STEVE PATRICK REPRESENTING THE CASHIN COMPANY, APPLICANT; CHAPIN LIMITED LIABILITY CO., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 11.13.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Steve Patrick, applicant and Rick LaDue, Cashin Company were available to respond to questions. Applicant clarified that the staff report mentioned the possibility of having 66 people on-site at any one time, there are 61 potential participants in the Monday morning meetings, usually 60% to 70% show up, that would generally be 40 to 44 people; and there are 32 on-site parking spaces which meet zoning code requirements. Commissioners asked when the on-site parking lot is full, where do the other people coming to the meeting park. The applicant noted that generally, people using the building park in the lot, there usually aren't more than 32 people, if there is overflow, they will park in on-street parking. There were no further comments from the floor. Commissioners noted that with the two businesses there previously there are a total of 75 employees, with this change that will decrease to 61, these are independent contractors, they are not in the office all the time, have computers at home and lap tops, this plan decreases the density of employees on-site, less than present tenant; may not perceive a parking problem, but if there is no parking they will have to use the on-street parking, it does create a problem; meeting may be only one hour a week, but for that hour it isn't working; seems to work well except for Monday meetings, it is likely to be congested at that time, can the meetings be staggered, if the meeting were held between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. on Mondays, it would not conflict with other businesses in the area which don't open until after 9:00 a.m. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the 5154 SF first floor office area shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and dated May 30, 1995, sheets 1, 2, 3 & L1; 2) that the expanded real estate use on the second floor (4490 SF) shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 11 October 2, 2001, sheets C-1 and Second Floor Office Layout, and that the entire 9644 SF of the building shall be used for real estate use by a single business; 3) that the real estate business shall have a maximum of 61 full-time and part-time agents and 5 full-time employees; the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents and employees for this business shall not be increased without an amendment to this permit; 4) that the weekly group meeting of agents working from the site shall be held only on Mondays from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 5) that the real estate business on this site may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week; 6) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of agents or employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 7) that no portion of the first or second floors of this building shall be sublet to any other business without amendment to this permit; 8) that the 32 on-site parking spaces shall be retained for the employees on-site and their clients/customers without any charge to users or the business; 9) that the sign(s) proposed for this site shall require a separate sign permit from the Planning Department prior to installation; and 10) that the use and 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. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Csrs. Bojués, Mink dissenting, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1509 LOS MONTES 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) Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. Chair Vistica noted that he would be abstaining from the discussion because he has a business relationship with the applicant and he stepped down from the dais. Vice Chairperson Keighran took over as chair. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chairperson Keighran opened the public comment. The applicant, Fred Strathdee, 147 Leslie, San Carlos described the project and was available for questions. Susan Smith, 1515 Los Montes Drive and Jay Smith, 1515 Los Montes Drive, commented on the project. It was noted that as designed, the project is still massive, the design is inconsistent with the neighborhood which is primarily small ranch style houses, asked if mass could be modified to be one-story or split level like others in the area; would face wall two stories high, concern with blocking of light in the back yard and the affect on the character of the neighborhood, the detached garage has a 100' long driveway, appears that 50 year old tree would have to be removed for driveway. The applicant noted that trees are proposed along the property line for privacy, survey didn't show tree in direct line of driveway, will check, if it is, will work to save tree. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: ❑ Like to see story poles at front of house to show relationship of proposed to surrounding properties; ❑ House is nicely designed, but lot is long and narrow, size is still massive in comparison to neighbors; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 12 ❑ Height compared to neighbors is a concern, will have impact from street, would like to see it smaller; ❑ Would like to see a detailed landscape plan, and show existing tree and impact on driveway and garage location. Comment on motion: it was noted that this design is an improvement over original plan, it conforms to code with no variances, now that roof lines are shown, feel that it will fit in nicely, the neighboring roof line on uphill side will still be higher than what is proposed, there is a 10' setback on the right side and a 12'-6" setback on the left, there are large trees on adjacent property to the right which provide screening. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Vice Chairperson Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and story poles installed. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C Vistica abstaining, C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m. Chair Vistica took his seat on the dais. 11. 1509 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIRAYR KOUROUYAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KAMAL TABIB, DYNAMIC DESIGNS, DESIGNER) Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Kamil Tabib, 912 Fifteenth Avenue, Redwood City project designer and Jerry Kourouyan, 1044 Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, property owner, commented on the project; they have been working with the design review consultant; trying to work with the existing building and make it more appealing so it blends with the neighborhood, the lot is deep but the house is set toward the front, doesn't allow for an entry without infringing on code required front setback, the first floor is 6'-6" above grade, porch is proposed to try to break up the mass at the front; there is an apartment building adjacent to the site on the corner of El Camino Real and Howard that is set close to the street, the rest of the houses on the block are set back further, this new porch would provide transition. Commissioners asked about the lower level windows, it seems that they are missing the top molding; the applicant noted that this was intentional, thought it would look better with the belly band that is proposed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: ❑ Windows should be broken up into smaller panes; should use divided light windows; ❑ Provide a complete landscape plan that shows new landscaping proposed along driveway and in the rear yard as well as the front yard; ❑ Consider reducing the depth of the front porch from eight feet to six feet to reduce the impact of the front setback variance. This motion was seconded by C. Key. There were no comments on the motion. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 13 Chairman Vistica 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 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:00 midnight. 12. 1340 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE (PAM POWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VIRGINIA CULBERTSON AND JACQUES CROMIER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Pam Powell, 3108 Richmond Drive, Richmond, project architect, noted that they wanted to do an addition which would reduce the overall volume by breaking it up into several smaller components; the addition is concentrated to the rear, and the garage was kept simple, the exceptions to the declining height envelope requirement are based on the slope of the site, the resulting design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioners noted that on the front elevation, it seems that some of the existing details have been omitted from the drawings, these are nice features and would like to see these same details carried through to the addition. The applicant noted that it is intended that these details be kept, would consider adding the same details throughout. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments made: ❑ Should carry through some of the charming details from the existing front elevation to the addition so it will blend with existing house; ❑ Concern with the mass of the two-story walls, should try to break up the planes of the walls on the sides, incorporate bay windows, not as concerned about declining height envelope exceptions, but need to have some variation in wall mass; ❑ The window at the peak of the wall on the east elevation does not match the rest of the windows, would like to see it match; ❑ Would like to see details of what is included in display space, concerned that since it has a separate exit it could become a second unit. This motion was seconded by C. Key. There was no further comment on motion: Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item on the to a design review consultant with the comments made. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. 13. 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY DORMER ADDITION (RICK SOSS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Rick Soss, 110 Bloomfield Road, applicant and property owner, noted that he wanted to open up the attic area to add some habitable space, a second dormer is required to meet building City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 14 code requirements for light and ventilation, the second dormer will look the same as the other dormer already added. There were no questions of the applicant and no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent action calendar at a time when th e following revisions have been made and plan checked: ❑ would like to see clarification on the drawings so that they show how the proposed dormer and elevations will look when it is built, could the plans be changed to provide a more accurate representation. This motion was seconded by C. Key. There was no comment on the motion. Chairman Vistica 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 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:25 a.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 5, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken at the November 5, 2001, City Council meeting, noting that the council set a joint meeting for the Council and Planning Commission on November 28, 2001, at 7 p.m., place to be announced. The group discussed briefly a letter received from a resident noting the problem of the lack or limited quantity of laundry facilities in apartment buildings in the city. Commissioners noted that this was a particularly valid point since the recent closure of Kay’s Laundry; one that should be considered when reviewing design proposals in the future. - Approval of 2002 Planning Commission Schedule. Commission reviewed briefly the 2002 Planning Commission schedule and accepted it. - Discuss Scope of North End Specific Area Plan and Need for a Commission Committee. Commission reviewed briefly their discussion at the last meeting regarding the SAP for the north end of the city. The Chairman appointed a subcommittee to work with staff to refine the project proposal to be used as the basis for the Request for Proposal. CP Monroe indicated that most of this committee’s work would probably be done in December and January 2002. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES11.13