Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.11.26 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 26, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the November 26, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Keighran, Key, Mink, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 13, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were amended to add to the 4th paragraph under 131 Loma Vista, page 3, “CA noted that City approval does not give anyone permission to go on another person’s property, and permission from that other property owner is required.” The minutes reference Item 7, 1224-1228/1225-1229 Paloma Avenue, 1225-1229 Laguna Avenue and 1224-1228 Capuchino Avenue were also amended; page 9, paragraph 4 was amended to read: it was suggested four lots are sufficient might be considered to create an adequate transition zoning unit. There were no other amendments to the minutes. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting on the minutes because he was absent at the last meeting. Chairman Vistica noted that the minutes were approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff noted two changes to the agenda: the applicant for item 10, 1369 Bernal Avenue, has requested a continuance of this item to the meeting of December 10, 2001, if he is able to attend that meeting, when the item is rescheduled staff will renotice it; and move item 6, 1208 Cortez Avenue, to the beginning of the Regular Action Calendar at the request of the applicant who is here but ill. No other changes were suggested and the agenda was approved with the changes. V. FROM THE FLOOR Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline, spoke noting that she was concerned about on going work on the Sisters of Mercy property which she felt violated the Open Space Element of the General Plan, was occurring with out proper building and other permits, and which did not comply with CEQA because the applicant was expanding available surface parking on site. She felt that this would increase activity on the site, increasing congestion on Adeline and impacting the quality of life for adjacent homeowners. Work done without a building permit should be removed. William Schinagl, 1321 Sanchez Avenue, spoke on 3030 Hillside, noting he had a number of concerns. Chairman Vistica commented that since this item was on the agenda later, perhaps these comments could be made then. The speaker agreed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1321 SANCHEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RONALD AND KIM RAMSEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: windows are of three different types, they should be consistent; the front elevation has wooden balusters and iron on the rear elevation, they should be the same material; do the houses on the other corners of this intersection have any variances; the window type on the first and second floor on the Paloma elevation should be the same; the roof configuration of the new bay window on the second floor should reflect more the shape of the bay window roof on the first floor bay window. This item was set for the regular action calendar at the December 10 meeting if all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2. 1204 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (NICOLAS KOROS, APPLICANT; KIRKBRIDE FAMILY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that there did not seem to be any major issues since only one employee was involved in this business and the item could be placed on the consent calendar. Chairman Vistica placed this item on the consent calendar for the December 10, 2001, meeting. This item concluded at 7:18 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. He noted that the code compliance chart in the staff report for item 3a, 110 Bloomfield Road, contains and error in the FAR line, it should be corrected. There were no requests to remove any items from the consent calendar. 3A. 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY DORMER ADDITION (RICK SOSS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURK 3B. 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) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 3 C. Keighran 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 reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 1208 CORTEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (NANCY KUX, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Chairman Vistica noted that this item had been moved up on the agenda because the applicant, who was present, was ill. Reference staff report, 11.26.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that the project had been redesigned to retain the two cedar trees at the rear of the existing garage and also maintain a 4 foot separation between the dwelling and new garage. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer and applicant, represented the project, noting he would answer any questions. There were no questions from the floor or commission. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved approval of the special permit to allow a garage in the rear 40% of the lot in order to protect the existing trees , 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 November 19-, 2001, Sheets G-1 and G-2, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, showing the detached garage structure 23’-0” from the rear property line and no closer than 4’-0” (eave to eave) from the rear porch covering; 2) that the conditions of City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s October 1, 2001 memos shall be met; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. 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) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 11.26.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that during site inspection she observed a gray house across the street, possibly addressed 109 Dwight Road, which appeared to have been converted to multiple dwelling units, she recalled some previous action by the Planning Commission, years ago, regarding misuse of this site and asked staff to investigate. Commissioners also noted concerned about the city’s lack of control and the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 4 opportunity being created on 416 Bayswater for a second unit; see that first and second floor setbacks are different on corner lots, why; staff responded first floor setback is 7.5 feet, on the second floor the exterior side setback on a corner lot is an average of 12 feet to encourage articulation on this side of second story additions. There were no further questions from the commissioners. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Laura Hesselgren, property owner, and Robert Medan, architect, represented the project. The applicant noted she had no intention of using the room attached to the new garage as a second unit, her house is small and she has no place to do flower arrangements and art work; chose not to add on to house because did not want to remove front landscaping or conflict with the rear entrance to the basement; needs shower in accessory structure so can wash down her new large dog outside; has an elderly aunt who cannot make it to the second floor of her house to shower, would like to accommodate her when she visits; garage is not visible from the street. Commissioners asked: concerned that this room and accessory structure will be used as a second dwelling unit; applicant noted there is no place for a desk in the house, the laundry room in the house is too small, no place to hang clothes to dry. Would applicant be willing to eliminate bathroom in the garage to eliminate a possible enforcement problem. Architect noted would accept a deed restriction that the area would never be used as a second unit. Can you help with findings relating to the property for the five exceptions to the code you are requesting, findings are not based on what you want but on the hardships presented by the property. Applicant noted that the house was built in 1906 and is oriented toward Dwight, the garage is falling down, the garages for the adjoining properties are all located together where the new garage would be placed, the house is existing two stories and it would not be cost effective to add on to it, there are a number of buildings on this block of Dwight Road with accessory living areas, four on this side of the street and a number on the other side with second dwelling units. It was noted that the garage needs to be replaced because of its condition, development on the property requires one covered parking place, the proposal for two covered parking and a room, 775 SF, expands this to another use with no real justification beyond what you want. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: concerned about the future possibility of a second unit, the garage does need replacement, concerned about the presence of a toilet in the garage, if only doing laundry need a smaller sewer line, if the toilet was prevented would eliminate my concern; opposed to a bathroom in the accessory structure, could have a utility sink in the laundry room for flowers and art projects; there is a bathroom in the house at the rear which is accessible, do not need bathroom in garage, a utility sink seems appropriate; concerned about the size of the garage, 775 SF, it is too big only need one covered parking space to accommodate the house, the length is also excessive, 33’-8” where we have a maximum in the code of 28’, project needs to be toned down and comply better. Agree structure is too big, 600 SF is allowed, no bathroom; could the basement area of the house be used to meet the homeowners needs for work space without raising the second unit issue. It seems it is not convenient to the applicant to add on to the house, but convenience is not a reason for code exceptions, concerned that a bathroom in the accessory structure would result in a second unit in the future; the accessory structure proposed is very big, it will add substantial mass to the lot and will look like a second dwelling unit; if the proposed project were within zoning requirements would consider, but cannot support this project. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 5 C. Keighran moved to deny this application based on the findings made by the commissioners in their comments. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for a new garage with accessory living use. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. 5. 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) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 11.26.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Con Bosnon, 1423 Balboa, property owner; Karen Delease Simpson, 1429 Balboa spoke. Applicant noted that they lowered the height by 1’-11”, tried to blend into the neighborhood, believes this design fits best, does not want to begin the design again, commission directed to lower within the existing design so did that, the building is tall enough that the peak of the roof where flattened will not be seen. Neighbor commented that it was nice the height was lowered but if 1321 Sanchez could conform why can’t this project; have attended 4 meetings regarding this project, why is it not now within the allowed height; since your last meeting the applicant has poured a foundation on the site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: on page 50 of the design guidelines it advocates giving a height exception rather than cutting off roof peaks, applicant feels he can live with this, so will favor change proposed; the added height is a small part of the roof at the top it will not increase the shadow on the Simpson’s property but it is important to the architectural integrity and is supported by the guidelines; have no problem, what about the foundation work. Staff noted that this work should not affect the commission in their decision, the applicant did the work at his own risk. C. Keighran noted can not flatten the roof more without destroying the design, this is a good design, a special permit is not a variance, its purpose is to enhance the design, move approval of the project 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 November 19, 2001, sheets A.2, A.4 and A.5 and June 1, 2001, sheets A.1, A.3, A.6 and L-1 with a roof height not to exceed 31'-0" and that the top of the roof, along the ridge line, be finished so that the flashing is not visible, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 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, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist’s May 14, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that a surveyor shall measure the height of the second floor plate during framing and project the height of the roof framing to insure that the height of the completed house will not exceed 31'-0" and the City Engineer shall review and accept the survey before the final framing inspection is scheduled; 5) that if required by the Public Works Department, a retaining wall shall be constructed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 6 along the east property line within the 1'-0" setback from the left side property line to the proposed driveway; 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. Mink. Comment on the motion: the top of this house is important to its design, now that it has been chopped off one will see the end of the sloped roof, it will make a big difference if the flashing is visible, would ask to amend the motion to require a finish to the roof so that the flashing is not visible. C. Keighran, maker of the motion, and C. Mink, second, agreed that an amendment to address the roof flashing be added to the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the height of 31 feet and with a condition that the roof top/edge be finished in such a way that the flashing does not show. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. Chairman Vistica noted that agenda Item 6, 1208 Cortez Avenue, had been moved to be the first regular action item and was heard earlier in the meeting. He informed interested members of the audience that this item had been approved. 7. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR 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) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 11.26.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if there was a condition requiring compliance with NPDES drainage requirements, including petroleum separators. Staff noted that condition 9 addressed this issue. There were no other questions from the commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect, and Peter Marshal, General Manager of the Double Tree Hotel, represented the project. They noted that this is a request for 4,000 SF of meeting space to allow the hotel to have a meeting in one room while setting up luncheon for the attendees in another room, hotel needs it to compete in this tou gh market; when preparing the detailed landscape plan requested counted 112 trees on the site, will remove 5 and replace those with 6; when hotel was built the applicant paid the city $831,600 to build the parking lot on the top deck at Bayside Park and pays an annual $27,000 license fee to maintain that lot, this allows the hotel to use 127 of the parking spaces to supplement on site parking for the hotel; most of the conditions attached are repeats, the protected catch basins were installed in the parking lot originally; the hotel’s airport shuttles are parked in the driveway close to the entrance and do not occupy required parking spaces. Commissioners asked: was parking on-site at the hotel a problem before the controls were installed in 1999. General Manager responded it was hard to say, could not recall a time when they had an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 7 on-site parking problem, if there was on, it was rare, if we know we are going to have a large event on site we use more valet parking. There were no further questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: this is one property with a unique agreement with the city for shared parking; the location next to the city’s landfill restricts their landscaping alternatives, favor request because of the positive interaction. C. Osterling noted that the addition is well designed and will fit in, he appreciated seeing the accurate landscape drawings, trees are shown where they are, glad adding more than you are removing, and incorporating the comments made by applicant and commission, moved approval by resolution, of the negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to the conditional use permit and parking variance with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be bu ilt as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 16, 2001, sheets A1-0, A2-1, A3-1 and A3-2 and sheet A1-1, date stamped November 19, 2001; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s April 16, 2001 memo and Recycling Specialist’s April 16, 2001 memo shall be met; 3) that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition and 4,372 SF meeting room space addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 127 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project; 4) that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for at least 127 vehicles so long as the applicant’s property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 127 parking spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the City; 5) that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 6) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 7) that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement; 8) that the finished floors for any structure shall be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 9) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and petroleum separating drains should be regularly maintained by the property owner and should be inspected annually by the City for compliance; 10) that any new construction on the site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 11) that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state-mandated water conservation program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 12) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 13) that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 14) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 8 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 15) that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, and shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing DoubleTree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe; 16) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 17) If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented; 18) that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 19) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City Engineer’s March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 20) that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours, $2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 21) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 22) that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 23) that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self- parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to reflect this use; 24) that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years (April 2000, 2001, 2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and parking on adjacent streets and properties, and /or upon complaint; 25) that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 26) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet A0 through A11, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 27) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector’s November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 28) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 29) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 30) that the overall height of the 101-room addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6½", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 31) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 32) that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees’ trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 33) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 34) that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 9 availability of at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; 35) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 36) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting or surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving; 37) that when the level-of-service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection; 38) that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection; 39) that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking facilities at the public park; 40) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; and 41) that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Second noted that condition 9 should include the requirement that the petroleum separating drains should be regularly maintained by the property owner and should be inspected annually by the City for compliance. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment to the condition. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amendment to the conditions that the petroleum separating drains should be regularly maintained and inspected annually for compliance. He noted that this is a good project, sharing parking with the park means that there is less impervious surface in the area and there is more visible open space. The motion passed on a 6-0-01(C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 3030 HILLSIDE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (KENNETH ROBY, ALADDIN HOMES, APPLICANT; DAWOOD AND BATOUL JAMSHIDNEHAD, PROPERTY OWNERS; REZA NOROUZI, MEMARIE ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, and noted that the project is here for study, but final action shall not be taken until all of the City Engineer’s comments have been addressed. Commission asked if this house is the first lot as you go down the driveway, what is the required ingress and egress for the lots at the rear of this steeply sloping driveway and how will the Fire Department gain access to this site. Commission also asked what is the required rear setback, looks like there is a deck over 30” at the rear. Commission noted 3 car garage, but asked how many uncovered spaces can be accommodated on the site since visitors will not be able to park on Hillside Drive. How is the applicant going to address damage to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 10 sloping driveway due to demolition and building equipment? Will the applicant bring access driveway up to City standards? CP Monroe stated that the subject property is at the bottom of the driveway on the left side, and noted that staff will discuss with the access issue with the Fire Department. Driveway is a private driveway with an access easement. There were no further questions on the staff report from the Commissioners. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Glolan Nazad, architect with Memarie and Associates, was available to answer questions and noted that the owner David Jamshidi was also available. Mr. Nazad stated that with redesign the house has been reduced in square footage to less than 6,000 SF. Owner has worked with design reviewer and has designed the house for this site. Commenting from the floor were: Bill Schinagl, 3022 Hillside Drive, Carolyn Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, Richard Bott, 3032 Hillside Drive, Earl Dilly, early resident. Issues discussed were: driveway serves 4 houses and all houses are served by a single sewage line, capacity of this line is inadequate, flood in 1984 due to this property, old trees along driveway and Hillside Drive are not maintained, some are dead and need to be removed or trimmed, fire hazard; eucalyptus trees block view of on-coming cars; concern that City make clear connection to sewer pipe, need annual clean out of sewer pipes, tree roots are interfering with sewer pipe, shared pipe needs to be replaced, has had sewer back–ups from this house, glad to see storm water drainage issues are being addressed; maintenance of driveway is a concern, placement of new house is also a concern since it will be looming over two houses at the rear, privacy issue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling 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, the Commission strongly suggested that the applicant go back to the design reviewer to help address the following concerns: ❑ Front entrance is too large and grandiose; ❑ Front is garage heavy, takes away from the style, need to split up garages ❑ Design is too bulky and heavy; ❑ Where will guest park; ❑ How will the height affect views; ❑ Clarify total square footage, different number in staff report vs. plans, call out in staff report how FAR is calculated; ❑ Not compatible with surrounding homes, three times the size of any other house in the neighborhood; ❑ House should be designed to fit site, existing pad is 2,000 SF where new pad would be 6,000 SF, should step down or be a split level, articulate floor levels and plate lines; ❑ Reduce bulk and mass; ❑ Lacking particular style, not craftsman, but garage door hints craftsman style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 11 ❑ Windows are stucco or Styrofoam, looks like tract home; ❑ Details could be improved; ❑ Entry way window pattern does not match other windows; ❑ Would like to see a road maintenance agreement with the neighbors; ❑ Story poles should be put up and installed with mesh to show mass and impact on view; and ❑ Clearly tag trees on the site that are proposed for removal. This motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on motion: encourage applicant to go back to design review for help to address Commissions’ comments, house needs to be designed to be more consistent with the neighborhood, house is visible from the canyon, a lot more work on design will have a significant impact on the final outcome, don’t put up story poles until the revised design is worked out. The Chairman re-opened the public hearing to allow the property owner to speak. David Jamshidi, property owners, stated that he bought the house over a 12-13 months ago, he has reduced the square footage several times and now has it down to 5,900 SF, he did everything that was asked of him from the last meeting, drainage problem is being worked on with the City Engineer, he is talking with his neighbor about storm water. He knows that the road down to the house is very bad and wants to fix the road, make it wider at the top, would like to talk with the neighbors and get their help on that. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 voice vote 6-0-1 (Cmsr. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 9. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND HEIGHT VARIANCES, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Chairman Vistica noted that he had a conversation with the applicant about this project. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Biney Sagoo of RYS Architects, introduced the project. He explained that the owner’s son is getting married and he wants to live with his family so they need more room in the house. They are planning on removing an accessory structure on the property and adding square footage to the house. They have talked with the neighbors on Frontera about reducing the view blockage. Adding the 65 SF to the overall FAR is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 12 for design reasons, trying to break the wedding cake effect. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key made a motion to refer this project to a design reviewer to help the applicant address the following issues: ❑ What are exceptional circumstances for the variances; ❑ Square footage of the proposed addition should not exceed existing non-conforming square footage; ❑ Concerned with height, what are surrounding heights, 40’-9” is extreme, how much can the height be lowered; ❑ Design needs more articulation; ❑ Front of the house is too big, addition does not blend well with the existing; ❑ Left elevation looks towering, windows are massive on this side; ❑ The piece used to mitigate the stepping up can be adjusted; ❑ Need details on how the windows are going to be constructed, are they going to match existing or be wood; ❑ Concern with view blockage, need story poles when new design is in place, please put up three dimensional story poles that include all dimensions, not just height, use netting/mesh; and ❑ How did floor area get as excessive as it is, please clarify in the staff report if the basement is counted toward FAR. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cmsr. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 10. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON The applicant requested a continuance until December 10, 2001 or a subsequent hearing. The Commission granted this request and did not hear item number 10, 1369 Bernal Avenue. CP Monroe noted that the next hearing will be re-noticed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 13 11. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE – ZONED C-1 – SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED PARISH HALL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH (ST. CATHERINE OF SIENNA CHURCH, APPLICANT; KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNER) (125 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if the existing parking area adjacent to the apartment building (that is proposed as a drive through area) is owned by the church. Staff clarified that the parcel is owned by the church and will be one of the four parcels that is to be merged under this proposal. CA Anderson noted that no action is to be taken on this project tonight by the Planning Commission, it is an environmental scoping meeting only. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment for environmental scoping of the proposed parish hall. Maritza DeGadillo, principal of Kodama Diseño Architects, was available to answer any questions. Father Albert Vucinovichof St. Catherine’s and Stephen Schlatter of Kodama Diseño Architects were also representing the project. The architect noted that the drive through lane proposed from Park Road to Primrose Road would help alleviate the back-up from morning drop-off and pick-off from the school. There are no new teachers or students to be added as a result of this project. The architect noted that the current proposal is the third plan they have worked with. Did look into making the structure two-stories, however to make the building accessible it would require the installation of an elevator and two staircases, as well as different building materials. The cost was too high for this alternative. It was noted that the biggest traffic problem with the school is in the morning during drop- off. The traffic study notes 160 vehicles during this time, with most of them along Bayswater. The end of the day is not such a problem, since dismissal times are staggered and some children attend the after school day care program. The roof material proposed on the parish hall (cement tile) will match the existing church, school and rectory roof material. Father Albert Vucinovich explained that school sporting events take place off-site, the school rents off-site facilities for games. Sports practices take place during the weeknights. Based upon past experience there are only about five to six wedding receptions on-site per year. It was also noted that during the summer there are fewer people attending church and church functions with school out and people on vacation. Joe Galligan, 110 Park Road, stated that the City acquired the parking lot behind Brother’s Deli some time ago from the church, would not like to see this come back and hurt the Church now; Church is non-profit organization and would not have the money to buy back the space, should consider direct access from church lot to public lot. Commissioners identified the following items to be considered in the initial study: ❑ Parking and traffic major issues; ❑ Multiple uses at the site on the weekends is a big concern, worst case scenario would be simultaneous use of the site with a wedding in the church, a reception in the parish hall and a basketball game in the gym; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 14 ❑ Look into working out a parking agreement with the City to havechurch or school parking in the adjacent City parking lot, look at installing a direct connection between the City lot and the school lot, perhaps an easement gate; ❑ Concern with pick-up at school, have Police Department look at plan for any safety issues; ❑ Parish hall would take up so much playground/parking, look into doing a two-story structure; ❑ Parking is already bad at this site, look at options for mitigating the parking; ❑ Concerned with cars exiting the site from the left pick-up lane and crossing northbound traffic onto Primrose Road; ❑ Passage that leads to the pick-up area, between the parish hall and the adjacent apartment building does not seem large enough to accommodate the 325 children that will be exiting the school, consider pulling back the hall and making the opening between the buildings bigger; ❑ Chain link fence along Primrose Road could be replaced with a special gate to add detailing and make that corner of the building nicer; ❑ Driveway entry along Park Road needs more landscaping to soften the edge of the pavement; and ❑ Flying buttresses on southeast and northeast elevations of the proposed structure do not seem appropriate, look at other options to break up those facades. There were no other comments from the floor and this item was concluded. Staff was directed to address the identified issues in the Initial Study and environmental document. This item concluded at 10:03 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 19, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the Council meeting. - Discussion and Scheduling of Special Meetings. Commissioners discussed the need for a number of special meetings to facilitate planning projects under way. They set the following meeting dates: December 19, 2001, for an open study session on the Draft Housing Element; January 30, 2002, to take comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed reconstruction of the Safeway store at 1450 Howard Avenue; and February 23, for the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to discuss the work program for 2002. All of these meetings will be noticed and are open to the public. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 15 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Acting Secretary MINUTES11.26