Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.26.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION EWPL71N9Ak E APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 26, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the July 26, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Lindstrom (arrived at 7:01 p.m.), Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Gus Guinan; Civil Engineer, Doug Bell; and Transportation Engineer, Augustine Chou III. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of July 12, 2010 was deferred until the next regular meeting, due to a lack of a quorum of members present at that meeting necessary to consider approval. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Terrones requested that Item 7 (Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan) be moved forward on the agenda to precede Item 6 (2750 Adeline Drive), in an effort to reduce charges by the City -paid consultants involved in the project. Commissioner Auran moved to revise the order of the agenda as suggested by Chair Terrones. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 18.07.110 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN GRANT EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS REQUIREMENTS STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 26, 2010. Commission comments: Requested clarification of the days included within Safeway's request for an exception. (Meeker - explained Safeway's request and noted that they would not work on Sunday). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Expressed concern about allowing exceptions to construction hours on Sundays. Asked if neighbors would be notified when an exception is granted? (Meeker — noted that staff will work with Safeway to ensure that adequate notification is provided to nearby residents.) Commissioner A uran moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendment to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the proposed amendment to the City Council and the motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. 2. 1118 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIMITED FOOD SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LEAH CHEN, APPLICANT; KEN FANG, CND DESIGN SERVICE, INC., DESIGNER; LOUISA ZEE AND LORENZ KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 26, 2010. Commission comments: ■ What fees are typically assessed to a new business that moves into the City? (Hurin — a business license fee is required, but no other fees. No work is proposed within the public right-of-way with this request.) ■ There is an error on the plan; it shows doors opening onto the public sidewalk; this needs to be corrected. (Hurin — noted that the door is inset into the fagade, but will re -check to ensure that it is properly represented on the plans.) ■ Include a condition requiring regular sidewalk cleaning. ■ Will there be a requirement for a hose bib? (Meeker — noted that since the project does not include commercial design review; such a requirement has not normally been required.) ■ Will a door change trigger commercial design review? (Hurin — only if it is a significant change to the fagade. ) This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Yie requested that Item 3 (1440 Castillo Avenue) be removed from the Consent Calendar and moved to Regular Action. There were no other Consent Calendar items. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1440 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO SECOND FLOORAND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TIM AND EMILY MATTHEWS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: On the west elevation, the handrail constrains the passageway; could it be placed on top of the wall? (Robertson — applicant wanted a basic/simple design and wants to be able to sit on the top bench.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 14, 2010, sheet 7, and date stamped June 28, 2010 sheets 1-6 and sheet 8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 29, 2010 and May 17, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's June 2, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's May 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 20, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 18, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance and the Special Permit for declining height envelope, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 4. 133 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID LAI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ In the applicant's letter, an entry porch was opposed by a Feng Shui master; is this something that will be a frequent problem with designs appearing before the Planning Commission? (Robertson — is particular to this home due to its location.) ■ Likes the redesign; the roof changes are great. ■ On west elevation; the three large windows and French doors do not include grids, why? (Robertson — owner did not want grids to block the view.) ■ Expressed a concern regarding the shingle laps; four or five inches may be more appropriate. (Robertson — will consider this change.) Public comments: Sean Hughes, 120 Costa Rica Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ There are a total of three projects that have been approved in the area in the past years that have placed a lot of stress on the streets, sidewalks and landscape in the neighborhood; has turned the neighborhood into a construction zone. Concerned about impacts upon his young children due to all of the construction. ■ Lighting on the street is very poor and all power lines are exposed. ■ Has noticed a lot of debris boxes that are not being placed on the private property; should inform the debris box companies that an encroachment permit is required prior to placement. ■ Concerned about the upstairs balconies; can impact privacy of neighbors. Additional Commission comments: Should include a condition that requires debris box placement on the property; any damages will be repaired by the contractor. Great looking project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 8, 2010, sheets 1 through 7; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that there shall be no greater than a 5-inch overlap provided on the wood shingle siding; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 12, 2010 and February 19, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's March 1, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 22, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 26, 2010 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 5. 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED RR —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING TO CONVERT AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE BUILDING TO SELF STORAGE UNITS AND ADD NEW SELF STORAGE UNITS (MICHAEL R. HARVEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NOEMI AVRAM, GUMBINGER AVRAM ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission comments: Asked if a condition of approval should be included that requires the use to be reviewed by the Commission in the event the CalTrain lease on a portion of the site is not extended? (Meeker —this could be included in the conditions of approval.) Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Noemi Avram, 60 East Third Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant: Noted that a condition requiring review if the CalTrain lease is not extended is acceptable. Public comments: Tom Dailey, 1148 Alpine Road, Walnut Creek and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Referred to comments made at July 19, 2010 hearing; not a needed use. ■ No jobs will be created by the use. ■ No sales tax will be generated. ■ How long is the lease with the CalTrain; what happens if the lease is not extended? ■ Not the right use for the property; particularly at a gateway to the City. ■ Doesn't understand why this is the only use possible on the property. ■ Is a piecemeal plan; will use of the five -story building ultimately be eliminated? ■ Doesn't understand the access issues; how will access be achieved if Broadway access is eliminated? ■ Is a dangerous precedent to rely upon long-term lease for the CalTrain property. ■ Recalls another situation regarding the conversion of office space to another use requiring additional parking on CalTrain property that became a problem because CalTrain would not grant a long-term lease. ■ Is a great and imaginative use, considering that it improves the value of the property in the event that property is taken by CalTrans through imminent domain. ■ Consider a better parking arrangement for the use. Additional applicant comments: ■ Can't compare this use with a medical office use; there are no expressed parking requirements for a self -storage use. ■ Recognize that people park in front of their units rather than using parking spaces. ■ The five -story building was originally built as a storage building. ■ The CalTrain lease has existed for 25-years; if anything changes, the applicant would eliminate the used car lot and move parking to the used car location. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Confirmed that the original use of the property was as storage. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 16, 2010, sheets AO-1 through A3-2; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the lease agreement for use of the Caltrain lot shall be amended to allow placement of the self storage units within the Caltrain lot, in addition to parking and landscaping, as reflected on the project plans date stamped July 16, 2010. In the event that CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 the Caltrain lease is not extended, or is terminated at any time in the future, the matter shall return to the Planning Commission for consideration of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit; 3. that this approval includes a waiver of the following development impact fees: Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee, General Facilities and Equipment Fee, Parks and Recreation Fee, and Storm Drainage Fee. The applicant shall still be responsible for payment of development impact fees as follows, based upon the new building floor area added to the property: Police Fee and Fire Fee; 4. that the 19 parking spaces provided on -site will be used only for customer and employee parking for the self storage facility and automobile dealership that is approved under this application and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by customers of the self storage facility or by other businesses for off -site parking; 5. that the landscaping noted on sheet AO-1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 6. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 5 and June 23, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's April 12 and June 14, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's May 1, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 5, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 1, 2010 memo shall be met; 8. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 9. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Should include a condition requiring re -review if the Caltrain lease is not extended. Still torn on this property, there could be a better use for the property. Motion includes fee waivers as suggested by staff. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2-0 (Commissioner Gaul dissenting, Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 7. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON DRAFT DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker introduced Kevin Gardiner of Metropolitan Planning Group, who proceeded to provide an overview of the contents of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Rachel Schuett of PGS&J, environmental consultants, was present to answer questions regarding the environmental analysis for the plan. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Appreciative of the work done on the plan. Concerned about removing parking on Highland Avenue between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. (Gardiner — rather than eliminate parking, the triangle area would be treated differently than currently. Would also be a better place for parking for the businesses facing Highland Avenue. Provides flexible use of that area for other purposes. There would need to be further design development and consultation with the property owners. If not viewed as a benefit by the property owners, would not be actively pursued.) Likes opening up the parking in -lieu fee to properties outside of the Parking Sector; questioned what the 10% baseline reduction in water usage relates to? (Schuett — will need to review the baseline calculations.) Public comments: Basim Azar, 245 California Drive; Joseph Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; Ron Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue; and Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke: Concerned about removing the parking spaces on Highland Avenue; there are forty spaces located there; if there is no parking the business will not survive. (Terrones — the Citizens Advisory Committee [CAC] recommended keeping the parking but treating the area differently.) Change is good; not all changes have been implemented in the past. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 ■ Believes there is a flaw in parking standards; parking exemptions granted in the 1962 Parking District resolution were not just for ground floor uses, but for all uses on a property (a copy of the resolution was provided). Were to be provided an exemption for existing and future parking requirements; this must continue under the Plan. Do not charge properties that were granted an exception under the 1962 Parking District provisions for parking again. ■ At 1100 Howard Avenue; in the past proposed a building with retail on the ground floor with apartments above; eliminated the top floor, but retained the ground floor retail. Settled lawsuit out of court. Agreed to provide parking behind the building when Calico Corners was built. ■ Continue to allow traffic on Highland Avenue between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. ■ Wants to be certain that his family's rights relative to prior agreements for parking, including the Burlingame Hotel, would continue. ■ If the large signature park becomes impossible; there is property next to Parking Lot M that could be used as a public space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner A uran moved to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adoption of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to the City Council; include clarifications regarding continued applicability of the exemptions granted under the 1962 Parking District and of the purpose of Highland Avenue paving and parking; ensuring that Highland Avenue continues to include parking and through vehicular access. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Feels that the consultant has done a good job on the Plan and the initial study is sound. Consideration of smaller parking spaces and opportunities for rooftop open spaces will be handled at implementation. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adoption of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The action of the Planning Commission is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. The Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 6. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND NUMBER OF FACULTY/STAFF AT THE EXISTING MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty -Six (36) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Laura Held, Principal — Mercy High School, 2750 Adeline Drive; Eric Womeldorff, Fehr & Peers; Jean Hastie, Campus Administrator — Sisters of Mercy, 2300 Adeline Drive; and Sandy Sloan represented the applicant and Sisters of Mercy. ■ Described purpose of request for enrollment and staffing increase. ■ Provided overview of current methods of reducing traffic. ■ Met with Traffic, Safety and Parking (TSP) Commission; hired a traffic consultant and met with neighbors to identify alternatives to reach a 10% traffic reduction. ■ Described proposed additional measures. ■ Sisters of Mercy supports application for increased enrollment; to this end, have agreed to allow faculty and staff to use road across Sisters of Mercy campus for ingress and egress for staff and faculty. However, must observe posted speed limits not only on campus, but also on Hoover Avenue; this change cannot include parent and student traffic. May need to modify the agreement periodically to ensure success, but will approach the Planning Commission if changes must be made. ■ Noted that the Sisters of Mercy pay $13,000 to the Burlingame Shuttle, just as Mercy High School does; will step up efforts to have employees use the shuttle. Public comments: Valerie Smith, 1525 Los Montes Drive; Paul Denning, 1425 Alvarado Avenue; Randy Vandenbrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue; Aileen Whelan, 3029 Rivera Drive; Peter Camaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue; Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive; Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive; Aria Kasuga, 1418 Alvarado Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Described experiences as a student at Mercy High School. ■ Increasing enrollment will expand opportunities for more young women to experience the benefits of education at Mercy High School. ■ Primary concern is that there is no data to demonstrate that Mercy's measures will actually reduce traffic impacts. ■ The increase in enrollment is actually an 8% increase; if similar increases are requested in the future, could result in a 3% increase per year; could result in a doubling of enrollment in 20-years. ■ Has had a number of his vehicles hit by traffic on Alvarado Avenue; about 90% of traffic is from Mercy during the school year. ■ Wants to see an actual reduction in current traffic before an enrollment increase. ■ The TSP Commission reviewed the issue with the neighbors and directed a 10% reduction in traffic; represented as a continual increase, even after an increase in enrollment. ■ Noted that traffic analysis was incorrect in 2008; also felt that the analysis in 2006 was also inaccurate. ■ It was obvious that any structural changes to the student drop-off model were opposed by Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy. ■ The current measures are largely window dressing; two are currently happening, but they still want credit for them. ■ Mercy has only addressed one of the multiple recommendations made by the TSP Commission. ■ Substantial monitoring needs to occur. ■ Neighbors have recommended a minimal set of conditions. ■ If Mercy wants the increase now; give them the benefit of a doubt for one year, but have the City measure the traffic every year; if this number is maintained, then they can get a 10 student increase each year that traffic levels are maintained. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 ■ Need a drop off area away from the school to reduce traffic on Alvarado Avenue. ■ Enrollment numbers need to be reported to the City. ■ Compliance with the on-line calendar requirement of the current Conditional Use Permit needs to be attained. ■ Needs to be periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit. ■ If an enrollment increase to 540 students is approved; there should be no further requests for increases. ■ Supports request for enrollment increase. ■ There is a finite number of students that the existing buildings can accommodate. ■ Some of the accidents on Alvarado Avenue are not attributable to Mercy students. ■ Received a post card from Mercy outlining the measures that would be taken to reduce traffic; the programs proposed make sense and will reduce traffic by greater than ten percent. ■ If the City doesn't approve the increase in enrollment, Mercy is not bound to implement the measures proposed. ■ People in the neighborhood knew they were buying property near a high school. ■ Would rather invest monies expended on traffic studies and lawyers on education programs at the school. ■ Not interested in making a deal or placing blame; would rather focus on reductions in vehicle trips. ■ The flood gates aren't going to open and allow enrollment to expand to 540. ■ The Sisters of Mercy provide access to a green belt to the local community; they allow the campus to be open for all to use. ■ Delay will not provide the opportunity for new students to be educated at Mercy. ■ Traffic has been an issue for quite some time; Mercy is a commuter school. ■ Doesn't understand how directing faculty and staff to the Hoover gate will reduce traffic. ■ Let's see how traffic measures serve to reduce traffic in the upcoming year; do not grant an increase now. ■ The City should conduct traffic counts annually; if traffic can't be reduced then the enrollment would need to be reduced. ■ Enrollment increase should not be done at the expense of the neighbors. ■ Is Mercy the only school in Burlingame that must go through this process? Cited enrollment figures at other public schools in the City. The other schools haven't had to prepare traffic studies. ■ No other school is required to provide shuttles. ■ Today, 90% of students in Burlingame are driven to school. ■ Mercy has bent over backwards to please the neighbors. ■ Quite possible that traffic number differences are due to the different times of year that counts are taken. ■ Most of the other schools have greater student populations. ■ Have tried to please everyone. ■ Noted all of the on -street parking in the neighborhood; residents are not using their driveways. ■ Has lived on Alvarado Avenue for 27 years, initially Mercy had a very open feel to the community; there was a reciprocal relationship. Over the years, increases in enrollment have increased traffic with people not taking responsibility for damages. Mercy has also changed its restrictions and now prevents students from riding bicycles to the campus. ■ There are 98 student parking spaces on campus; they are only for seniors. A senior is 17- or 18- years old; in that age bracket, there can only be one person in one car taking up the parking spaces. ■ Has become more of a commuter campus; limit student driving to only those students that live in Burlingame. ■ Out of town students should use other means of transportation to the school. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 The vacant lot at Adeline Drive and El Camino Real could be used as a drop-off location for students. Additional applicant comments: ■ Mercy High School has always been allowed to have 500 students under the County regulations the baseline conditional use permit issued by the City. There will be no compounding of students in the future; 540 students is the maximum proposed. ■ The proposed methods to reduce traffic are measureable; shuttles will remove 24 trips per peak hour. ■ Anticipated that the study center will reduce trips by 10 during the peak hour. ■ Drop off locations would divert traffic impacts to other areas; not supported by Mercy. ■ The issue at hand is implementing measures that provide benefits. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: ■ How many people use Alvarado Avenue as access? (Womeldorff — the counts would show the number but he doesn't know the number.) ■ How was the traffic count error made? What was the accurate count? (Womeldorff — was a tabulating error. The current count is what was taken this year.) ■ Have the traffic reduction measures been effective? (Womeldorff — have not yet implemented the measures.) ■ How many students walk to the school? (Held — roughly 10.) ■ Is the 10% decrease in traffic before the enrollment increase? (Held — yes.) ■ If the enrollment is increased, then there should be a greater decrease in traffic. (Held — will implement the shuttle service regardless of outcome with respect to the request.) ■ How will Mercy ensure use of the shuttle? (Held — Mercy is one of the larger users of the City shuttle; will implement additional shuttles in the mornings; are currently conducting sign-up for the shuttle; students will need to make a one-year commitment to its use. The shuttle program is popular with more people wishing to use it than space is available.) ■ Is there a means of timing the approval based upon effectiveness of the measures? (Meeker —will either need to approve or disapprove the request with the belief that the mitigation measures will be effective.) ■ Clarified that the next enrollment period will not include the increase, but that the measures will be implemented regardless of the increase. (Held — are moving forward with all measures, regardless of the action by the Commission.) ■ Has any consideration been given to making Alvarado Avenue a one-way street between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.? (Chou — has been discussed. Was a concern for the residents, and was perceived as being more of a restriction upon the residents. Statistically, there is more damage done to vehicles on Alvarado Avenue than elsewhere in the City.) ■ How will the study center program work? (Held — the idea is to provide adult and peer tutoring. At least 12 faculty members will be present. As the program grows, there will be more adult or peer tutors. Will be from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. Will also be provided after school.) ■ Plan is to provide an additional two shuttles; how does it work now? (Held — pick-ups are made at the Millbrae BART station. Are also looking at a Colma and/or Hillsdale mall option.) ■ What are the hours of shuttle operation? (Held — pick-ups begin at 6:40 a.m.) ■ Is it true that bicycles are not allowed? (Held — bicycles are not allowed on campus because of insurance liability issues.) 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 ■ When are decisions made regarding enrollment? (Held — applications are accepted until late January, early February; decisions made by mid -March.) ■ Why the change of heart with respect to use of the Sisters of Mercy access at the Hoover gate? (Hastie — want to make the situation work with Mercy. All faculty and staff will be allowed to use that road where they use it to access their parking. Not opposed to students riding bicycles; the students don't abuse it, but it is a problem for the general public from a liability standpoint.) • Suggested that monitoring of traffic levels occur twice per school year. ■ Maintain the reduction in traffic regardless of the enrollment number, based upon 10% reduction in trips at a student enrollment of 500; for a maximum number of peak hour trips of 180 vehicles. ■ Further analysis of trip distribution should occur. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid -June, with a maximum enrollment of 540 students and 83 faculty/staff members; 2. that the maximum number of vehicle trips during the morning peak hour, leaving the main campus gate shall not exceed 180 trips, regardless of the student enrollment. For the next three (3) school years, twice per school year (once per semester), the City's Traffic Engineer shall conduct traffic counts on dates unknown to Mercy High School to verify the effectiveness of traffic reduction measures and to confirm that the maximum number of vehicle trips leaving the main campus gate during the morning peak hour does not exceed 180 vehicles; the results of the traffic counts shall be reported to the Planning Commission as an FYI item; based upon the results of the counts, the Commission may at any time call the matter up for a new public hearing to consider further measures to achieve desired traffic reductions; 3. that Mercy High School shall add two additional 8-seat shuttles to its shuttle program for a minimum of three new shuttle trips to and from the high school and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART Intermodal Station; eligible students shall be clearly identified and assigned participation in the shuttle program; that once the enrollment is set and at least 30 days prior to commencement of the school year, Mercy High School shall submit report to be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to verify that it is in compliance with this condition; if this condition cannot be met, this application shall be brought forward to the Planning Commission for review; 4. that Mercy High School shall identify and designate approximately 20 faculty and staff members to use the Hoover Gate for vehicular access to the school property; that at least 30 days prior to commencement of the school year, Mercy High School shall submit a report to be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to verify that it is in compliance with this condition; if this condition cannot be met, this application shall be brought forward to the Planning Commission for review; 5. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 6. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on -site in designated parking areas; no student parking shall be allowed to occur in the surrounding residential streets; Mercy High School staff or representatives shall supervise and monitor campus traffic and parking at the beginning and the end of each school day during the school year; 7. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on- 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 8. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9. that Montessori Preschool shall be open only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 10. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on -site at locations designated by each school; 11. that in addition to service deliveries, any parking along the service road (shown as "EASEMENT" on Plot Plan attached as Attachment 1 to 2-21-07 City staff report) and the service road parking area shall be limited to parking for faculty and staff of Mercy High School and the Montessori school only; no student parking shall be allowed along the service road or in the service road parking area; 12. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 13. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise limits and other requirements for operation established in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall comply with each of these requirements or cease its event on the Kohl Mansion site; 14. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; 15. that in order to monitor and document noise at the Kohl Mansion: a. Mercy High School shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s), as appropriate, designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; b. The School shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Mercy High School site; C. During each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log. The log shall document which events used sound amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music. This data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 d. Noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 16. that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited as follows: a. No more than 125 events shall be conducted at Kohl Mansion during any calendar year that are in addition to Mercy High School events and "Music at Kohl Mansion" events; b. During any calendar year, no more than six (6) non -school events shall be held during the day while school is in session, and most guests at such an event shall arrive by bus; and C. The only sound amplification that shall occur outdoors shall be limited to the amplification of normal speaking voices during speeches, ceremonies, services, and Mercy High School rallies and presentations; 17. that events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end: a. No later than 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, with holidays and evenings before holidays excepted; and b. No later than 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, holidays and evenings before holidays; 18. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take -down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; however, in no event shall tents be taken down between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; MERCY CENTER 19. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 20. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings; Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 21. that the Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset; 22. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 23. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 24. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 25. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. It shall be open for conduct of classes and business only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE 26. that the maximum, cumulative number of guests for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property subject to this conditional use permit shall be 300. The maximum, cumulative number of event support staff for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property subject to this conditional use permit shall be fifty (50). Any changes in the nature of the events, maximum number of guests and support staff, or any other provision specified in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 27. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site; there shall be no overflow parking allowed on the surrounding public streets; 28. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints. This telephone'hot line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and, in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 29. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, and a copy of the calendar shall also be provided to the Burlingame Police Department. The calendar of events shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, updated, maintained and posted regularly throughout the year; ADDITION TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION BUILDING AND BLEACHERS 30. that the addition to the existing physical education building and replacement and addition of new bleachers shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 17, 2009, sheets G0.01 through G0.03, G 1.01, A1.01, A2.01, A2.02 and A5.01; 31. that prior to issuance of a building permit, a covenant or deed restriction, in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded which addresses the extension of the proposed building addition and bleachers across property lines; 32. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit from the Parks Division for removal of the existing 17.9/13.5 inch diameter coast live oak tree; W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 33. that any changes to the size or envelope of the addition or bleachers, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 34. that the conditions of the City Arborist's July 27, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 10, 2009 memo, the City Engineer's June 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 9, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 11, 2009 memo shall be met; 35. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 36. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ How is the number of trips restricted, based upon a percentage of trips based on enrollment, or at a set maximum number of trips? Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. The Commission recessed from 10:05 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1900 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (KAREN DOUGLASS, APPLICANT; STEVE GROTE, ARCHITECT; AND JOHN AND KRISTIN DOKOZA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Asked for clarification of how exterior side setbacks and declining height is applied on corner lots. (Hurin — provided clarification of specific setback requirements on the exterior side of a corner lot; declining height envelope is applicable on the interior side of a corner lot). Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Steve Grote, 687 Dolphin Drive, Danville; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice looking project. ■ Is one foot below the maximum FAR, will need to be careful during construction so as not to exceed the maximum. ■ Encouraged aluminum clad windows, not vinyl clad. ■ It appears that on the front (south) elevation that there is another post base present; is that where the stone veneer terminates? (Grote — is the transition between the railing and the stone veneer.) ■ On the back of the south building elevation, asked whether the posts should be evident on the rear elevation? (Grote — would be blocked by the dining room and kitchen extensions.) ■ The chimney seems massive; consider tapering it at the top to reduce mass. ■ The posts are a little plain; perhaps beef them up or provide trim on the top. • Is there a way to provide more space between the top of the garage door and the bottom of the bay window over the garage door? (Grote — will look at alternatives.) ■ The corbels should be beefed up, perhaps to 6x8 in size. ■ Are windows simulated true divided light windows? (Grote — yes.) ■ Clarified that trim around windows will be wood. ■ On front elevations, the columns appear to die into the gutter; the beam should carry over to the inner edge of the porch. (Grote — noted that this is an error on the plans that will be corrected.) ■ Consider including an attic vent in the gable on the front. ■ On south elevation, revisit the bay, looks like a `70s tract house solution; consider another approach. ■ Accurately depict the dimensions of the muntins on the window illustrations. ■ Be cautious of the loss of houses that are in disrepair that have some nice detailing; be cognizant of the charm that is being lost. ■ Have direct vent fireplace vent out the top, not to the side. ■ On the northwest side, clarify that the fence will be removed and replaced. ■ Noted that an ejector pump may be required. ■ Noted that the project is a modestly sized house for new construction. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Jill Soley, 1525 Westmoor Road, spoke: Losing a lot of charm and detail through the loss of existing housing; should be replaced with something charming. Supportive of the project. Be cognizant not to create drainage impacts upon neighboring property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Noted that the Commission is doing a good job of replicating homes and setting a new design standard for new development. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:36 p.m. 9. 1720 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND HOYMAN AND TRAM HONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo represented the applicant. ■ Noted that the concrete block wall will be removed. ■ Power will be redirected to Cabrillo Avenue. ■ Fence will be replaced. ■ Feel that all neighbor concerns have been addressed. Commission comments: ■ Ensure a spirit of cooperation with the neighbor since they will be sandwiched on both sides by new projects. ■ The existing home had a lot of charm in its day; but need to address the issue of charm in the current design. Look at the front entry as a means of referencing the entry that existed on the original home. ■ The landscaping is done well. ■ Be certain that simulated true divided light windows, aluminum clad, with wood trim are being installed. ■ Consider a change at the dining room French doors that will promote more usage of the outdoor area outside the doors. (Chu — the client prefers the French doors.) ■ Consider providing an entire laundry room rather than a closet. (Chu — current design was requested by the client.) Public comments: Steve Lo, 1508 Cabrillo Avenue and Jeffrey Carter, 1085 Rollins Road; spoke: 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 ■ Expressed a desire to make changes to the left elevation to reduce window size in the closet and master bedroom to protect privacy. As an alternative for egress, could provide casement windows on rear elevation. ■ Make sure that the debris box is placed on the property, not in the street. ■ Kids will be sad to see the haunted house removed. ■ Nicely done plans. Additional applicant comments: ■ The closet window can be reduced in size. ■ One of the master bedroom windows is in the bathroom; it will contain obscured glass. ■ The other master bedroom window is for egress and appearance; may consider additional landscaping to address the neighbor's privacy concerns. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ Make the revisions to the windows as discussed, and address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy. ■ Include a condition requiring placement of the debris box on the property during construction. Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:52 p. M. 10. 1501 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ANDREA VAN VOORHIS, APPLICANT. ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Andrea Van Voorhis, 1501 Cortez Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Concerned about the applicant's proposal to remove seven windows on the elevation facing the neighbor, at the request of the neighbor; this change will make that wall appear more massive and blank. ■ There needs to be some effort made to bring down the massing of the structure; it appears boxy. ■ The north elevation looks very flat. ■ The first floor windows could be expanded in size. 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 ■ Provide some undulation to make the side elevation more exciting. ■ If a high -efficiency furnace is provided, the flu could be reduced in height. ■ Clarify the material to be used on the front stairs. ■ Consider stepping the second floor back a bit to add dimension. • What is above the back door; can the door be centered? (Van Voorhis — a shed roof is provided. The placement of the door made more sense prior to removal of the windows.) ■ Referral to a design review consultant would be helpful. ■ What material is used for the attic vents? (Van Voorhis — wood.) ■ What is the material below the windows on the second floor? (Van Voorhis — wood siding) ■ Noted that there are no railings on the stairs. Public comments: Chris Donnellan, 1505 Cortez Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The windows will only be seen from their property; the windows impact their privacy. This home will affect them more than any other construction in the area. (Terrones — there may be other design solutions besides windows that will improve the design.) Encouraged the architect to listen to the Commission's suggestions regarding the design review process. Additional applicant comments: Will make the desired revisions and resubmit. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:13 p.m. Commissioner Gaul noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Agenda Item 11 (1516 Vancouver Avenue), since the applicant is his brother. He left the Council Chambers. 11. 1516 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BART GAUL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JACK MCCARTHY, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Clarified finishing materials. Noted that there are a number of houses that have similar roof pitches. Commission comments: ■ What is the average top of curb elevation? What is the actual height of the structure above grade? (McCarthy — 74.65 feet. Would still be a foot over the maximum height if measured from the grade at the proposed building location.) ■ Consider small windows adjacent to the rear fireplace. (McCarthy — could place windows at the family room level.) ■ Also add some small windows at the master bedroom, below the eave. ■ Likes the side porch entry. ■ Why couldn't the porch be extended to have a door opening from the dining room onto the porch area? (McCarthy — this is acceptable without a roof covering.) ■ On the right side elevation on second floor at the master bathroom; consider flipping the bathroom and closet with the bedroom area, and use the bay as a sitting area, place the bathroom where the wall is and include windows all around. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:28 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 12. 1440 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DOROTHY R. WURLITZER TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 Reference staff report dated July 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, 3841 24t" Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Public comments: ■ None. Commission comments: ■ Would like to see some wood on the fagade; either/or wood door or window. (Raduenz — trying to get more light into the interior of the building. Aluminum frame window was chosen to allow more light due to its slim profile.) ■ Likes the existing Dutch door; could a wood door with aluminum window be done? (Raduenz — could do something with a wood door with the proposed window.) ■ Provide some "charm" to the new details on the door and window. ■ Concerned about signage placement; be sensitive to the building design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:37 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of July 19, 2010: ■ The City Council introduced an ordinance expanding the Building Official's authority to grant exceptions to construction hours for development projects. The amendment would provide the 25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 26, 2010 authority to grant an exception for up to 20 days for projects containing a minimum of 40,000 square feet of gross floor area. FYI: 1715 Sebastian Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1333 Bernal Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2010. ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 26