Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.14.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California April 14, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the April 14, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Erica Strohmeier; Engineer, Doug Bell, and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 13, Commissioner Yie recused herself and left the dais, du to a potential nonflin+ of in+ores+ because she lives within 500 feet of the property. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented regarding the issue of pervious versus impervious surfaces, would like this issue brought into discussion on potential future community facilities district, should impose fees based on the impact caused by the project, should include area of any additional impervious surfaces on a project in the calculations to determine the fee amount. VI. STUDY ITEMS 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 14, 2008. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 ■ Think the variances are minor, good use of findings. ■ Applicant should clarify window type, make sure they are simulated true divided lite windows. ■ Like to see more thought given to the garage doors. ■ Agree that variances requested are minor in nature and realize there are hardships, but there are ways to easily make some of them go away, such as move the wall on the sun porch. ■ Good tradeoff to consider variance since the single story project will not block views. ■ Like to see a tree maintenance plan for trees in rear yard to open up views for neighbors. ■ Note that their current setback is the largest on the block, if you take that out of the average, the request would meet block average. ■ Existing roof plan not provided, show dashed line of existing roof line on plans. ■ Identify materials for trim materials such as belly band and corbels, are they are intended to match existing. ■ Identify materials proposed at the base of entry portico. ■ Indicate that new skylights will be tinted. This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 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 Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 2a (815 Crossway) was pulled by a member of the public, and Item 2c (1348 Drake) was pulled by a Commissioner, both were moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 2b. 2515 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MING YANG. PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2d. 1324 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CRAIG SUHL AND VALERIE KAURIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Items 2b and 2d on the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 III. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 815 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NEIL YELLIN & JANET ZOLA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WILLIAM DUFF, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Neil Yellin, 815 Crossway Road, project applicant, was available for questions. Public Comments: Robert Brisbee, 824 Acacia Drive and Mark Losito, 810 Acacia Drive; live behind property, Crossway is primarily single story homes, these are very narrow lots, recognize have to be efficient and everyone would like more floor area, but not fair to neighbors on either side or in back, destroy privacy and nature of block with one-story homes, house was marketed as historic, is original, should keep that the way it is, encourage you to deny permit. The elevation on Crossway is higher than Acacia, there is 5 to 8 foot slope from curb to back of property, should move addition closer to Crossway, or screen with shrubs, this addition will look down into my back yard. Commission Comments: ■ Struggle with issue of privacy clear with small lots, can be no guarantee of privacy, people have right to put in a second story. ■ This is a well designed addition, neighbors can plant trees to address privacy issues, need to have light in bedroom and bathroom. ■ Understand issues of privacy, but agree that zoning ordinance allows for second stories, is a slippery slope if we start to evaluate based on views into adjoining lots. ■ This is a well crafted jewel, addition is nice and complements the original design, addition toward the front might have less impact on neighbors, but would impact the mass and bulk from the street. ■ These lots are very deep, it would be worse if this were on a smaller lot, applicant is asking for and increase from two bedrooms to four bedrooms, seems like a reasonable request. Applicant Response: Submitted letter with pictures taken from location of the proposed second story windows, most of view to neighbor's yard is screened by existing landscaping, don't think can see the house from 824 Acacia. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran 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 February 11, 2008, sheets TO.1 through A2.2, and date stamped March 28, 2008, sheets A2.3 through L0.1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008, memos, the City Engineer's January 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 12, 2008, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 14, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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: 9. 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; 10. 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 Department; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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. 51 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The Motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 2c. 1348 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JENNY NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Generally a nice building, concern last time with the two-story stucco tower at the front, improvement with current design, but concerned there is not enough articulation in front space, would suggest a bay window in that space to provide more detail. ■ The drawings are wonderful, but as more of these get built, the Commission has an obligation to look closely at the finished product and how they can be improved, would like to see a bay window added at the front to provide interest. ■ Caution that the project should not go to the max in floor area ratio, concern there could be glitches during construction. Applicant response: ■ Understood from comments that second floor element should be pushed back to reduce two-story mass, but added a stone element and pushed the front porch back. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the item and bring it back on the Consent Calendar when plans have been modified as indicated. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 3. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAJE DU AND FATALI RUSLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND A.S.I. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Commission comments: ■ It would have been helpful to have the minutes of the original approval in 2002. ■ Applicant can't just get to a certain point and not follow plans, the approved project is a contract and modifications should go through the approval process. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jaje Du, property owner, 750 Walnut Avenue, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ On proposed revisions, a lot of new paving in the landscaped area, intent is to accommodate cars off street, this is a lot of impervious coverage. ■ understand safety concern, but generally don't approve projects with a lot of impervious surface in front yard, amount of hardscape could be reduced. ■ Chose colored concrete slab, can choose something that is pervious instead, the City's storm drain system is taxed. ■ Looking at May 10, 2004 landscape plan, more foliage and trees were proposed, now replaced with concrete, creating a parking lot, concern with impervious surface. ■ changes were unfortunate, structure is much more prominent. ■ Garage doors are unfortunate choice. ■ Applicant has entered into contract with city, changed certain items without coming back, are concerned. Applicant response: There will still be a lot of plants along the left and right side, we need more paving, there is a fire hydrant on the street in front of house so can't park there, no parking across the street, narrow street, want to park off the street. Pavers are expensive, would be hardship. When garage company gave choices, thought this door goes with the style Chose to put trellis over garage door to break up the mass. Public comments: Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, Mark Freeman, 748 Walnut Avenue, and Pat Giorni 1445 Balboa; generally agree that stucco foam trim looks bad, but in this case looks okay, have idea to mitigate garage door, look like doors came off self -storage shed, replacement of doors with doors with windows would break up mass, has been four years, anxious to see finished, ask that before final, that the paintjob be finished; neighbors think this is a fine addition to neighborhood, like to see it finished, took picture of garage, garage is dwarfed by the big house next door, like that there are no cars parked on street, would rather see them park on their lot. Issue is that the contract with City has been broken, how is the Commission going to enforce contract, there is a two -car garage, apron in front of garage can accommodate another car, don't need that much paving to accommodate parking; there is a parking problem on Walnut, but it is no better or worse than other streets in Burlingame. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Commission comments: ■ Raised plate line makes the design top heavy, could incorporate a base into the house, a surface applique. ■ Replacement of window trim with stucco was unfortunate, think replacing that trim with stucco mold wood trim package should be done. ■ Trellis would be a way to decrease mass, also could use trellis over both garage doors and living room window. ■ Garage doors should be switched with more compatible style. Ways to work with the one purchased, cut in windows, etc. without huge expense. If can save garage doors okay, but concern that windows cut in will look half baked, look at this closely. ■ Have an issue with landscaping and amount of impervious surface, added quite a bit from original application, could be reduced on left hand side Commissioner Terrones moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to send to a design review consultant. The motion passed 7-0 This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 4. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION (MIKE KERWIN AND AMY PENTICOFF-KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Mike Kerwin, 3105 Margarita. and Kelton Dissel, John Masiscalco Architects represented the applicant. Applicant comments: ■ These are typical changes you see when going from Planning submittal to engineered plans, increase in floor area not visible, is within the same footprint. ■ Removal of roof overhang is on downhill side of property, wasn't doing anything for the structure, it was the only overhang on the house, it is not necessary. ■ Pattern of street is two volumes bridged, without overhang this side mimics the volume on the other side. ■ A lot of changes are structural, in going from 10' ceiling, came down to 9-6, felt overhang was out of proportion, fascia would have changed also. Public comments: ■ Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita, Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa and Ann Nannini, 1555 Alturas; surprised to get another blue card, expressed before disappointment in approving the project, have asked that overhang be changed and ceiling lowered now it has come 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 to fruition. Why do they have to excavate more, will it destabilize slope? Might consult USGS with concerns, why do they need more room? Concerned about the added square footage for the mechanical room and on master bedroom closet, and that the excavation would go farther, closer to my house, and the affect on the stability of my house, frustration over constant hearings. Condition No. 3 was added to restore harmony with neighbors, look forward to day when this house becomes first green point home. Concern with drainage, my house is at the low point on the block, heard that they will use pervious pavers, where is all water going to go, Want to make sure it is resolved. Commission comments: There will be a drainage plan required that will focus water out to the street. Think changes proposed are minor, like to tell applicant glad to see changes now rather than later. Building and Engineering will check drainage during the plan check process. Applicant response: There is a retaining wall required to support a shear wall, decided to use that space created by the sheer wall for mechanical equipment, also needed a retaining wall out of way of the patio steps, so decided to use the space created there for a closet. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 Department date stamped March 28, 2008 (Sheets A1.0, A1.1, A2.0 through A2.5, and A3.1 through A3.3) (date - stamped ac,+�Znn7) .tend Sheets A1.0, A!.!, / 2 3 A2.5, A3. 1 / 3 3 (date Stamped QQGteber 11,907) and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit. 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 22, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's March 26, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 27, 2007 memo, the City Arborist's October 16, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 23, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that the fence between 3101 Margarita Avenue and 3105 Margarita Avenue shall be repaired; that the applicant shall prepare plans for the repair and/or replacement of the downhill neighbor's fence; and shall submit these plans as an FYI to the Planning Commission; 4. that the applicant and neighbors work with the City Arborist to identify the appropriate species and optimal location for the three (3) replacement trees to be planted on the property to ensure that the trees do not grow to a height greater than 15-feet and that they are placed anywhere on the property that will not adversely impact views from the uphill property; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front and side setback variances, 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 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 7. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 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, 2001 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 Department; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8.38 p.m. Commissioners Brownrigg and Vistica Live recused themselves and left the dais since they live within 500 feet of 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive (Agenda Item No. 5). 5. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY USE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, noting that this is a review of the effectiveness of the conditions of approval for the application approved in April, 2007. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jean Hastie, Executive Director Sisters of Mercy, 2300 Adeline Drive, and Laura Held, Principal, Mercy High School, 2750 Adeline Drive, represented the applicant. ■ Purpose is to review implementation of conditions for application approved last year. ■ Responsible for oversight of all activities on Sisters of Mercy campus, have monitored number of activities, timing, and number of residents. ■ Also oversee calendar of events for whole campus and see that activities did not exceed the numbers outlined in the conditions. Calendar of events is also posted on Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School websites. ■ A 24/7 hotline has been established for neighbor complaints, letter sent to neighbors, the call resolution report is included in the packet, each time a complaint was received it was logged and resolved, no significant complaints since September 2007. Sisters of Mercy has put a lot of time and effort to comply with conditions. ■ Worked hard to compile materials demonstrating compliance with conditions for the high school, enrollment numbers and parking, have complied with each of these, students not always as conscientious, on rare occasion when something occurs, we respond immediately. ■ Noise was an issue of concern with neighbors, Mercy purchased decibel meters, and hired a noise consultant to establish ambient noise levels at property line, and staff was trained to take noise measurements, The log shows that none of the events logged exceeded the standard for noise at property line. Ina year with 106 events, Police Department received only five complaints, four to do with events at Kohl Mansion, even though noise was within limits, sound system was turned down following the complaints. Commission questions and applicant's responses: Was the noise consultant, Charles Salter, involved in the staff training for use of the decibel meters? o Yes, the initial training was led by Charles Salter Associates. When students get license, do you ask for proof of insurance, etc., do they sign any agreement with them? o Yes, they provide proof of insurance and sign agreement. We don't have a set system in place for vehicle stacking at the beginning and end of the school day, but we have a suggested route for pick up and drop off. How are people who use Kohl Mansion made aware that they need to be in compliance with the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit? o In the rental contract, the noise information is outlined, and there are rules that must be followed in order to comply. Is there a maximum number of guests for events at Kohl Mansion, has there been a problem with number of guests? o There is no set maximum, the number of guests is determined by parking available. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Public comments: ■ Eileen Whalen, 3029 Rivera Drive, mother lived down street over 50 years and I have lived in the area a long time, spoke in favor a year ago, at time applied, already had valid Conditional Use Permit from the County, the Sisters have bent over backward to address concerns of neighbors, my mother and brother have no complaints, while don't expect will be no more complaints, Sisters are doing everything they can to comply. ■ Catherine Wilkinson, 1409 Castillo, between Hillside and Hale, two blocks from campus as sound travels, lived there 25 years, they are wonderful neighbors, still support the application, no noise complaints, only sound heard is when the students have a rally, astonished that small group of neighbors still complain after so much has been done. Sisters have adhered to conditions, so encourage that Commission find that they have complied and that no further action is needed. ■ Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue, lived there 43 years, conditions improved over last year, still improvements could be made, traffic is better when someone is directing traffic, students are still being dropped off outside the campus, like to allow only one non -school event each week on either Friday or Saturday night, we were not aware calendar available on website. Read letter from neighbor, Alexandra Kromolow, students still picked up and dropped off on street, buses were blocking traffic on Adeline, have broken Burlingame noise law by increasing sound, haven't seen security guards walking or taking noise measurement during events. Would like to be alerted when insecticide is sprayed on property. Music should be indoors with windows shut, should not allow students to be dropped off outside campus. ■ Donna Gaul, 2838 Adeline, drive against flow of traffic in morning, cars are parked on the street, even with heavy flow traffic, never takes more than minute and a half to get through, not a problem, we use the pedestrian paths on the property, love to hear the music, it is beautiful. Missing out on music because they are in compliance, can't hear music. ■ Mike Gaul, 2838 Adeline, our property abuts the trail on Mercy property, I spoke in favor last year, think Sisters have limited activities too much, there is no noise from events; regarding parking, our property looks down at the Marion Center, that parking lot is never full, a lot of trucks also come through, but noise is not issue, traffic is only an issue for a few minutes each day, they are a great neighbor, blessed to be next to them. They let residents use their trail and some people are letting dogs off leash and not picking up their trash. ■ Linda Abby, 2415 Adeline Drive, across street from the service gate, request CEQA review be done and denial of the Conditional Use Permit, several things brought up at previous hearings, a representative of Mercy mentioned that the neighborhood grew up around the Campus, Mercy High was built in 1931 and my house built was built in 1924. If review the petition submitted to City Council, contains majority of residents on Alvarado and Adeline adjacent to Mercy property. Should look at the appeal document submitted last year with regard to accidents and police reports. Should establish a one-way traffic pattern through the campus, hours should be further limited, renting of Kohl Manson for events should not be done. Appreciate the bots dots added on Adeline, but some are already missing. Also noticed that a big bus hit the mirror of car parked car on Adeline. ■ Joe Galligan, 2404 Easton Drive, after left City Council, joined board of Mercy High, Conditional Use Permit approved last year, more conditions imposed than in original Conditional Use Permit, Sisters went above and beyond conditions, asking to acknowledge that the Sisters are doing everything they can to comply with conditions, is a peaceful campus, was at a meeting at the 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 facility, a call was received about an event, noise was in fact coming from an event at a neighbor's house, not the Mercy property. Applicant response: The night assistants that monitor the 24/7 hotline report directly to Jean Hastie, if you look at the complaint log, numerous times have worked with Mrs. Kromelow and her sound meter, night assistants work with the security guards to remeasure the sound, the fire road cannot sustain ongoing traffic, had it looked at by grading contractor, is main access for emergency, is rarely used. Regarding the early morning noise, we are also concerned with noise from garbage trucks, and have called the provider to request they come later. Have put up a hedge so cannot see the parked cars, would like to clarify when referring to police log, meant our complaint log. Commission comments: Appears have put in time and effort in complying, commend applicant on how well conditions have been monitored. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Anderson noted that there are three options for the Commission to consider, can find that no changes are needed to the conditions, can come up with proposed changes to be brought back at another meeting, or determine if the Commission wants to bring back the application for further review. Commission comment: ■ Applicant has done very good job, guidelines are written into parents and student manual, they are already instructed to be courteous to neighbors, don't think any action is needed. ■ Agree that they have done a fine job adhering to conditions, issues outstanding beyond control of the applicant, traffic on our streets, students driving, is a larger issue for the community. ■ Suggest that administrators encourage students to carpool, educate kids on healthy ways to get to school. ■ Note that sometimes go above and beyond, someone legally parked on public street was asked to move their car. ■ Good use of space, wonderful facility, better than putting 300 homes there. Commissioner Auran moved to accept the conditions as originally approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to accept the conditions. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Vistica recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 6. 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO WINDOWS IN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT (SFL PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CATHY NILMEYER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Mike Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper, and Laith Salma represented the applicant. Applicant comments: Last meeting presented a proposal for new windows with no grids, this proposal is for narrow grids, revised drawings to show grids in upper portions of double hung window. Owner has a differing view, didn't anticipate that the previous proposal would be turned down, the existing divides in windows are very thin and small. Commission's Concerns were that the windows maintain architectural integrity, took photos of properties up and down the street, when you look at this property, the existing grids are barely visible. Believe that the proposal with grids in new windows is a greater deviation from existing pattern because of the increased width of the grids for the new windows. Width of grid is probably five times greater than the width of the existing grids. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, landmark building, gateway, important to Burlingame Avenue and California Drive, not to be compared with those around it, point made that first floor windows were changed when redesigned for restaurant, in that case the new windows allowed the outdoors to be brought inside by opening the windows. Made it a point to maintain exterior of buildings, can see the original divided lites, adds charm to building, larger windows would evoke a later time, as an office space, mullioned windows are psychologically more favorable, certain hominess to looking through grids, keep mullioned windows, should preserve exterior of these buildings. Commission comments: ■ At last meeting, did not object to windows without muntins, was looking at it from the perspective of Burlingame Avenue, now, when looking at it from California Drive, have a change of opinion, the muntin bars do add to character. ■ Don't believe should allow without mullions. ■ Think that the divided lites would be better if placed on both upper and lower portions of windows. ■ Believe that the building's aesthetic is important, like to see it as originally intended. ■ Understand applicant has difference of opinion, disagree, building needs to have scale articulation that comes from the divided lites, need to maintain the charm of the building. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 March 31, 2008, North and East Elevations; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2. that the new windows on the second floor shall contain 718" wood grids on the upper half of the window, the proportion of the grids in the arched window shall match that in the rectangular windows, and the windows shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 4. 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; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to commercial design review; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. 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: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: Recommend muntins in arched windows be divided so that the proportions match the rectangular windows, so there would be eight panes in the upper portion of the arched windows. The maker of the motion and the second agree to this amendment. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve. The motion passed 5-2 (Commissioner A uran and Lindstrom dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:58 p.m. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 7. 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 3, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (CAROLEE LENAHAN, APPLICANT; AND AC VENTURES, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Carolee Lenahan, represented the project. Applicant comments: Have been located at 329 Primrose Avenue and the business is relocating to this site. Commission comments: ■ This use will be gravitating to a location where it is conforming and parking impact will be same, moving from one location in downtown Burlingame to another. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the health service use shall be limited to 1,205 SF in Suite 3 at 1408 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the floor plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 25, 2008, and that the site shall accommodate no more than four therapists; and that any increase in the health service use shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; that the health service use may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; 4. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 8 persons, including employees and customers; that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 28, 2008, memo, and the Fire Marshal's, March 3, 2008, memo shall be met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:04 p.m. 8. 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITES 203 AND 204, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE (ALEXIA DORSA, APPLICANT; AND CHARLES AND CECILIA ANDREWS AND NORMAN BROD, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Alexia Dorsa, 1209 Howard, represented the applicant. Applicant comments: ■ Burlingame is a child centered community, people now have to drive to Redwood City for speech pathologist services, will be able to provide services locally. ■ If the business is successful, will put up more walls within the space to create more treatment rooms. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the speech pathologist (health service use) shall be limited to 696 SF at 1209 Howard Avenue, Suites 203 and 204, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 18, 2008, second floor plan; any increase in the health service use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit; 2. that the health service use may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; 3. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be seven persons, including the owner, employees and patients; 4. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 18, 2008 memo and the Fire Marshal's March 20, 2008 memo shall be met; 6. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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; 7. 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 8. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: This use will provide a very valuable service to community. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 9. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR REVISIONS TO A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (ANDREW YOUNG, YOUNG & BORLICK ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, FITZPATRICK TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated April 16, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Andrew Young, Young & Borlik Architects, represented the applicant. Applicant comments: Current owners are concerned with the impact the construction on the fourth floor would have on neighbors below, so limited addition to one side. Due to seismic considerations, want to limit scope of work and focus energy on other side, understand original concerns with project were the impact on front side of building, this proposal will be less of impact on neighborhood. Applicant is willing to use materials found in research by previous architect so the addition will match the existing building. Commission comments: Concern with materials, will be able to match, has research been done. Original project included payment of in -lieu fee for parking variance, understand that this requirement is still included in the conditions for this project. This will be a reduction in the impact because the addition is smaller than what was previously proposed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 March 27, 2008, sheet A-0.1; Sheet A-2.1 date stamped March 31, 2008; and Sheet A-3.1 and A-3.2 date stamped March 4, 2008; 2. that the materials used in the addition shall match the original materials in the building, including the brick veneer, mullions and glazing; the brick shall be H.C. Muddox "Monterey Bay Flashed" or "Old San Francisco", the window mullions shall be Blomberg Anodized Bronze, and the glazing shall be PPG solar -gray glass, or equivalent materials to match the existing finishes; 3. that the applicant shall pay an in -lieu parking space fee in the amount of $77,960, as per Resolution No. 48-2000 to offset the impact of the requested two -space parking variance, the fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project; 4. that the applicant shall amend the original parcel map recorded in 1981-82; this amended parcel map shall show the combination of suite # 401 and #402 into one property or condominium suite, as IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 well as the floor area added to the west side of the fourth floor condominium; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that tenant changes and/or changes in use on the fourth floor shall be in conformance with the C-2, Subarea B zoning requirements, and all shall be reviewed and approved by the Burlingame Planning Division and may require further review by the Planning Commission; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2008, memo, the City Engineer's March 19, 2008 and March 15, 2006, memos, Recycling Specialists' September 20, 2006, memo and NPDES Coordinator's March 12, 2008, memo shall be met; 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 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 maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 73.65' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Bellevue Avenue (27.32') for a maximum structure height of 46.33'; 11. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; and 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 10. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TIN —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR REVISIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 25-UNIT, SEVEN -STORY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND FORUM DESIGN, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Warner Schmalz, Forum Design, project architect, and Paul Bogatsky, 1469 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Applicant comments: ■ Made outside usable open space more available to residents than in the original proposal. ■ Provided recreation facility and restroom facility. ■ Expect that the audience will be mature residents, redesigned so all units are flats. ■ Original building had sloped roof, was lack of concern for mechanical equipment, won't see the flat portion of the roof, but will provide room for mechanical equipment and solar panels. ■ Originally thought could use wood windows, but because this building is considered to be Type I noncombustible building by new code, windows will have to be metal, shown to have vertical mullions, because it will be a metal window, will have to be internal grids. ■ To provide protection at the front door and introduce pedestrian scale, the entry door can be recessed a few feet into the reception room, would provide protection and shadow line. ■ Cypress trees along the sides were found to be diseased, there will be no room to plant replacement trees with the construction and parking structure below. Instead, substituted a garden wall with planters on the inside with vines going over. ■ Can only use noncombustible materials, but it will be difficult to tell the material used is not wood, even after ten years. Also using manufactured stone that has look and feel of real stone. Commission comments: ■ Generally think there have been major improvements to project, with the open space and usability, and window patterns, commend on subtle changes to scale over what was originally approved. ■ Will have to revisit window patterns to see metal windows, windows are very important to design. ■ Concern with scale at entrance, Need something for protection at the front door, nice to scale it down a bit, in original plans, the curved canopy at transom level provided some nice scale, still have element, but no canopy at first level, not married to curved roof form, but need something to bring down scale of entry. Seeing wonderful picture that looks good from this vantage point, not eye level, entry is already at second level, go up to two story element, would like to see something at the entry to provide a sense of pedestrian scale. ■ Drawn to the section of wall along right side near the front, know it is a sheer wall, could it be articulated it in different way, such as a double barrel rainwater leader, or something that casts a shadow? ■ Unfortunate to lose trees. ■ Compliment changes made, recreation room and how it functions is improvement. ■ Concerned about front elevation at the seventh floor, and the cut out roof area over windows, could a trellis be added to complete that gable roof form. ■ Noticed that front entry windows on third floor are bedroom windows facing out on street, the window coverings on these windows are part of the appearance, might want to build in some interior shutters to make it consistent on front elevations, otherwise will see inconsistent treatment, consider including maintenance of interior shutters in CC&R's. ■ Corbels read as wood on rendering, actually limestone covered fiberglass, concerned with that material, will look good at beginning, but will it hold up over time? Are there any other options? ■ Consider another option other than sandwiched mullions to provide a grid pattern in metal windows. Public comment: 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, this is a very important building, cypress trees will be missing, building as revised has a lot more life than original proposal, onto better design package all around, this second reincarnation even better than original. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Applicant should research to find comfortable metal windows with residential style. ■ Would like to see the building code evaluation that requires this to be a type I building. ■ Look into the possibility of replacing the trees on the west side. ■ Address the scale of the front entry, revise to create a sense of pedestrian scale and provide protection at entry. ■ Would like to see consistent window treatment interior that will be permanently installed in the third story bedroom windows and above. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the item, with direction to revise plans and come back at a time that the revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 11:02 p.m. 11. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Pat Fellowes and Sherrie Chow, 1008 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ On Sheet 4.1, windows are indicated as vinyl sliders and on Sheet 4.2, are specified as simulated true divided lite wood windows, please correct the plans to indicate that all windows will be simulated true divided lite wood windows with aluminum cladding on the exterior, and that the trim will be traditional wood stucco mold trim. ■ City Engineer's letter indicates a requirement to replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk, but understand this is in Caltrans right-of-way, will the sidewalk and iron railing next to the sidewalk be replaced, if not can Ivy be grown on it. ■ Noticed that in the response letter from the previous meeting, majority of the responses answered what's going to be done, but several go completely unanswered, that is a problem. ■ Still have an issue with front elevation, decorative railings just not getting there, been some concerns regarding this elevation as well as side elevations. ■ Niche added is token, something needs to go in recess. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 ■ Bays come down and sit above limestone block, would help if there were corbels added underneath the bay windows. ■ Regarding the chimney treatment, corbels could be added supporting the bottom of the chimneys. ■ Front elevation still a concern, shutters on the windows above arch and shutters to frame the French doors could add interest to front elevation, shutters would be a way to introduce different materials, need to be sure they are right scale and style, could do away with niche if other elements such as shutters were added. ■ Instead of shutters, could add more decorative railing and bigger windows, and add planter boxes, could get rid of niche, center part looks orphaned, if windows are made bigger, shutters may not be best alternative. ■ Have seen a design of shutters with wrought iron closures which could add interest to the front elevation. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Revise plans to indicate aluminum clad wood windows and wood stucco mold trim around the windows throughout the plan set. ■ All Commissioners are interested in seeing additional detail on front fapade, and there are a couple of options to achieve. ■ Could add shutters to windows, but need to see shutter design and see samples. ■ Windows could be increased in size and add more decorative railing to break up mass. ■ Chimney element should have corbels to support cantilevered element. ■ Niches are arbitrary. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the item to a time when comments have been addressed and plans revised as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FORA SINGLE STORY ADDITION WITH A TEN -FOOT PLATE HEIGHT (DAVID AND KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER. ARCHITECT/DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked how is the average front setback determined. Staff noted that the architect provides the setbacks for all houses on this side of the block. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Dave Tillman, 2533 Hayward Drive and George Skinner, project architect, represented the applicant. Applicant comments: 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 ■ Reason project is before you again because it was not submitted for construction before the application expired, has been approved twice before as designed. ■ Before, plans submitted were almost construction set, slimmed down for this planning submittal. ■ Since story poles were put up before and there were no concerns, asking that they not be required this time. Commission comments ■ Liked the project when it came through before, still like it, thought there was more detail in plans. ■ Could forego story poles in this case since they were installed two years ago when project was reviewed before. Public comments: ■ Pat Giorni 1445 Balboa, don't want to see precedent set, but in this case, since project is same as previous, don't see the need for story poles since they were up before for the same project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:38 p.m. 13. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FORA NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. David Zhang, 1790 Escalante, property owner, and John C. Lee, architect represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice job on this house, application is straight forward and well organized, typical pattern we see in this area. ■ Would like to see new second story window over garage centered, or there could be two windows as another option for symmetry. ■ A structural report and soils report will be required at time of building permit. ■ There is a benefit to adding a basement, it allows owner to add living space without intrusion on neighbors, allowance that doesn't count toward overall FAR. 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 Project will make the garage more usable by removing intrusions. Add a condition of approval that the debris box shall be kept on site during construction. The bay window on the library will look better if it comes down to the ground. Public Comments: June and Jeff Kaufman,1760 Escalante, Leslie Hornstein, 1793 Escalante, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, has been a lot of construction on our street, which is a cul de sac with no parking, don't understand basement, will they be digging underneath, concerned about excavation; the addition will be close to fence, can we see story poles so we can see how massive addition will be. Excellent use of the basement space,, library is counted as bedroom may or may not be used for one, two cars will fit in garage plus two cars will fit in driveway. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when requested revisions have been made and story poles have been installed for second story addition and library addition. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Cannot support the motion, because there are some things about the design don't work. Chair Cauchi 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 6-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:58 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 7, 2008: Noted that the proposed update to the fee schedule was reviewed by Council and be placed on the Council's April 21, 2008 Action Calendar. Also, some of the recommendations of the Green Ribbon Committee will be discussed at the upcoming Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. FYI: 1840 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TIN: requested changes to a previously approved 45-unit, 4- story condominium project: Accepted. FYI: 34 CLARENDON ROAD, zoned R-1 — changes required by conditions of approval for a previously approved front setback variance application: Accepted. 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 14, 2008 FYI: 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, zoned R-1 — clarification of a condition of approval for a previously approved design review amendment: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1538 BURLINGAME AVENUE, zoned R-1 — requested changes to a previously approved design review project: Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — March, 2008 Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 25