Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.14.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California July 14, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the July 14, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 4, final bullet at bottom of page; delete "while blocking neighbor's views" Page 30, bottom of page (vote on the motion), delete "Chair Cauchi'; insert "Vice -Chair Terrones" Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT SERVICE BAYS TO RETAIL SPACE AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION (SHATARA ARCHITECTURE INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND 1480 BROADWAY PROPERTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 14, 2008. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 ■ Who owns the light pole at the front of the property? It appears that the light pole could become an obstacle for vehicles backing out of parking spaces; could it be moved (who is responsible if it is to be moved)? ■ Two existing doors in storefront; clarify if the two doors on the front are absolutely necessary at this time, or should one, the other or both be blocked off now, rather than later, triggering the need for design review. ■ Would like to applicant to address anecdotal evidence that traffic cuts through the site during rush hour; what do they anticipate will happen after the conversion; how will cut -through traffic be addressed. ■ Include a condition that the facility remain accessible to handicapped individuals during all hours of operation. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 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. There were no requests. Commissioner Terrones noted that he listened to the recording of the June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting because he was not in attendance; and would vote on Item 2b, which was discussed as a study item at that meeting. 2a. 235 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE (ACE HARDWARE) (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRUCE HORN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2b. 1524 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING FOR AN INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY (NOTHING BUT HOOPS, APPLICANT; EDWARD AND MADELINE ROBERTS TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY WINGES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of 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 Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM. AIA ARCHITECTS. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. The proposed roofing material exists on other structures in the area. The opposing neighbor notes that the residence is at an important entry point to the neighborhood. Provided photos that were distributed to the Commission. Commission comments: Asked for reason for making the change (Lam — applicant likes the style and wishes to use it). Has the applicant considered a similar material that is shake style; ranch -style homes typically would have had shake -style shingles. If applicant is interested in a Spanish tile type roof, why not use Spanish style materials (Lam — doesn't believe it to be Spanish in style). Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Tile roofs are common in Asia, but they are really tile, not the material proposed by the applicant. Simply using the proposed tile because others have done it, is not a reason to use the material. ■ Suggested denial of application. ■ The house is on a corner and is very visible. ■ Have consistently requested tile roofs with variable colors; there are other variations that could be considered by the applicant. Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. Chair Cauchi noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Item 4, since he lives within 500-feet of the subject property. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 717 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 DWELLING (DANIEL EWALD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BARRY SUDBECK AND JENNIFER HERTZ. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Daniel Ewald, 1175 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Revisions due to cost and dynamic state of construction lending. Most changes occur at the rear of the property; have attempted to recompose the rear fagade while still leaving the option open to build the original project. Commission comments: ■ South elevation; are there windows on the stairway (Ewald — the drawings do not show the clerestory windows). ■ Seems like a good home for a generous front porch (Ewald — the issue was left open; the applicant was more interested in using something more transparent like a trellis). ■ The roof over the stairwell is too unique; were other alternatives to the shed roof considered (Ewald — the roof doesn't meet the larger gabled form and doesn't lend itself to being a dormer style). ■ There is a possibility that the second phase will never happen; the design should stand on its own; the stairway appears awkward (Ewald — referenced elevations; may read better from other views). ■ Like the design; appears like an old-style sunroom. Public comments: Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way spoke: Interested in seeing the plans (referred to plans in rear of chambers). 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 Department date stamped June 9, 2008, sheets A1.0 through A3.3, 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 June 17, 2008 and July 3, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshall's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos and the City Engineer's June 16, 2008 and July 9, 2007 memos 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; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 5. 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, 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 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had listened to recording of the June 9, 2008 meeting at which this item was previously discussed and would participate in the deliberations this evening. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Does the same type of 10-foot easement (public right-of-way) exist along other lots on Kenmar Way? Existing fence history (Meeker — legally in place via an encroachment permit). Ora Hathaway, P. O. Box 150432, San Rafael; represented the applicant. Surveyor found the property lines and determined that Kenmar Way has a 10-foot easement (public right-of-way) from the curb into the property. Tried to meet with all of the neighbors to address concerns expressed from neighbors and the Commission. Also tried to address the bulk and mass and eliminated the need for the Variance; no longer proposing to extend the fence, but will continue to request approval of an engineered retaining wall on the rear with a wood fence above to match existing; pillars are being removed. Additional Commission comments: Clarified scale of site plan. When encroachment permit applied for, was the design called out in the permit (Hathaway — not known; though she suggested applying stucco and brick elements to improve appearance; applicant would agree if conditioned); also remove lighting from the fence. The fence is an eyesore because of the bollards being off kilter and the lights; obtrusive. Public comments: Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Steve Sterling, 12 Kenmar Way; Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way; and Cliff and Anne Righetti, 2705 Summit Drive spoke: ■ Objections to view impacts. ■ This applicant has been involved in four construction projects since 1989, none of which were issued building permits. The encroachment onto Kenmar and Summit is most bothersome. The original proposal that was withdrawn would have continued this encroachment. ■ The family includes both an attorney and a structural engineer that are involved in the project; is this a conflict. ■ There has been a pattern of withdrawing controversial items, then coming back again later for approval. ■ Questioned structural engineer's qualifications to certify the story poles. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 ■ Need to verify the existence of the ten foot easement (public right-of-way). The encroachment permit issued in 2002 does not reference an existing easement, it should have been referenced. The extrapolation of the same encroachment down El Prado may be justified on the grounds that the original encroachment permit did not specify. The encroachment should be looked at to be certain that it is represented accurately. Perhaps the fence should be removed. ■ Neighbors are concerned with the addition and the fence. ■ Has heard that multiple families are living in the house. ■ People are trying to understand the accuracy of the story poles. Who certifies the story poles (Cauchi — certified by a licensed surveyor). Concerned about having a family member certify information. ■ Majority of people on Kenmar Way would like another opportunity to provide more commentary. Thinks everyone is entitled to do something with their property, but likes status quo (Cauchi — view policy protects distant view; doesn't appear to be a significant impact). ■ Homes in the area are not grand. A larger home doesn't appear to fit into the neighborhood. The addition would reduce some views and eliminate sunlight and reduce privacy. Not directly impacted by proposal. Further Commission comments: ■ Requested clarification of route of stairway from deck; will the base be another stucco wall (Hathaway — could be in order to provide more privacy. Proposed to continue the finish of the rear wall). ■ Will same railing be used on wood deck (Hathaway — yes). ■ Landing of the staircase; how will it be treated (Hathaway — railing and a window for ventilation). ■ Will there be a daycare center (Hathaway — grandchildren stay during the day; will not be a daycare center). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: ■ Have received clarification and commitments regarding the fence from the applicant. ■ Noted that average of block is taken from curb on plans, not from easement (note: average front setback was calculated from property line). ■ Applicant has worked well to modify the design, has eliminated Variances. ■ The view intrusion from the Davidson property is no more significant than existing impact. ■ Only outstanding design issue is the detailing of the rear stairway (materials, etc.). Can condition as stucco base with wood rail. ■ Should include a condition that the lights be removed from the post, stucco columns and add brick elements; also do not extend the fence. ■ Should include a condition that ensures that any change to the fence to extend it be brought back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Cauchi 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 7, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-10 and C-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 2. that the detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction; 3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light elements shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended unless the design of the extension is first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's November 19, 2007 memos, and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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; 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; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 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 Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 6. He left the Council Chambers. 6. 350 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF RETAIL SPACE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (WACHOVIA BANK) (ROB SHINE, APPLICANT; ANN SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHRISTY BATES, CALLISON ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: How is parking handled for Wells -Fargo Bank (Strohmeier — unknown how parking works on Fox Plaza Lane). Andy Crosdale, Callison Architects, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle; represented the applicant. Noted access from both sides of property to street parking. Average time for customers is three to five minutes. Feels that the parking Variance should be accepted given the business characteristics. Additional Commission comments: Concern about permitting a banking operation in a prime pedestrian area; concern about walkability, concerned about the elevations on both sides; are putting in ATMs that will take away from the pedestrian character. Most banking activity is done on-line, according to the property owner. Consider a more pedestrian oriented treatment of the facades. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Could add awnings to elevations to allow color to the building (Crosdale — awnings and planters are simple options for the applicant) (note: planters will require an encroachment permit through the Public Works Department). The recessed doors will be dark, the ATMs will impact pedestrian character; encourage more pedestrian treatment to encourage people to walk from Steelhead Brewery to Stacks. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Bill Peterson, 2701 Mason Lane, San Mateo (representing the property owner) spoke: Suggested placing the ATM at a location in the doorway so that it is more secure. The bank may generate a bit of business. Agreed with improving the appearance of the building, but doesn't think it is a bad business to have downtown. Provided information to support the parking Variance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Anderson noted that the request does not include Design Review, any findings and conditions should relate to the findings necessary for granting the parking Variance. Further Commission comments: ■ Agree with comments regarding architectural design and window treatment. Though in favor of bank use, is concerned about the potential traffic impacts. ■ If it is true that Wachovia is intending to be a neighborhood business, there is an opportunity for modifications to facades to add life to the building; amenities to attract people to the property. ■ Further thought needs to be given to the architectural design. ■ The design is very flat at the moment. Find ways to break of the planes of the building and provide more architectural detailing. ■ It would seem that there would be several mitigations for the parking Variance; would be comfortable with requiring architectural treatments that would encourage pedestrian design changes that mitigate the lack of parking and encourage walking to the facility. Should be continued with direction to the applicant to look at creative options for fagade treatment. ■ This particular use will not be as parking intense as other uses, but the treatment of the building does not encourage pedestrian activity. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the matter. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent, Commission Auran recused). This item concluded at 9:00 p. M. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26.30 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION FROM STOCK COOPERATIVE TO CONDOMINIUM STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER (NEWSPAPER NOTICE — PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 7/4/08) Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Asked how many other properties are affected (Meeker — only one to his knowledge). Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 26.30 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to specify requirements for conversion from stock cooperatives to condominiums. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of adoption of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 9:04 p.m. 8. PRESENTATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN — STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker introduced Kevin Gardiner and Matt Flynn of Kevin Gardiner & Associates, and described the purpose of the presentation; an update to the Planning Commission regarding the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Gardiner presented the CAC recommendations. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Public comments: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root, 27 Crossway Road; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Charles Voltz, 755 Vernon Way; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Joe Putnam, 3 California Drive; and Sarah Mahorter, 816 Peninsula Avenue spoke: ■ Thanked citizens for their input. ■ Applauded the idea of housing downtown. ■ A 75-foot height limit allows a lot of building. Feels that 75-foot heights start to say "small city"; we are a small town. Once we begin approaching 55-feet, we will start to look like parts of San Mateo and Millbrae; will start to lose some of the human scale that currently exists downtown. Feels 55- feet should be the maximum height allowed. This has, in theory been allowed since 1955, however, very few buildings of this height have been built. If other development standards are revised, this could encourage taller developments. ■ The north end of the City is the appropriate place to add more people. If we build opportunities, more people will come. ■ Noted that high-speed rail ballot measure may pass; if it does, there will be grade separation that could affect commercial uses on the east side of the railroad; this must be taken into consideration. Noise is an issue; when electrification arrives, CalTrain is planning to run up to twelve trains per hour during peak time; where housing is placed should take into account this change. ■ The plans for California Drive open space (near Stacks) would improve traffic conditions in the area. ■ It should be easier for future development to occur since there will be a current vision of how we wish to have development proceed. ■ Design review downtown is important; need to have some oversight. The proposed Building heights have existed for years (in most instances), will not raise height limits except for a small portion of Chapin Avenue. ■ The specific plan process has been a good process. ■ Expressed concern regarding the City's separation of the Safeway Working Group and the Downtown Specific Plan processes. Has resulted in a "no man's land"; underground parking is not being addressed by either group. The Safeway site will encompass the largest development in the downtown. Parking is a nexus that must be addressed. The current configuration of parking lots could not accommodate a single large structure, with the possible exception of the lots adjacent to the Library. It is conceivable that the Safeway site could accommodate an underground lot of a sufficient size. There is no place for this approach to parking to be evaluated in either of the processes. Encouraged the Commission to look at the issue. Look at values of existing parking lot assets that could be sold, or otherwise leveraged to obtain funds for a large underground parking lot. ■ Regarding property at 1100 Peninsula Avenue (vehicle storage for Putnam Volvo). Pointed out that it is currently used for storage purposes, but is zoned for residential use. Seems inconsistent and perhaps unfair to limit height to 55-feet on this property. Financial institutions are more thorough than in the past, and are looking at the value of assets much more closely; if the height limit changes for this property, it will affect its value. Need the 75-foot height limit, will affect the ability for the business to function financially. Encouraged changing the 75-foot height limit to encompass the property in question. Supports placing housing uses over auto showroom uses. ■ Encouraged policies to ensure that Burlingame is a safe place for bicyclists. Commission comments: Noted that CAC looked very closely at each of the subject areas presented by the consultant; height limits weren't arbitrarily recommended; but were thought through. All issues that were addressed by CAC necessarily must work within the framework of other aspects of the planning for the downtown area; all issues must work together to meet the overall requirements of the specific plan. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 ■ With respect to streetscape; the CAC looked closely at tree placement and species selection, this needs to be addressed in the plan. ■ Evaluation of line between Subareas A and B; need to capture a potential re-evaluation of this dividing line, or whether such a differentiation needs to exist. ■ Neighborhood serving commercial uses; needed in area south of downtown, but also why not in the other areas. Mixed -use in the Anita Road/Myrtle Road area should also be an option. ■ Not particularly supportive of having the post office eliminated as a use downtown; thinks it is a good, walkable downtown use, but site could use some reworking. ■ Very little has happened with past planning efforts in the City. The Plan needs to also focus on how investment/development in the area can occur and be encouraged; particularly with City assets such as the parking lots. ■ Howard Avenue does not appear to be fully analyzed; what is the vision for Howard Avenue, this must be addressed; how will it be enlivened. ■ With respect to parking; the recommendations don't appear to specifically support underground parking; the CAC should go on record as stating a position regarding this issue. Don't leave things off the table because the CAC doesn't think it can be done. Where do the employees park; where is long term parking. The parking scheme is not revolutionary. Make certain that adequate parking exists. Be more aggressive with parking solutions to ensure adequate parking exists and to promote investment in the downtown. ■ Encouraged housing downtown, but provide affordable opportunities. Consider ownership; condominiums versus rental. ■ Should the guidelines be continued along California Drive northward, outside of the study area. ■ Design review should be required for all projects within the Downtown area. ■ Need to identify funding sources and cost for improvements. ■ With respect to Howard and Chapin, the CAC did discuss connections between the areas; amenities (e.g. open space opportunities, etc.) that keep you moving through the area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. No action was required. All comments are noted by the consultant team and will be included with the information presented to the City Council on July 21, 2008. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1600 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES NEUBERT, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JAKE AND VICTORIA CACCIATO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Chair Cauchi noted the lack of a site posting for design review. Jake Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive and James Neubert, 1291 Hillsdale Boulevard, Foster City; represented the applicant. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Commission comments: ■ Generally supportive of request for Special Permit for the garage. ■ The design is well integrated. ■ Questioned trim around windows; will the existing simple stucco molding be replaced with the new design (Neubert — yes, will leave the existing windows, but replace the trim). ■ In the landing area above the stairs, why is there a change in the plane of the wall next to the garage (Neubert — the garage is substandard in length, wanted to extend length, thought the design looked better). ■ Like the design and the materials called out; will the vent be wood (Neubert — will look like pre- fabricated wood). ■ The design of the roof over the garage; has thought been given to providing brackets under the eaves (Cacciato — willing to consider). ■ Suggested adding windows to stairwell at rear fagade; add light to stairwell (Neubert — suggested adding a skylight in order to prevent impacting neighbor's privacy). ■ Would be nice to add a window in bedroom 4 to break up the wall in front (Neubert — due to budget, attempting not to disturb existing house). ■ Consider adding a transom window on the southwest elevation. ■ Add clerestory windows on the west elevation. ■ Commission has been supportive of encouraging front porches even if a slight Variance is needed in order to improve the entry to homes (Neubert — the proposed design was partly affected by setback and the budget). ■ Offset at 2nd floor landing doesn't appear to match at the ground floor; will be difficult to waterproof; clarify. ■ The garage door selection is good; be certain that the design shown is used in the end product. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Applauds the design work. Lost a lot of privacy with the house at 1505 Balboa Avenue. Most of his living is now viewed by the neighbors. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: Provide direction as noted in Commission commentary. 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 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:26 p.m. 10. 1461 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 GARAGE (VIVIAN AND AMANDA LARKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND BARRY RAFTER. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Amanda and Vivian Larkin, 1461 Balboa Avenue and Barry Rafter, 130 El Bosque Drive, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Need a more detailed landscape plan; will want to soften the building line where the building meets the ground. Is there a way to reduce the amount of lawn area proposed? Typically a planter area is provided in front of the home to soften the transition between the ground and the base of the home. ■ Close the maximum FAR; there is a bit of inefficiency to the ground floor, rooms could be integrated without hallway space; could provide a more gracious porch if the floor plan were more efficient. ■ There are large areas of stucco; could be taken closer to a Tudor design; the belly band on the west elevation could be terminated better, currently doesn't turn the corner. ■ Could create a larger front porch. ■ There is a lot of blank stucco on the south elevation; wood brackets/corbels should be provided below the bays. ■ On the north elevation, there is a blank stucco wall below; look at a means of improving the appearance of the stairwell. ■ The Tudor design needs a lot of work; there may not be enough Tudor elements to truly define it as such. The half timbers look like an afterthought. Each of the window sills need to be heavy wood. A diamond patterned window on the front would look good. Tudor is not a box with a few windows. ■ At the kitchen and dining room, center the windows on the first floor to the bay windows above. ■ Would like to see material sizes called out on the plans. ■ Attic vent is placed in the middle of a beam, and it is metal; use another style that is more appropriate. ■ Consider using pervious materials for the driveway in the rear (Larkin — using cobblestones). ■ Garage should be designed consistent with the style of the home. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Jeffrey Wright, 1465 Balboa Avenue spoke: ■ The new home design bears no resemblance to what is being removed; it would be nice to keep the same style as the existing home. ■ Look to a nearby Tudor style house for design references if a Tudor design is proposed. ■ Four bedrooms and four bathrooms place a lot of strain on the small lot; the rooms are small. ■ Generally supportive, but not of the window on the stairwell because it would look into bedroom at 1465 Balboa Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Additional Commission comments: Questioned why the existing floor area information was provided (Strohmeier — the Planning Commission had previously requested existing square footage information for existing homes to be provided). Appears to be a declining height violation in the cathedral over the stairway (Strohmeier — it is roof area so it does not count toward declining height envelope). Should be sent to design reviewer who has Tudor style design experience. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Not certain that Tudor design is the correct choice for the lot. Design reviewer may steer design to another style. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:52 p.m. 11. 2015 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID HIRZEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SUSAN AND DAVID TUDONI PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. David Hirzel, 5009 Palmetto Avenue, Pacifica; represented the applicant: ■ The parcel is odd shaped. ■ The existing garage cannot accommodate two cars; would like to reconfigure it and expand to allow widening of garage door. ■ The laundry area is original to the house; wish to convert to a more useable space. ■ The diagonal wall on the first floor is reflected on the second floor as well. ■ The second story wall is stepped back due to the Declining Height Envelope. ■ To have right angled walls on the second floor would be inconsistent with the first floor design. Commission comments Asked if the fence on right-hand side is to stay (Hirzel — yes) Asked if stairs are to be installed to provide access to rear yard (Hirzel — not intending to do so; the rear -porch is at the same level as the first floor). 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 ■ Three foot clearance in the kitchen is not really accessible (Hirzel — not intended to make it fully ADA accessible, only looking at the needs of the client). ■ Odd -shaped lot is partial justification for the Variance; but justification for additional 26-square feet is not as strong (Hirzel — expansion of garage to permit two cars is intended, but not necessary). ■ General concerns about extending kitchen into the front porch; renders the porch essentially unusable; reduces it to a stoop; could push kitchen back into the living room and expand at rear, while still keeping utility of porch. • Nothing extraordinary about the addition; limited support for the Variance. Public comments: Dennis Creedon, 2012 Devereaux Drive spoke: Concerned about loss of light and privacy to his lot. The lot is not conducive to the addition proposed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Trying to place alot on the lot. ■ There is an opportunity to expand the kitchen elsewhere without reducing porch. ■ Should visit 2012 Devereaux to determine impacts; not enough information to make a judgment. ■ Given the odd shape lot and proximity to neighbor, require preparation of a shadow study to complete the application. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to refer to the project to a design reviewer with direction to prepare a shadow study to assist in assessing impacts upon neighboring properties. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chair Cauchi noted that he met with Community Development Director Meeker to discuss subcommittee assignments. An item will be placed on the next regular meeting agenda for discussion related to this topic. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Due to the potential for a lack of a quorum, the July 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 14, 2008 Actions from Regular City Council Meeting of July 7, 2008: ■ The July 7, 2008 City Council meeting was cancelled. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2008: ■ Accepted FYI: 1537 Howard Avenue — changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted FYI: 1427 Chapin Avenue — change to a previously approved Design Review project to remove pathway to rear of site: ■ Schedule for hearing. Consider alternatives including retention of the walkway. Other items: ■ City Attorney Anderson noted the recent ruling from Judge Weiner regarding Sisters of Mercy Conditional Use Permit. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Vice -Chairman m