Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.10.07 PC minutes APPROVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California December 10, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Cauchi called the December 10, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. REPLACEMENT OF CHAIR, VICE-CHAIR AND SECRETARY Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s adopted procedures related to the rotation of officers, the following is now the roster of Commission Officers: ƒ David Cauchi, Chairperson ƒ Richard Terrones, Vice-Chairperson ƒ Stanley Vistica, Secretary IV. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the November 26, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ƒ Page 1, Roll Call; delete “Terrones” from the list of Commissioners present. Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Osterling absent). V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee may wish to recommend a policy to address instances where new homeowners have purchased homes that are already built to the maximum FAR, likely without knowing the limitations they will have in proposing future additions/modifications. Commissioner Brownrigg noted that the Commission may see people coming forward in the future to add to maximum FAR homes, the limitations on these properties should be discussed with potential property owners in advance. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1100 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A NEW 8'-0" HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (MICHAEL ZAWADSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Zoning Technician Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 10, 2007. Commission comments: ƒ Confirm the height of the fence on California Drive; is it actually 8-feet tall, the fence appears to step up in height as you move back from California Drive, it may be of a lower height at California Drive. ƒ In the applicant’s letter to the Planning Division, there was a statement attributed to the neighbor that the fence should not be more than 5-feet in height; verify this statement. ƒ Clarify which fences on the property have been replaced. 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 7:12 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. 2a. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2008 - SENIOR PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS 2b. 1705 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DEBRA COX, BLUELINES DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LANDRY SUEN TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2c. 1718 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN SCHMID, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOHN SCHMID AND SUZANNE MALIK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran 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 Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4 -0-1-1 (Commissioner Osterling absent, Commissioner Brownrigg abstained on Item 2c, Commissioner Terrones abstained on Item 2b). Appeal procedures were advised. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 709 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (TERRY MARTIN, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRAD KLAAS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, 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. Terry Martin, 45 East Main Street, Los Gatos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Generally a fine project. ƒ Requested clarification on the types of windows to be installed (applicant responded that they will be wood windows with a vinyl clad exterior with simulated true divided lights). Clarify Condition 1 to reflect intended window type. ƒ The size of the second-floor balcony on the rear is too deep and may impact neighbor’s privacy; reduce depth by 2-feet; maintain curvature. ƒ Asked about lack of mullions on second floor windows (applicant noted that this was a conscious choice based upon the required window type to meet egress requirements). Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 20, 2007, sheets A-1.1 through A-8 and Landscape Plan; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be wood interior with vinyl clad exterior; and that those shown as divided light windows on the plans will be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the depth of the second floor deck on the rear of the residence shall be reduced to a maximum of 5-feet at its deepest point; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the Fire Marshall’s April 13, 2007 memos, and the City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2007 memos shall be met; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 4 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission 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 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. 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 12. 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. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1(Commissioner Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 4. 2000 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DII LEWIS, AZUL WORKS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CATHERINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 5 Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, 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. Dii Lewis, 205 13th Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Complimented the design. ƒ Replaced existing board and batten siding with new board and batten siding, with the pattern shown on the project plans (roughly 12-inch spacing between the battens). ƒ Install a better garage door with more interesting glasswork. ƒ Improve the scale of the supports for the porch to make them more substantial and elegant. ƒ New attic vents should match the existing wood attic vents. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 21, 2007, sheets A-1.01 through A-5.5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. new board and batten siding shall be installed with battens spaced at 12-inches on center; 3. new attic vents shall match the existing wood attic vents; 4. add cladding to the porch columns to make them at least 6-inches square, the final design of the columns shall be taken back to the Planning Commission as an FYI; 5. install a garage door with more detailing; the final design shall be taken back to the Planning Commission as an FYI; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and the NPDES Coordinator's January 8, 2007, memos shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 6 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the 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 13. 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; 14. 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 15. 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 Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1(Commissioner Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:41 p.m. 5. 801 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE LONGER THEN 28 FEET (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND VICKY COLLINS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 7 Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ƒ Asked about the Code Enforcement history on the property (Community Development Director Meeker indicated that there is no recent history, and past complaints have been resolved). ƒ Asked if a demolition permit was issued prior to demolition of the existing garage (Zoning Technician Whitman noted that a permit was not obtained, but that the applicant is currently seeking such a permit). ƒ Asked if a limousine owned by the applicant could be parked on the premises (yes). Michael Kindle, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. ƒ Intent of the garage at the proposed length is to make it a two-car tandem garage. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Asked about the purpose of the over-length garage (the applicant wishes to be able to park two vehicles in tandem in the space). ƒ Asked why the style of the garage doesn’t match the residence (additional attic storage is proposed which affected the roof profile). ƒ Asked if the applicant considered a side-by-side garage elsewhere on the property (the applicant indicated that the property includes a small rear-yard, which would be adversely impacted by placing the garage at that location). ƒ Asked if the applicant still runs a limousine service from the property (unknown). ƒ Expressed concern that the garage door would look better if centered on the front of the garage. ƒ Noted that the inward swinging doors are impractical (the applicant noted that the plans include an error in that the doors in question will swing outward). Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; asked if the applicant is still running a limousine service from the property and if they have a current business license. Noted that a demolition permit had not been issued for the garage; and that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission had been made aware of the activities on the property previously. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ƒ Asked if the Commission should be concerned about having airport cars on the property (City Attorney Anderson indicated that this is not an issue if vehicles are registered to the occupant of the property). ƒ Is there a compelling argument for the requested amount of storage space; do the applicant’s needs justify the size of the structure? ƒ The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t recognize tandem parking; there are better solutions for the property. ƒ Noted that it appears that the design is meant to accommodate a limousine. ƒ Some members indicated that they are torn by the request, but can support it. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 8 ƒ The garage door should be centered and the other doors should be shown to open outwards on the plans. Chair Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 17, 2007 (Sheets 2 and 3), and date stamped November 20, 2007 (Sheet 1), and shall not exceed an overall height of 14'-7" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-7" measured from adjacent grade to top of plate; 2. that the garage door shall be centered within the front elevation of the garage, and the doors shall be shown to open outward; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 14, 2007 memo, the City Engineer’s September 17, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal’s September 17, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator’s September 19, 2007 memo shall be met; 4. that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage and storage area; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; all storage areas in the detached garage shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet or be used as accessory living space without an amendment to this special permit; 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 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 7. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ƒ Commissioner Brownrigg noted that the garage length facilitates use of the garage to get vehicles off the street, including a limousine. ƒ Commissioner Brownrigg noted that from the street elevation, key elements of the home design are echoed. ƒ Commissioner Vistica asked if information is available regarding the length of the limousine that will likely be brought to the property (City Attorney Anderson noted that the application must be considered irrespective of the length of the limousine). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 9 ƒ Commissioner Terrones noted that the design could accommodate tandem parking in the future. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting, Commissioner Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 6. 210 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT SETBACK FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (JACK CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ED AND SUSAN DAHI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jack Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, and Ed Dahi, 210 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Thanked the applicant for adding the porch on the front elevation. ƒ Noted that the stone veneer should wrap around the porch. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 26, 2007, sheets A.0 through A.6, 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 stone veneer shall wrap around the porch, including the area beneath the right front window; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 7, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's September 10, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 10, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 10, 2007 memo shall be met; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage and front setback Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 10 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 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. 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 12. 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 5-0-1 (Commissioner Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 827 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRISTIAN DAUER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE CARUSO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 11 Christian Dauer, 1 Arkansas Street, San Francisco, and Mike Caruso, 827 Crossway Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ The project is off to a good start; however concerned about some lack of detail in the addition; the front of the home is rich with detail; would like this carried through to the second story that is being added; general massing is acceptable, but lacking some detailing. ƒ Carry-over shutters to the second-story. ƒ Include detail on the blank gable on the addition. ƒ The design results in a home that approaches the maximum FAR; be cognizant of limitations on future additions. ƒ What type of windows are proposed (the applicant noted that the windows will be custom wood units, fabricated by a local fabricator; all will match the existing windows, but will be double-glazed). ƒ The clay gable vents add interest; carry them through to the addition. Public comments: ƒ Joel Mittler, 830 Acacia; expressed concern regarding drainage from the property and asked if the mass of the second-story can be reduced (it was noted that the drainage will be reviewed with the review of the addition; the applicant may wish to re-consider the shed on the property). 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 when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ƒ Commissioner Vistica indicated that he is comfortable with placing the item on the Consent Calendar, as long as the additional detailing is shown on the plans. 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 5-0-1 (Commissioner Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. 8. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USE AND FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING FOR NEW, FOUR-STORY, 63-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND THE YERBY COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 10, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, and Mark Cimino, Cimino Care, 7501 Sunrise Boulevard, Citrus Heights; represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 12 ƒ Described changes to proposal. ƒ Explained why the use was proposed for this site. ƒ Noted having two meetings with neighbor groups; including a total of 45 people attending the meetings. ƒ Concerns expressed by neighbors include: traffic and parking, sewer and stormwater, noise, open space; and neighborhood privacy. ƒ The goal of Cimino Care has always been to increase accessibility to senior housing; they wish to provide more options in Burlingame. ƒ Why 4-stories; the cost to go above 2-stories makes it harder to provide a reasonable price for seniors; above a certain height can’t use stick-built construction techniques, must use steel and/or concrete construction. ƒ There is a pent-up demand for senior housing in Burlingame; the project would provide a means for current residents to remain in Burlingame. Commission comments: ƒ If height needed to create business viability; what will be Cimino’s relationship with Yerby? ƒ The applicant is arguing a “social good”; asked about pricing for the facility; could they stipulate that prices would be kept 20-30% lower than comparable facilities? ƒ Having an area to walk around is essential; the amount of building on this lot seems uncaring to the residents of the property (California Drive not a pedestrian-friendly place). ƒ Asked about the number of visitors per day (the applicant noted that they expect a visitor every 1 ½ hours. ƒ Asked if occupants allowed to have vehicles (applicant noted that a limited number of residents have vehicles, from past experience). ƒ Asked about accommodations for memory-impaired residents (applicant responded that the 2nd and 3rd floors of the facility would house such residents). ƒ Asked how many employees of the facility would use public transit? ƒ Asked if 63 units were required to make the project feasible? Public comments: The following residents spoke regarding the proposal: Betsy McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Tim Behrens, 1133 Palm Drive; Katie Treu, 745 Neuchatel Avenue; Helen Stevens, 1128 Palm Drive; Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way; Susan Castner-Paine, 728 Concord Way; Bob Frudenberg, 1104 Palm Drive; Kent Lauder, 449 Bloomfield Road; Bill Farac, 732 Neuchatel Avenue; Tiffany Chesnosky, 716 Neuchatel Avenue; Toni Montgomery, 741 California Drive; Gay O’Brien, 737 Neuchatel Avenue; Carla Blackmon; 910-B Chula Vista Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Greg Scopazzi, 817 Edgehill Drive; Kimberly Hill, 776 Willborough Road; Hoa Li, 780 Willborough Place; Lorine Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive; Stephen Rosenholtz, 712 Crossway Road; Nancy Meyers, 1117 Edgehill Drive; Peter Gum, 770 Willborough Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Shirley Fong, 769 Willborough Road; and Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way. Concerns expressed included: ƒ Residents are not opposed to senior housing and are not anti-development, but the developer also needs to respect the rights of the nearby property owners. ƒ The project is not allowed by the City of Burlingame General Plan. ƒ The use is only allowed as a conditional use; not permitted by right. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 13 ƒ The statement in the staff report that a General Plan amendment will be processed concurrently with the project is prejudicial to the project, and could be considered to be “spot zoning”. ƒ The audience was asked for a show of hands of people opposed to the project (approximately 75 people were present, most raised their hands). ƒ The adjacent neighborhood (to the west) is unique, and the project has the ability to adversely impact the neighborhood. ƒ The City’s Commercial Design Guidelines are not met by the project; the project is out of character with the neighborhood and does not respect the mass and scale of surrounding development; a streetscape massing illustration was presented comparing the scale of the proposed project to existing development. ƒ Asked that all comments raised by residents, including comments raised in the 40+ letters submitted by residents, be forwarded to the environmental review consultant. ƒ The developer has the right to develop within existing guidelines; but is only interested in the bottom line; needs to be a good neighbor. ƒ The project would be a good contribution to north Burlingame. ƒ The City needs to adopt a specific plan to guide future development along California Drive. ƒ The adjacent neighborhood (Neuchatel/Willborough area) should be a landmark district due to its unique character. ƒ A smaller, two-story development would be fine on the property. ƒ The building will block sunlight onto adjacent properties and will obstruct views to the sky and of the Eucalyptus trees on California Drive in some areas. ƒ Delivery trucks and other vehicles will add noise to the area. ƒ Development of the site will impact the adjacent dry-cleaner use. ƒ Parking is a premium in the area; the project will adversely impact parking. ƒ Emergency vehicles create a lot of noise on California Drive. ƒ The General Plan designates the area for retail and service uses; the use is inconsistent with those uses. ƒ Story poles should be erected to show the impact of the scale of the project. ƒ Expressed support of the proposed operator of the facility; but the project is too large for the area. ƒ Are there mechanical items on the roof that will exceed the proposed 51-foot height of the project? ƒ If the use is discontinued, how could the building be used in the future for other uses? ƒ Asked who will bear the cost of the environmental analysis (Community Development Director Meeker noted the applicant would bear the cost of the analysis, but that the contract and consultant would be managed by the City. Additional applicant comments: Dale Meyer (project architect) provided the following additional comments: ƒ There is a normal bedtime for residents of such facilities; noise after 8pm would be minimal. ƒ Security system would be in place to control residents’ activities. ƒ Residents do not leave the facility unless accompanied. ƒ Noted the heights of other buildings greater than two-stories in height in the area. ƒ Indicated that there should be no shade and shadow impacts, but that a shadow study would be conducted. ƒ The proposed rear deck would be screened to provide privacy. It would also be a safety measure for the residents. ƒ Trees are to be planted along the rear property line to provide privacy. ƒ Believes that the environmental analysis will address most of the concerns expressed by area residents. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 14 Additional Commission comments: ƒ Expressed concern regarding the mass and bulk of the building; the nearby fire station is a good reference for mass and bulk. ƒ Noted that prior discussions with the project architect and developer were intended to provide details of the project and should not be viewed as predisposing the Commission to a particular position related to the project. ƒ Compelled by the need for compassionate senior care in community; believe that California Drive will go through an evolution as the community moves into the future; the project is a pioneer project in this evolution; it would be unfortunate if this project were to taint the community towards that evolution. ƒ The project should be sensitive to the community and existing conditions and history of the area. ƒ Compelled by the need for specific plan for California Drive; the community should at least have a good consensus of understanding about how the area will evolve. ƒ Asked that staff to investigate the “future proofing” of the building if the proposed use doesn’t pan out, giving limited parking. ƒ Cimino Care operates with a simple business model; which may be perverted by an expensive model in this case. ƒ Have met with other cleaners in the vicinity of the Peninsula Hospital construction project, there have been no dust impacts from the construction project. ƒ Greater densities, such as that proposed, are allowed in north Burlingame; that is perhaps a more appropriate area for a use of this scale. ƒ Endorsed the suggestion to require story poles; the proposed building is a lot taller than the fire station. ƒ The visual simulation for the project should take into account vantage points from various points in the neighborhood, not just along California Drive. ƒ The analysis needs to look at the historic value of neighborhood. ƒ Review environmental impacts of providing an underground garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director Meeker noted that all comments received during the scoping session, including all letters received in advance of the meeting, will be forwarded to the environmental consultant along with a copy of the minutes of the sessions, outlining the Commission’s comments. Once a draft environmental document is prepared, it will be released for public review and comment prior to consideration of the project, including the environmental analysis, by the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications: ƒ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 3, 2007: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 10, 2007 15 ƒ Noted December 17th hearing regarding the appeal of 3105 Margarita Drive. ƒ Noted that an appeal has been received for the project at 2724 Martinez Drive. FYI: 624 Trenton Way - requested changes to a previously approved design review project: ƒ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project – November, 2007: ƒ Accepted. FYI: 323 Dwight Way – requested changes to a previously approved design review project: ƒ Accepted. Planning Commission Representative to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee: ƒ Commissioner Brownrigg noted that his schedule does not permit him to continue to participate as a member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Commissioner Terrones agreed to assume this assignment. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary