Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.27.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 27, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the February 27, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica (arrived at 7:02 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell C. Vistica arrived and took his seat. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 13, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Because there are members of the audience who came for two related items the Rollins Road zoning and the scoping of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA project on Rollins Road, the Commission agreed that it would be more efficient in terms of public comment to consider these items consecutively. So item 6 the Rollins Road zoning should be shifted to follow item 9 and precede item 10 the environmental scoping and design review of the PHS/SPCA project. There were no other changes to the agenda. Chair Auran asked if all the commissioners had visited all the sites for projects on the agenda this evening. All commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1124 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS. (STEVE MENDENHALL, APPLICANT, AND CANDIDA- RENE ORDONEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report and noted that this application is a result of a complaint filed with the Code Enforcement Officer about undocumented construction in a garage to convert it to a living unit. Commission noted that the complaint was filed in May 2005 and asked why it took so long to be placed on the agenda; staff noted that code enforcement items typically take longer because a complete application and plans must be prepared before the Commission can review the project. Commissioners asked: ƒ variance application form needs to better address the extraordinary circumstances on this property; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 2 ƒ stairs for ingress and egress to the house is not an extraordinary circumstance, every house has stairs; ƒ if the stairs are a problem, a ramp can be built to accommodate ingress/egress for the resident; see no hardship on this property; ƒ application states that the resident suffers from Alzheimer's disease, but when visited the site noted that the detached garage is being used to house a dog, applicant needs to clarify the proposed use of the detached garage; ƒ this application has a long way to go, information in the application is inconsistent; generally do not approve applications for living quarters in a detached structure because of zoning issues; ƒ response to #3 on the conditional use permit application notes that the existing garage will still house a car, how can this be if the application includes replacing the garage door with a stud wall? ƒ sympathetic to the residents' health condition, however second living units are not allowed in the R-1 zone; could add a lift or ramp to accommodate the resident. 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. 2. 1199 BROADWAY #1, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. (DANA KERN, APPLICANT; AND GARBIS BEZDJIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. CA Anderson noted that this application is for a limited food service food establishment and therefore comments on the operation of the business is appropriate. Commissioners asked: ƒ does the applicant operate other satellite operations similar to what is being proposed; ƒ would like the applicant to discuss what they think is the breakeven point for sales in terms of number of customers and when they expect to reach it; ƒ this is the fifth of five additional food establishments recently allowed by the ordinance, this property owner will have 40% of the total, want to make sure business is viable; ƒ concerned with the plans submitted, there are clear code problems with the floor plan layout, for example, there is not enough room provided between the display counter and the counter against the wall; these problems need to be corrected on the plans; ƒ need to provide the name of the author of the plans, also at action meeting would like to see the plans previously approved for the food establishment in suite #2 at this site; ƒ would like to see where the proposed exterior signage will be located; and ƒ all exterior venting and equipment should be combined on the roof and not visible from the street, add as a condition of approval. 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 7:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat on the dais. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 3 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. There are no consent calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson, designer, 650 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that this is a much improved project, the design review process worked well for this project; want to make sure that the termination at the top of the roof where the roof ridge meets the flat portion of the roof does not contain a curb, need a ridge shingle along the edge of the flat roof. Commission asked why the detached garage was setback 4'-0" from the rear and side property lines; designer noted that the garage was set back from the rear property line in order to protect existing trees and their root systems. Commission noted that the proposed English Plain trees proposed at the front of the property are too close together, in addition the landscape plans are difficult to understand, the flagstone and concrete is too busy, what is happening with the paving at the front? The designer commented that the English Plain tree is similar to a Sycamore, if manicured and controlled well it can be a nice small shade tree in keeping with the Tudor style, have seen this species in several gardens spaced 6 to 10 feet apart. Commission noted that this style typically generates a stoop at the front of the house and looses the porch element, the design guidelines encourage porches in the design, this design makes the house inward looking, style does not speak to the street with a small porch, however am not requiring the porch to be revised with this project. Commission asked the designer to clarify the type of window proposed; designer noted that simulated true divided light wood windows with metal cladding on the exterior will be used. Commission asked the designer to clarify the vent on the front elevation; designer noted that the vent will be metal with a wood lentil above and stone below, the buildings' exterior will be stucco with stone showing through. Ignac and Edith Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and with a letter submitted from John and Anne Fallon, 1412 Balboa Avenue; noted the following concerns with the project: the existing driveway is narrow and steep, will the new driveway be the same size and slope, current residents don't use the driveway because it is so narrow and steep, as a result cars are parked on the street, current residents have three big vehicles, two of their cars are parked in the street, concern is that if the proposed driveway is the same width and slope it will not get used, street is narrow and essentially a one-way street, parking on Balboa Avenue is a problem,; concerned with the height of the building, 32'-2" previously proposed, now 33'-2" is proposed, house got taller; this is a large house and does not fit into the neighborhood, no exceptions to building height or declining height envelope should be granted, submitted photographs of the existing site, prepared a model of the original and revised designs, the roofline is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 4 complicated and problematic; concerned with having a flat roof on a Tudor style house, the September 26, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes note that the Commission was concerned with the amount of flat roof on this project, don't see significant changes made to the flat roof; the propose house will be 3' taller than the house on the right and 7' taller than the house on the left, concerned with the mass and bulk of the building; concerned with the two tall black acacia trees at the rear of the lot, these trees shed a lot and cause problems with clogging gutters and drainage, without gutters working property water will drain to the neighbors, proposed house will be 4' from the 7' tall fence, will be hard to clean gutters; plans say wood windows will be used, but designer noted that metal clad windows are proposed, would like to see wood windows used; would like to see story poles installed to show the envelope of the building; do not agree with the design review analysis, the house is more attractive now, however it does not belong on this small lot; the fabric of this block has changed significantly because of several construction projects, the new house recently built at 1453 Balboa Avenue is too big, during the review of that project the Commission noted that the neighbors would have to see this house for the rest of their lives so it should be better integrated into the neighborhood; this project should be sent back to the design review consultant or deny it without prejudice because of the site conditions. Design noted that the driveway width and slope is approximately the same as existing, however the driveway widens towards the rear of the lot because the house steps back, driveway will be 10'-6" in width and wide enough to use, will be able to park three cars on the property. Commission noted that it appears that the current residents do not find the driveway convenient to use because it is steep, a wider driveway will encourage use. Commission asked how the flat roof will be drained; designer noted that the details have not yet been worked out, however the flat roof will have a slight pitch so that water is directed to a drain at the rear. Commission noted that the flat roof could have been avoided by reducing the pitch, the change in pitch would not be that visible, flat roof design will be more costly to build and may cause the roof to leak; designer noted that she came up with several roof designs, including a reduced pitch, but the design review consultant recommended against it because a reduced pitch would not be as consistent with the Tudor style. Clement Hung, property owner, noted that he heard the neighbors concerns with the height, asked the designer to reduce the overall building height to 30', but design review consultant recommended against it, based on his recommendation the height was increased. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the project has come a long way, the design review process worked well for this project, special permit for height is appropriate because this property is located at the crest of the block, actual house is not over 30' tall as measured from adjacent grade, there are valid findings for the special permit because of the architectural style of the house, do not need to see story poles for this house because there are no view blockage issues, and for these reasons moved to approve the application, by resolution with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: still concerned about the landscaping, landscape plan is confusing, proposed landscaping does not do the best job to screen the new house, would like to see project continued to have noted changes incorporated and a revised landscape plan. Maker of the motion and second agreed to continue the project as along as there are no new issues raised. C. Deal made a motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 5 ƒ details of the second floor dormer with the window on the right elevation needs to be refined, the layout of the trim boards should be consistent with the other dormers; ƒ consider shifting the detached garage to the right by 2'-0", this would help increase the useable rear yard space; ƒ suggest using London Plane trees rather than English Plain trees at the front, this species would be a better compliment to the Tudor style; ƒ the garage vocabulary with the arched roof over the round top vent does not match the vocabulary of the house, roof element and vent should be eliminated; ƒ skylights need to be tinted; ƒ like the leaded glass window above the dining room window, would be nice for the dining room window to be leaded glass, will leave up to designer and property owners to decide if it can be incorporated into the design; ƒ applicant needs to address the concerns noted with the driveway width and slope; there appears to be a discrepancy on the plans regarding the driveway width, 10'-6" between house and property line shown on the site plan, 10'-0" shown on building elevations; clarify driveway location, width and slope, there appears to be 18 inches between the edge of the driveway and the side property line, should increase driveway width by 6 inches towards the property line to make it easier and safer for the residents to use. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the revisions as directed have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves from this item because they live within 500 feet of the property. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present to answer questions. Commission noted that photographs indicate that the design of the porch columns were changed from turned columns (originally approved) to square columns, however the revised plans do not reflect this change. In addition, landscaping at the front of the lot is also being revised to include more turf, but this change is not noted in the application. Need further clarification from the applicant regarding several issues. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Vice-chair Brownrigg noted that because further clarification is needed from the applicant, he made a motion to move this item to the end of the agenda to follow Item #10 when the applicant might be present. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: if this project is continued, do not want to see it bump another application off the next agenda. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 6 Vice-chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the end of the agenda following Item #10. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Chair Auran and C. Osterling abstaining). This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dais and took their seats. 5. 1830 SEQUOIA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A STRUCTURAL WALL AT AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING. (ROBERT M. BLUNK, AIA, BDA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GEORGE WILLIAMS III TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Robert Blunk, architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway #300, Burlingame, was available to answer questions. Commission asked who designed the structural wall; architect noted that the engineer designed it, engineer studied the problem and found that this is the best solution to lateral bracing, there are other apartment buildings in the area with the same problem, since there are no extra parking spaces in this complex, could not design the beam inside the parking area, chose the proposed location because it will not eliminate any parking space or conflict with vehicle maneuvering. Commission asked why is the structural beam needed only at this corner of the building; architect noted that the rest of the building has lateral bracing in one direction, the rear wall of the building is open, other parts of the building have solid walls to provide the bracing, the proposed location is where the lateral support is absent. Commission asked if there is a way to screen the wall with landscaping; architect noted that a 3' to 4' tall hedge or shrubs can be planted to screen the front edge of the wall and also plant ivy to climb up the wall. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see a condition that requires ivy and a 3 to 4 foot tall hedge or shrub to be planted along the edge of the structural wall; also would like to see a condition added that if the building is ever substantially remodeled, expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement the front setback variance for the structural shall become void. C. 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 January 24, 2006, sheets A0.1, A1, S-1 and S-2, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or location of the structural shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to final inspection, a hedge or shrubs shall be planted along the edge of the structural wall so that it will grow to a height of 3 to 4 feet and that ivy shall be planted to climb up and cover the wall; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 25, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's January 27, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's January 30, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 19, 2006 memo shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 6) that the front setback variance shall only apply to this structural wall and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 7 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE This item was moved to follow item 9. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (LUIS ROBLES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Luis Robles, architect, 341 Channing Way, Pacifica, was available to answer questions, noted that four bedrooms is proposed, not five bedrooms as indicated in the staff report; staff noted that the den and family rooms qualify as bedrooms, therefore a total of five bedrooms is being proposed. Commission comment on the project: ƒ clarify type material for guardrail on second floor balcony, need to accurately draw the guardrail on the plans; ƒ clarify proposed type of window and window trim on plans; ƒ second floor bay window at the front of the house is not shown on the side elevations, needs to be shown on all affected elevations; ƒ overall the project lacks detail, need to pay close attention to the detail and show them correctly on the plans; ƒ clarify first and second floor plate heights on all building elevations, provide dimension from finished floor to top of plate on both floors; ƒ concerned that by adding a rim joist to increase the height of the existing plate height, over time there will be a visible crack along the seismic joint on the interior wall; ƒ concerned with the front elevation, front porch is not integrated into the house well, increasing the size of the porch will help the front elevation; ƒ round top windows on the second floor of the front elevation are not compatible with the style and are not used elsewhere in the design; ƒ more articulation is needed on the second story; ƒ proposed architectural style of house is unclear, adding details such as rafter tails and appropriate colors, would help to define the style; ƒ there are inconsistencies between the building elevations and the roof plan, for example the roof plan shows hip roofs at the rear where the building elevations indicates gable ends, need to correct, hip roof may be better for this design; ƒ elements on the rear elevation are not clear, clarify proposed material for horizontal bands over the first floor covered porch at rear and for the water table around the house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 8 ƒ front elevation at the right side is broad, the existing house has a porch, proposed porch does not embrace the street, larger porch could reduce the massing; ƒ south elevation is big with a broad roof, roof eave over the door along this elevation needs more attention and detail; ƒ north and south elevations need more details, would like to see more windows added, these elevations need a more human aspect; ƒ need to show downspouts and gutters; ƒ would like to see landscape plan to help soften the bulk and mass of the building; ƒ would like to see a tree protection plan for the trees at the front and rear of the property; ƒ windows on garage door are not in proportion with the windows in the rest of the house; ƒ should consider a different type of garage door, suggest a heavy timbered design which would be more in keeping with the Spanish style. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: suggest that the project architect look at Spanish style houses in Burlingame and other cities, take photographs of different elements associated with a Spanish style house, identify those characteristics which he likes and bring them to the meeting with the design reviewer to show the style being proposed. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 8. 1824 BARRIOLHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL HOWIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted during the site visit that a fence with pillars was built in the front setback at the edge of the sidewalk and appears to encroach into the city's right- of-way, was an encroachment permit granted; staff will verify if an encroachment permit was issued and if the fence complies with the height limit for a fence within the front setback. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Paul and Mihaela Howie, property owners, were available to answer questions, noted that a fence exception was granted for the fence, looked at the existing houses in the neighborhood, made an effort to match the other houses, have two-story houses on either side, tried to integrate the design with the adjacent houses. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed design was inadequate and the applicant should start over with a design professional. The reasons cited for this conclusion were: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 9 ƒ plans cannot be reviewed as proposed, there are too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies on the plans, don't know what is going to be built, there are a lot of mistakes, graphics do not show what is happening, drawings lack detail; concerned with quality of plans and level of accuracy; ƒ the property owners need to seek a professional architect to create a design that is compatible with the existing house and neighborhood, need someone with experience in this area; ƒ applicant should review the residential design guidelines more closely; this plan is not consistent with their direction; ƒ need to make sure details are included on the plans and that all dimensions are correct; ƒ need to be careful not to match examples of bad design in the neighborhood; ƒ the existing house is charming, addition should key off the existing design, the proposed design is not consistent with the current style and is an extreme departure from the design of the existing house, the proposed design concept is unacceptable; ƒ the mansard roof does not lend itself to what applicant is trying to accomplish, strongly suggest increasing the living space without a mansard roof, do not see a lot of mansard roofs in Burlingame, do not want to set a precedent; ƒ type of window enclosures to be used are unclear on the plans, are they sloped or dormer windows, building elevations are unclear, need to know if these windows comply with egress requirements, this relates back to the character of the roof; ƒ bay window along the driveway side which encroaches into the driveway is not shown the site plan; and ƒ this project should not be referred to a design review consultant at this stage, it's not the design reviewer's job to design the house. Commission discussion: agree that this project is not ready to be referred to a design review consultant, the project needs to be redesigned by a professional architect; both current design and plans are not acceptable, therefore should consider placing the project on the regular action calendar for a denial. CA Anderson noted that the Commission could place the project on the consent calendar for denial; the applicant may withdraw the application prior to that action and work with a professional architect, if they wish to retain some of the filing fees. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a recommendation to deny the application. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the recommendation to deny the application. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 9. 1456 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (TONY LEUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) ( 66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that an email was submitted after preparation of the staff report by John Walsh at 1460 Bernal Avenue expressing concerns with the rear of the proposed house overlooking his yard, need more clarification regarding the landscape screening proposed at the rear and would like to know if the proposed master bathroom windows will be opaque. Commissioner asked if bay windows are allowed to encroach into the setback, and if so, by how much. Plr Hurin noted that a bay window may encroach up to 1'-6" into the front setback with a maximum footprint of 20 SF. Commissioner City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 10 asked if the applicant was made aware of the potential drainage issues; yes. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, was available to answer questions, noted that this is a straight forward project and has been designed to comply with the zoning regulations, don't anticipate problems with drainage on this lot, the low spot on this lot is at the rear left corner, Department of Public Works requires that all drainage be directed to the street by way of a catch basin and sump pump. Commissioner noted that there have been recent drainage problems with new houses built on Occidental Avenue, Poppy Drive and Vancouver Avenue, do not want to see this project have to come back again for review because of drainage problems; finished floor is shown six inches above grade (finished floor proposed at 76.5' adjacent to grade at 75.9'), don't see how the appropriate flashing can occur by the time the mudsill is added, will have to build a trough around the house to comply with building code requirements. Designer noted that the contractor will prepare the entire lot during grading to provide the appropriate drainage from the house, the existing contour will not remain, approximately three to four inches will be over-cut to place the mudsill six inches above grade. Commissioner noted that the appropriate drainage could only be provided by digging down and asked why couldn't the house be raised instead? Designer noted that the house could be raised an additional three to four inches and still be under the maximum height limit, currently there is 10'-0" proposed for the driveway width, could shift the house to the right a few inches and raise the height without encroaching into the declining height envelope. Commissioned noted that shifting the house over a few inches would help the neighbor, however it cannot be shifted over to far because the driveway will become to narrow to use because a landscaped area is proposed along the fence. Mary Francis Nappi, 1452 Bernal Avenue, noted that her house floods without a sump pump, during heavy rains the sump pump is constantly running, has had 6 to 7 feet of water in the basement when the sump pump failed; greatest concern is with the loss of privacy, has a pool in the backyard which is used by her children and grandchildren, asked if there is a code which addresses privacy, second floor balcony at the rear of the house will look into her yard, don't know how far back proposed house is from her house, now will have a driveway and detached garage next door where there currently is no driveway or garage, will impact her backyard, other houses in the neighborhood have attached garages; concerned with the decorative landscaping presently adjacent to her dining room, has worked on maintaining the landscaping for 12 years, would like to see it protected; concerned with the proposed height of the building and that it will cast a shadow; very concerned with the length of the house towards the rear, not too concerned with extending the house at the front; concerned with children congregating on the second floor balcony proposed at the rear of the house, it will be an attractive nuisance; Magnolia tree shown to be removed is actually a cumquat tree, the existing Pepper tree is nice, would like to see it relocated rather than removed; accessory structure at the rear of the lot is the original house, was never used by the previous owners, cannot plant landscape screening on her property because the paving extends to the property line; how big is the proposed balcony? Designer noted that the balcony extends 3 feet from the house, property owner would like to have a balcony because it provides a view of the bay; the existing living unit at the rear of the lot which has not been used will be replaced with a garage, see this as an improvement regarding privacy concerns, property owner also want to protect his privacy. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 11 ƒ need to look closely at how the drainage problem will be addressed on this lot; ƒ consider moving the house forward on the lot to increase the rear yard space, bay window may project into the front setback up to 1'-6" and not to exceed 20 SF in footprint; ƒ concerned that the proposed porch is too small and not inviting, should increase size of porch, will help to reduce the mass of the building; ƒ would like to see detached garage setback an additional 1'-0" from the side and rear property lines to provide more space for maintenance around the garage structure; ƒ concerned with the Photinia species proposed along the left side property line at the rear of the lot, species is susceptible to blight, should choose a different species of the same size; ƒ clarify the roofing material above the bay window on the plans; ƒ there are Tudor style houses across the street, porches are different with steep pitches, consider using a steeper pitch roof such as 12:12 or 14:12 to create a distinction; ƒ consider applying for a special permit for declining height envelope to raise the house, rather than shifting the house over and making the driveway narrower, encroachment into the declining height envelope would be minimal; ƒ proposed balcony is an appropriate size, the balcony is small and adjacent to the master bedroom, is located on the opposite side of the house away from the neighbor's pool, will have a minimal affect on privacy, have to keep in mind that this is a suburban neighborhood; balcony helps to reduce the mass and bulk of the building, the balcony details are nice; the house is arranged in such a way that it steps away from the neighboring property towards the rear of the house, helps to improve privacy; ƒ balcony will create a shadow on the first floor, could do a mock balcony instead; ƒ suggest installing trees in the landscape pockets along the right side property line near the garage to provide privacy for the neighbor's pool in the rear yard; could also install a large scale shrub such as a Pittosporum which has a fast growth pattern; ƒ only need a one-car garage for the proposed four bedroom house, consider reducing the size of the garage to increase the useable rear yard; and ƒ encourage property owner to talk to the neighbor about type of fencing, could help to improve privacy. Comment on motion: there are a lot of little but important issues which need to be addressed on the plans, a lot of discussion about drainage, need to address drainage now, do not want to see this project come back for changes at time of construction; motion includes accepting the balcony as proposed because it is small and is not different than having a window in the same location, addressing the height of the building as it relates to the concerns with on-site drainage and addressing the landscape issues noted. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Rollins Road zoning had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to City Council in September 2005, and the City Council had studied the proposed regulations on December 19, 2005. Council suggested that the regulations be returned to the Commission for further consideration of a number of items City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 12 raised at their study session. The Subcommittee met twice to discuss and address these issues, their recommendations on these items are included in the draft of the ordinance. The core of the proposed Rollins Road zoning has not changed from September 2005, so the staff presentation focused on the recommended changes to the areas which were identified for further consideration: land uses including veterinary hospital and animal boarding and performance standards for large scale building materials and garden supply stores; clarification of how the auto row overlay applies to the Adrian Court area; performance criteria and uses allowed in the Rollins Road drain; and in the Southern Gateway Entrance area, criteria for eligibility for the FAR bonus, whether the area should be treated as an overlay with all industrial uses also allowed, and whether 'pedestrian oriented' retail uses are appropriate in the Southern Gateway Entrance area. Commissioners asked staff: how are 'personal service' uses defined in Burlingame? CP responded that 'personal service' is defined in the zoning code as service which cares for the person or personal goods/apparel such as beauty parlor, barbershop, or dry cleaners. Attorneys, CPAs, or accountant services are not considered to be 'personal services' rather they are included in office uses. What kind of office uses are allowed in the industrial area (outside of the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area)? CP noted only office uses associated with a permitted or conditional use on the site, such as an office to operate a warehousing business or an auto repair shop. Office uses for attorneys, architects or accountants which are independent of a permitted or conditional use on the site, so are free standing and are not allowed under the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning would allow a manufacturing industry like Guittard Chocolate up to 25% of its warehouse to be used as office as a permitted use and up to 50% with a conditional use permit. Commissioner noted that the reason free standing office buildings (occupied by office uses not associated with activities on site)are not allowed is that they are often incompatible with permitted uses which are to be promoted in the zone, e.g. negatively affected by the impacts such as truck traffic, noise, vibration, etc. of the industrial area. CP noted that this is so. Commissioner asked why the criteria for no fee and stay limited to 45 days were added to the definition of 'animal shelter'. CP and CA responded that the no fee was added to distinguish these facilities from for-profit boarding kennels, but the non-profit status would address the same issue, so not charging a fee is a duplicate. The 45 day limit was again a distinguishing characteristic to address differences with breeding facilities. The 45 day time limit was chosen because it was identified as a 'typical stay' for a healthy animal in an adoption facility. It was also noted that duration was chosen over density, because there did not appear to be any established density standards (e.g. dogs or cats or native animals per square foot) we could find. The time limit for adoptive healthy animals could be increased to more closely match a maximum stay rather than a 'typical stay'. Commissioner expressed a concern about vehicle storage in the drain, cars are limited to 30 days but there is no time limit on RV's and boats. These should be treated the same. CA noted the need to be able to move vehicles in the drain quickly in the event of flooding; so there needed to be a single point of responsibility. Commission discussed the differences between a definition in the code and the performance criteria included in a zoning district. CP and CA noted that a definition defines the parameters of the use in a general sense; but based on the objectives of the zone, different performance criteria may be assigned in different zoning districts. There were no more questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; Kevin Gabarra, 1400 Rollins Road; John Ward, 792 Willborough; Herman Christiansen, 1423-1499 Rollins Road, Jennifer Renk, representing the Peninsula Humane Society/SPCA; spoke. It is appropriate to charge a fee to adopt an animal to discourage misuse of the animal and poor maintenance; during stay the animal may need veterinary services, food and other expenditures which need to be covered, should be considered in the definition. The animal shelter use proposed is in violation of the Specific Plan; animal boarding is incompatible with an industrial area, can't differentiate use based on whether it is for profit or non-profit, only can differentiate based on whether the use is acceptable or not. Represent the corner of Rollins and Broadway, this has been a two year history, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 13 biggest issue has been addressed - required combination of parcels for eligibility for density bonus, the use of minimum lot size is appropriate; personal services comment in letter submitted is a misunderstanding, now clear; is Commission aware that this proposal would really eliminate all retail in the overlay area (Southern Gateway Entrance) and would remove a lot of the potential of our site; are the traffic impact requirements for the overlay a policy which applies to all development in the area or just to the Southern Gateway Entrance, if apply to all don't need in the zoning. Should not allow animal shelter/rescue businesses in the Rollins Road area; will discourage other business, have the same impacts and reduce city revenues because non-profit; Humane society is a kennel without breeding, use is inappropriate and incompatible with industrial area, reason that the neighbors oppose, should give them the same consideration that you give residents in a residential neighborhood who oppose a neighbor's house; gave a map to the Planning Commission showing the location of the properties of all the people who opposed animal boarding in the Rollins Road area. Submitted a letter with what we consider technical changes, think the non-profit status covers the fee issue; people assign value to an adopted animal when they pay a fee and if an animal is not adopted will tie hands, 'typical stay' is 45 days but not always, if not adopted in 45 days then what? There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: How do these zoning regulations relate to the PHS/SPCA application? CP noted that project was submitted before these regulations will be effective, so that project is processed under the current M-1 zoning with the design review based on compliance with the Specific Plan. If the 'animal shelter/rescue' use is not approved, the PHS/SPCA care and concern center would continue in the Rollins Road area as a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may continue and be maintained over time, but may not be expanded or replaced. Noted that a limitation on the length of an animal's stay in a shelter may not be important since occupancy of the habitat would immediately be filled by another similar animal, so perhaps some generic approach to limits is better. Commissioners discussed setting a maximum number of dogs and cats based on an occupancy density and limiting the size of both veterinary hospitals and animal shelters/rescue centers to 1,500 to 2,000 SF, small scale like the one that used to be on Amphlett Blvd. Because Animal shelter/rescue center uses are proposed as a conditional use in the Rollins Road zoning, they would be allowed only subject to approval of the size, intensity of use and location. Agree with the prohibition of animal boarding facilities including doggie day care, they do not provide the community service that a veterinarian or the animal shelter/rescue center provides; their impacts are different from commercial recreation facilities, they bring people into the area at peak hour and believe that an animal shelter or rescue center operates more like a veterinary hospital than a boarding kennel does. Comments continued: Do not believe that pedestrian oriented retail is appropriate in the Southern Gateway Entrance area, what CalTrain is going to do at the crossing is uncertain and could affect future pedestrian access from the Broadway Commercial area. There is a lot of vehicular movement in the area so is not a good place to bring people; bicycle and pedestrian access to the Broadway bridge and over it is very dangerous and should not be encouraged; feel that the opportunity to provide free standing office uses at a higher building density than in the industrial area should be sufficient to encourage improvement of the gateway entrance; uses in such office buildings can include a small cafeteria to serve employees in the building; pedestrian retail in this area would also promote more traffic and pedestrians in this area with difficult access. It is important to note that because of the traffic and type of uses in the industrial area that efforts should be made to keep the activities of a use confined to the site, dogs from the shelter should not be walked in the area and uses should not be designed for activities which stimulate off site impacts such as attracting new volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists into the area. The following items were suggested for amendment to the proposed zoning regulations: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 14 ƒ For Animal shelters and rescue center use remove the prohibition on charging fees for services and retain the nonprofit status requirement. ƒ Modify the language limiting a healthy animal's stay at a shelter or rescue center from 45 days or the applicant can propose and justify a density limit which addresses the impacts of various types of animals on site. ƒ Amend the regulations for use in the Rollins Road drain to allow customers to come to the area and provide a central location, controlled by an individual, where the keys for all vehicles are kept and where people can come to get their vehicle (car, RV and/or boat). ƒ Amend Veterinary Hospital performance standards to allow educational programs with a conditional use permit. C. Brownrigg moved to recommend the proposed zoning regulations for the Rollins Road area to the City Council for adoption with the recommended changes noted. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Asked how animal shelters and rescue centers were consistent with the Goals and policies for land use set out in the Specific Plan for the Rollins Road area. Staff noted that it was the job of the commission to make this determination, but businesses also contribute to the community's economic base by offering convenient services which provide support to the value of living in the community; providing a positive revenue generation to the city is one of several criteria to be weighed by the Commission and must be balanced with the contribution to the community and the costs of any additional services which the city must provide from the General Fund to support the activity (in this case as the environmental document notes the service demands for a animal shelter/rescue center are no greater than the service demands of any other use in the area, and the utility impacts are paid for by the use through users fees); what is a "vibrant Rollins Road industrial area" is the charge of the Planning Commission and City Council to determine and should be based on the long term vision for the area expressed in the Specific Plan and on the compatibility among the land uses which the environmental study should illuminate. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed Rollins Road zoning district regulations with the revisions noted by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 10. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1 – SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA (KEN WHITE, PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA, APPLICANT, GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT, HENRY HORN & SONS, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe noted that the purpose of this meeting is to review the current scope of the project and identify any additional environmental issues which should be investigated and to complete a design review study of the proposed project. Although the applicant has considered a number of changes to the exterior of the building which have evolved with the refinement of the project description, these are not reflected in the plans before you which are the original plans. Staff felt that before a redesign was undertaken, the applicant should have all of your comments on the design issues including whether this project should be referred to a design reviewer. In addition since a visual impact evaluation is required for the CEQA document, design review comments are important at this point so that changes responsive to the design concerns can be incorporated into the visual evaluation. Commissioner noted that he went to the current Coyote Point facility to see what the operation was. Another commissioner noted that he spoke to the architect about City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 15 meeting, but the meeting never occurred. Commissioner asked if it was clear what activities currently at Coyote Point would be moved to this site and which would stay at Coyote Point. Staff noted that there was a list in the staff report on page 3 which made describes the separation of activities clearly. Commissioner called to the applicant's attention that the Chief Building Official noted in his comments that there were some issues with the parking and that they should be addressed with revisions to the plans for design review. There were no further comments or questions. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA and George Meyer, architect for the project spoke. Have been working with the city for a year to develop a center which would include a compassion home of adoption including taking injured native animals and make them well enough to be released back into their natural habitats, a public education program and corporate offices. The services which PHS/SPCA provides to the county will stay at the county facility at Coyote Point. PHS/SPCA is very concerned that this project be carefully investigated and believes in the meaning of public participation, so have moved to request a focused Environmental Impact for this proposed project. As they understand CEQA this change requires that the Planning Commission again review the scope of the environmental document. The changes to the project identified since work began are: the fenced area at the front would be enclosed by a solid wall; the use inside the walled area would expand from a quiet meditation area and place to meet prospective adoptive animals to being used to exercise/socialize dogs one-on-one with a volunteer handler; and studies of several responses to concerns expressed by the neighbors and incorporation of appropriate features. The building looks like a well designed building appropriate to the area and people will not be aware that animals are there. He noted that there are a number of interested citizens and board members here this evening to support the application, although they do not intend to speak. A brief presentation of the project and discussion of the model was made by the project architect. He noted that at present the site is occupied by three buildings: the new building at the rear of the site and two older buildings at the front. The two structures at the front will be removed and a new structure added to the existing building at the rear. They are replacing 13,500 SF of existing space with 12,500 SF of occupied space and covered parking; so the new project contains 1,000 SF less of conditioned space. The height exception comes because of the desire to enclose the roof top mechanical equipment on the building to be retained with a screen wall, they are not adding floors to this building. The new structure is glass with metal mullions, with sandstone and metal siding. Revisions being considered include changing the metal siding to cement plaster which is what is on the exterior of the existing new building on the site, and work the stone in with the window pattern for contrast. Angles in the proposed new structure are intended to set off the joint between it and the existing building at the rear. The new addition will step down at the corner and allows the wild life enclosures to be setback further. The opaque wall at the front will enclose the dog exercise area, this is not as consistent with the Rollins Road design guidelines which recommend semi-transparent fencing as the currently proposed open fencing. Commissioners asked project proponent and architect: how big is the outdoor space and how many animals would be in the outdoor exercise area at one time? The area is about 2,000 SF and dogs would be only in the area one-on-one with a handler, if an animal barks it is taken inside, there would only be a couple of dogs, each with a handler, there at one time. What is the actual process used to induct animals? Ninety-nine percent of the animals are brought in from the rear parking area which is fully fenced (noted on the plans as staff parking). When taken for adoption the dog is taken to the visitor parking space area, this could be secured or we could use the fenced staff parking area for pick up. People would not surrender animals at this site so would not be bringing animals to the shelter. Would the Peninsula Humane Society trucks come to this location? No, the 24/7 ambulance service works from the Coyote Point site. Concerned about air City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 16 quality and smell, how will you handle aggressive native animals like skunks? Will take care two kinds of animals, pet animals and wild animals, will not provide service to predators such as mountain lions and bob cats, will take in ill or injured skunks, raccoons, squirrels. Odor is not an issue for but a few skunks at certain ages, know how to handle. Can the building be designed to conform to green building standards and be certified? Are able to commit to a LEEDS certificate but do not know how much it will cost to qualify for a sustainable green certificate. Would you provide information and statistics on escapes and how you handle them? Do not have escapes. With this facility and its use of vestibule doors, it will be even easier to assure that there will be no escapes. What will the aviary be made of and what material will the cover be made of? The aviary is made of a black high strength mesh used in zoos, the cover used during inclement weather is a tarpaulin material and will be used on only part of the outdoor aviary. Would you provide picture and samples of these materials? Yes. Commissioners questions continued: What areas will be used for dogs exercise? The two class room areas, mats will be made to cover the floors, and the outdoor fenced/walled area at the front of the building. The activity is not really group exercise as you may think in a group; it is activity in a controlled environment with a trainer. In the environmental review there is a mitigation that all exercise be taken inside, is there a way to change the project to meet this requirement? We have a 3D model which will help in understanding the use of the proposed areas, we will provide it to the Commission. The project as proposed is over the floor area ratio allowed in the area, can you address this? It is over the FAR because of the aviary. The netting of the aviary is almost invisible, so this area does not contribute to the mass and bulk of the building as a visible structure would. Concerned about the maximum stay of 45 days, can you address? Have a policy to keep animals until adopted, a time limit would require change in the way the activity is managed, could be difficult. People may come with pets for training, how can you insure that they will not park on the street, can you provide signage to direct them to the parking on site? Concerned about your community outreach activities, where will buses be parked? Facility will educate children but schools no longer have bus services. The children now arrive by carpools driven by parents, bus parking is not needed. There were no further comments from the Commissioners. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Kevin Gabarra, representing Albert Gabarra, 1400 Rollins Road, called the Commission's attention to the letter submitted by Mr. Moutoux who could not attend the hearing. He noted that among their concerns were the handling of solid animal waste which is currently put in a container at the SPCA location; and the safety of people and children coming to and from the facility because of the dangerous volume of traffic in the area. He submitted pictures of the traffic congestion on Rollins Road at Edwards Court. Also concerned about the impact on Edwards Court of keeping wild animals on the site; feel that there should be a size limitation to veterinarian hospitals allowed in the area and on the number of animals allowed in such a facility. Commission asked if there were any design concerns. He said no. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission discussion of design issues: ƒ With the redesign suggestions seem to have done a good job, still am concerned about the exterior dog exercise area, the skylights into the dog habitat area should be tinted to avoid night light glow, will noise transmit through these skylight openings? ƒ Am concerned about the material use in the aviary enclosure and the cover, please provide more information on its visual quality and impact. ƒ Should review the appropriate materials on the outside of the building, provide enough choice, need to redesign to enclose the exercise area. There appears to be a lot going on the exterior of the building on each elevation, the angles shown are not typical of what you see in the area, would like to see a tamer appearance. Applicant stated consider replacing the metal panels with cement plaster, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 17 might be good, would like to see more detail of that solution, cement is a reasonable solution. ƒ Architecture is too contemporary, almost Disneyland; sharp contrast to what one sees there now, should look more like industrial replacements in the future; as one drives on Rollins Road this will look inconsistent, to busy, with colors and graphics, needs to be toned down. Design can be improved by calming and simplification of the design, too bad the existing buildings need to be demolished they are interesting. Not want a tilt up concrete building here because there are a predominant number in the area. ƒ This is new construction can bring the building out on the site, and put the exercise area interior to the structure in a court yard area, the aviary can be treated in this way as well, these design problems cause problems in the environmental analysis as well. ƒ Am encouraged that the architect has done other animal care facilities, could he provide pictures of one in a similar setting; and could planning talk to the building and planning departments of the community to see what the issues and impacts were 2 to 3 years after it was built. ƒ Design will be affected by how the noise is mitigated, make the exercise area interior. Aviary is an interesting element, will not make a lot of noise, raptors and water fowl, benefit aesthetically because it will be visually interesting; ƒ design should be driven by environmental mitigations. Commission design review direction: it is not appropriate to send this project to a design reviewer, outside of our reviewers' specialties. Have given clear direction, can come back to commission for review if he wishes, this architect has had a lot of experience designing this kind of facility. Commission environmental scoping: in addition to the items addressed in the discussion with the applicant and from the floor the environmental document should address: ƒ noise, smell, and traffic, particularly at the intersection of Rollins Road and Edwards Court; noise analysis should include the impact of sirens (city fire station on Rollins) and noise from dogs on the site; noise from the get acquainted area should also be addressed; ƒ how will odors in the ventilation system be filtered? Smell is an important air quality issue, what standards are used and how is the study done? ƒ Zoning changes will allow auto sales and service and large scale building materials uses at the end of Edwards Court, future impacts of both uses should be evaluated in the cumulative analysis; ƒ concerned about the handling of biowaste include the bedding material used by the animals; ƒ Project is over the allowed FAR, new construction should be able to do a better job, what is the justification for the variance, is there a design way out? ƒ Traffic indicates that there will be 30 people on site at one time, how do the shifts work, what traffic levels will be expected? ƒ Clarify how animal wastes will be handled and disposed of. There were no further comments. This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:10 a.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (continued from above) – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves from this item because they live within 500 feet of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 18 property. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones noted that since the applicant is not present to provide clarification to the proposed project, he made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the next open agenda when the applicant could appear. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: applicant needs to address the following issues: ƒ project was originally approved with turned columns at the porch, columns installed are different that what was approved, what will happen to these columns; ƒ applicant needs to explain the revised landscaping at the front of the lot, it appear that the walkway has changed and that shrubs and other landscaping originally approved is now being replaced with more lawn; and ƒ should consider installing stone veneer to the bump out (bedroom #5, bathroom and stairway) on the north elevation. Vice-chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the next open agenda and when questions have been addressed and the applicant can be present. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Chair Auran and C. Osterling abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dais and took their seats. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 22, 2006 and second Goals Setting Session on February 25, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 22, 2006. She noted that at the Goals session the Council developed a list of items to be discussed and prioritized with the Planning Commission at the Joint meeting scheduled for March 18, 2006, in Conference Room A, City Hall at 9:00 a.m. - Required Ethics Training; Re: AB 1234 CA Anderson explained this new requirement and the current training opportunities. This training is required for Planning Commissioners. CP noted that if there was a charge for the session she would reimburse the Commissioners if they submitted their receipt. - FYI – 1637 Coronado Way – review requested window changes to approved design review project. Commission had no comments and approved the proposed changes, although they indicated that they felt that this change should have been discussed at the time of design review. - FYI – Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes, Beautification Commission CP noted that the document followed up the request at the last meeting for the Commission to see what process the Beautification Commission had developed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2006 19 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary S:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc