Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.10.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 10, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the April 10, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg and Terrones Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 27, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 433 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING TENNIS CLUB (JEFFREY TSU, APPLICANT; PENINSULA TENNIS CLUB, PROPERTY OWNER; AND GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Vistica noted that he is a member of the tennis club and asked the City Attorney if he is required to recuse himself from discussion. CA Anderson advised that as a member of the club, he does not have to recuse himself, but can if he chooses to. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Staff report notes that three pools are to be replaced and the site plan only shows two, is the third not to be replaced; • Show more detail on the landscape plan, what species are proposed; • The tennis club uses 10 parking spaces on the Burlingame High School property, there is no formal agreement between Burlingame High School and the Tennis Club about the use of this parking, this would be the time to enter into an agreement; • Provide a plan for parking and access during construction; and • Lot of grading for this project, provide a construction schedule and NPDES plan including dust abatement, would like to limit the noise and dust impacts of construction on the neighborhood. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 2 PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (ANGELINE ASKHAM, BRAYTON, NUGHES AND SMITH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VAL VADEN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Concerned with the architecture, the way the glass box is fitted on the fourth floor is not consistent with the style throughout the building, don't think the radius proposed in either Option A or B will work in the same way as the existing glass areas on the building; • It is noted that the building uses post and beam construction, does not appear that this is being used for the addition, why is this construction type not being used; • Don't like the flat roof on the glass addition; • Applicant makes reference to the International Building Code, Burlingame uses the California Building Code (CBC), explain how the project works with the CBC; • Check with the Chief Building Official to see what seismic upgrades would be triggered by this addition; • On scheme B, a reference is made to an open trellis on one sheet, but trellis is not shown on the drawings, clarify; • This is a prominent building at the entrance to downtown Burlingame, it is important that the addition maintain the architectural integrity of the existing design; • Covering of the balconies as proposed eliminates the valuable transitions in height in the original building design; and • Option B would lower the ceiling and somewhat diminishes the bulk, but it would still re-weight the building upwards and diminish the cascading beauty of the original design. Commissioners discussed the in lieu parking fee, asking if this is an appropriate use of the in-lieu parking fee to help make a project like this work; however, the staff report notes this fee is based on the cost per space of adding a deck to Lot J, which is the least expensive and most feasible option, why was this cost basis chosen. CP Monroe noted that when the downtown parking study was done, Lot J was identified as the most logical space to put a structure because of its central location and the lot's size and shape, it was the assumption in this study that this lot is the first lot where the City would spend the money. Commissioners noted that the Consumer Price Index is used to determine increases in the costs for construction, seems like this provides for a low estimate, should look at a change in policy to index the fee to Construction costs using the Engineering index. CP noted presently use the Engineering index; Commissioners noted think construction costs have increased more than this in the past five years, should check. 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 7:28 p.m. 3. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – PROPOSED TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION (FRED BERTETTA, OLYMPIAN JV, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FARRO ESSALAT, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. application for mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review to construct a two-story office addition to an existing two-story building; and b. application for tentative and final parcel map for lot combination of portions of Lots D & City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 3 E, Block 10, Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision, 1427 Chapin Avenue, PM 06-04 SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, reviewed the actions required and outlined the process thus far, noting that as a part of the environmental review process, the existing structure to remain, the George Farrell house, was evaluated for its historic significance and was determined to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources; she outlined the planning review process used to this point with a design review subcommittee and summarized the changes made to the project based on the historic analysis and the subcommittee and Commission's design review comments. Commissioners noted that the project looks great, like seeing the rendering for a perspective view, compliment the architect and the property owner for designing such a beautiful building, the courtyard and the contrast of the addition help the Farrell House to stand out; this will be a beautiful addition to Burlingame, would like to compliment and thank all who spent the time participating in the process so far. Commissioners asked about the future potential driveway access along the west side of the building, will one or two parking spaces be lost if a driveway is installed there in the future. CP Monroe noted that the parking lot at the rear of the site would be reconfigured so the trash enclosure would be located near the new driveway, but the remaining parking could be shifted and only one space would be lost. Commissioners asked: • Would like to see a formal landscape plan to include more detail on the landscape plan, including detailed information on plant materials and species to be used. 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 7:40 p.m. 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. 4B. 2501 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PAUL R. SCHAUER JR. AND GAIL D. SCHAUER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND ROBERT ALLEN WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 4D. 1541 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KAREN AND JAKE ODDEN, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 4E. 1801 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BO AND KAREN PARKER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 4F. 2385 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 4 FOR PURCHASE BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OF A 1500 SF PORTION OF THE FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY TO EXPAND THE EXISTING PUMP STATION AT 2501 TROUSDALE DRIVE (CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, APPLICANT AND BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) (80 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS 4G. 347-A PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (THOMAS NEEL, APPLICANT; AND NICK NELIS COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar there were no requests. Chair noted that staff would like to discuss item 4c, 2209 Hillside Drive and a Commissioner asked to review item 4a, 2115 Roosevelt Avenue. C. Deal noted that he would have to recuse himself on 2115 Roosevelt Avenue and 1801 Ray Drive because of business relationships with the owners. C. Osterling noted that he would recuse himself on 2209 Hillside Drive because he lives within 500 feet of the property. The projects at 2115 Roosevelt Avenue and 2209 Hillside were set for the action calendar. Commissioner expressed a concern about the fact that on the Roosevelt project the garage was not relocated 2 feet from property line, he had recently heard about serious problems from three different property owners caused by their not being enough space between their garage and their neighbors property line. Feel that the Commission needs to be consistent in this side setback requirement, would like to see two feet here for maintenance since this is a new garage. Commissioner expressed concerns about the impact on the useable area in the rear yard and the existing circumstances in the rear yard, less than one foot would require a property line survey which is an added expense, located at one foot or less does give the neighbor a wall to use. C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar, items 4b, 2501 Hale Drive, 4d 1541 Burlingame Avenue, 4 e 1801 Ray Drive, 4f 2385 Trousdale Drive, and 4g 347-A Primrose Road, based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion on 4e 1801 Ray Drive passed on a 4-0-1-2 voice vote (C. Deal abstained, Cers. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). The voice vote on items 4b, 2501 Hale Drive; 4d, 1541 Burlingame Avenue; 4e 1801 Ray Drive; 4f , 2385 Trousdale Drive; and 4g, 347-A Primrose Road. The motion passed 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4A. 2115 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND GARAGE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE. (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MIKE & MERRISA HUTCHISON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the property owner, and remained outside of the Council Chambers. Reference staff report April 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 5 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mike Hutchinson, 2115 Roosevelt represented the project. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Commented that he wanted to keep the garage where the original was located, on property line, but was told needed to move one foot, concern that moving it more would affect the retaining wall, because of the condition of the current garage, need a new garage. Commissioner noted could build on property line but would need a side property line survey, how do you feel? Applicant noted that now there is no fence, the neighbor uses the side of his garage, neighbor would like the garage on the property line. Commissioner asked staff if a property line fence is required. Staff responded no. Problem with garages without enough setback is that they impinge on the neighbor's property, and the neighbor may not let the new owner on the property to fix; this is a nice remodel and applicant has good relations with his neighbor, can put on property line because good relations will probably continue. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: issue is consistency vs. maintenance; if not for the three problems saw first hand by chance, would not think this is a problem, look at the garage behind Walgreen's on Broadway not maintained, looks awful, nothing Walgreens can do; applicant is willing to build on property line; staff noted that a property line survey would be required. C. Vistica moved for approval of this application by resolution with the revised condition that after a survey the garage should be moved to the side property line and the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 17, 2006, sheets 1-6 and L-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; except that there shall be a survey of the side and rear property lines and that, based on the survey, the side and rear walls of the new detached garage shall be located at the side and rear property lines; 2) 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; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, NPDES Coordinator, and Recycling Specialist's December 16, 2005, memo, shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 6 The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: can go along with the location of the garage on property line, see the need for consistency, but don't want to saddle the property owner with having to do a survey; a lot of times a survey is needed as a part of the application. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended condition to relocate the garage to the side and rear property lines. The motion passed on 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstain; Cers. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat on the dais. 4C. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILLER DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Osterling announced that he would recuse himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. CA Anderson noted that he would recuse himself from this action because he could be involved in a possible code enforcement regarding this property. C. Osterling and the City Attorney left the council chambers. Reference staff report April 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair noted that is has come to the city's attention that the existing structure on the site was demolished without a demolition permit, an option is to continue this item to a date certain so the city can determine what happened. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, was present and Cliff Raines, Redwood City, construction manager for 2209 Hillside Drive represented the project. Staff commented that it was requested that this item be removed so that the city could unravel the events which resulted in the house on this property being removed recently without a demolition permit, and determine if or how this might affect the proposed project. The architect noted he just found out about the demolition this afternoon. Construction manager noted that he came to the city department where he gets encroachment permits, misunderstood, thought had all the paper work, unaware that the city has a new process; will provide all the appropriate documents. Commissioner noted that this appears to be a Public Works demolition permit, not a Building Division permit. Applicant notes that he misread the permit. Commissioners noted should continue the action to straighten out what happened and the effects. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi moved to continue the item to the next agenda providing we have documentation which can be evaluated. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the next agenda when the documentation has been reviewed. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Osterling and CA Anderson returned to the chambers and took their seats. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 7 5. 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (COMERICA BANK, APPLICANT; STANLEY LO, PROPERTY OWNER; AND POLLACK ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report April 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the 1,500 SF area was to be leased separately and would a parking variance be required. Staff noted that the applicant has no tenant for this space at this time and when calculating the parking demand for the site with the bank, staff assumed a food establishment in this space because it has the highest required parking ratio; the combination of uses did not require more parking than was granted by variance for the current restaurant use. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Park Road, represented the project; he noted that the architect for Comerica bank was also present. Comerica is only a tenant at this site, they plan on doing interior remodel but have limited opportunity to change the exterior; don't know how the 1, 500 SF will be used, but noted that the staff's assumptions are the worst case when it comes to parking, so whatever the use it will not increase the parking burden. Commission asked if the applicant would like to adjust the hours of operation? Applicant responded that the request covers the typical hours for this type of bank, do not want to over state. Commission asked if applicant knows what happened to the restaurant, it has been there a long time. Don't know. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to approve this project by resolution with the following condition from the staff report: 1) that the financial institution shall be limited to 3,138 SF at 1351 Howard Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 23, 2006, site plan, floor plan and building elevations; 2) that should the remodel of this structure exceed 50% of the value of the structure it shall be considered new construction and shall be subject to Commercial Design Review; 3) that the financial institution may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Friday, closed on Saturday and Sunday; 4) that the maximum number of employees shall be limited to five full-time employees; 5) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 6) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and NPDES Coordinator's February 24, 2006, memos shall be met; 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 8) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6. 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) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of this property. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 8 Reference staff report April 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the parking variance for this tenant space was conditioned to expire if the use changed in the future. CP Monroe said yes, Condition No. 3. Commission noted that one of the findings for the parking variance is that the City Council adopted Ordinance 1758 expanding the number of food establishments on Broadway by 5, they were aware that food establishments have a higher parking ratio than other retail uses and that many of the buildings on Broadway have little on-site parking or none so felt that the available parking would accommodate these additional food establishments. There were no further comments from the Planning Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Joe Kern and Dana Kern, Chocolate Mousse Bakery and Bagels, represented the project. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. Commissioners thanked the applicant for redoing the plans, they are much clearer. What are the racks with numbers on them for? Those are wire racks and are for dry storage. Will there be an exhaust hood or fan? All the baking and cooking is done off site in San Carlos, have just added a bread baker there so a wider variety of goods will be available here. Will there be only one delivery a day? Deliveries will be made as needed. This building has been empty a long time; pleasure to see new business, good for the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the Broadway neighborhood has wanted a bakery for a long time and this business will be a good addition, so moved approval of the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 28, 2006, sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that all exterior venting and mechanical equipment required for this business shall be combined on the roof and not visible from the street; 3) that the parking variance shall only apply to this 1,104 SF tenant space and the food establishment use with 200 SF of on-site seating and shall become void if the tenant space or food establishment use is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4) that this business location to be occupied by a limited food service food establishment, with 200 SF of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service food establishment or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 5) that the 200 SF area of on-site seating of the limited food service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6) that the limited food service food establishment may be open seven days a week, from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with a maximum of two full-time and four part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 7) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 9) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 10) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 11)that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 12) that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 13) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 30 and January 24, 2006, memos, the City Engineer's April 3 and January 27, 2006, memos, the Recycling Specialist’s January 30, 2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 3 and January 30, 2006, memos shall be met; and 14) that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 9 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the condition that should this use change from food establishment in the future, the parking variance would be voided. The motion passed on a 4-0-1- 2 (C. Deal recused; C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (GEOMEN AND ELIZABETH LIU TRUST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself, he then left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. All commissioners present had visited the site, and two commissioners noted that they had viewed the story poles from inside the neighbor's house to the right of the project. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Joe, Elizabeth and Eric Liu, 1535 Los Montes Drive, applicants, were available to answer questions. Barbara Wullschleger, 1537 Los Montes Drive; and Chuck Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive, spoke regarding the project. Live next door to the right of the project, main concern is request for increased height of 5'-4", have five windows on that side of my house facing the addition, story poles indicate that four of the five windows will be blocked by the addition; also concerned about chimneys, they are higher than the roof ridge, happy to have a nice house next door but would like to see the height addressed; submitted pictures taken from windows; this project should be sent to a design review consultant, this is a five bedroom house on a narrow street with a lot of traffic, will be a problem with five bedrooms and a two car garage need to have enough on-site parking; the amount of water running through the hillside this year is not unusual, will affect the construction requirements of the house. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design: • Concerned with architectural style, this doesn't fit in on this block, the design is bulky and has course texture compared with neighboring houses; design is inconsistent with neighborhood, balustrades are very bold, foreign looking with rest of architecture on the block, heavy, stark elements don't blend in; • This is a typical two-story house which may not be appropriate in this case, should be shaped according to neighbor views and the slope of the lot; • Roof as proposed has a 5/12 pitch, should be reduced to 4/12; • A prairie style house with a flat roof may be appropriate on this site, should consider. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 10 • Second floor balconies on right elevation appear too heavy to cantilever over the porch which is less substantial and lightly framed, elements that appear to have that much weight are not typically cantilevered; • To lighten look, heavy stucco brackets should be changed to painted wood; • For a project this size, the drawings are minimal, need to see site sections to show how the house fits on the site, including a longitudinal section to show how it fits into the hillside, also an elevation to scale showing how it fits in with two houses on either side; • Important to have civil engineering information on the site because there will have to be retaining walls, don't want to have problems with adjoining properties regarding retaining and drainage; • Perspective drawing makes it look like it is set back further on the lot than it will be, also the landscaping shown on the rendering does not match what is shown on the landscape plan, should be consistent; • Landscape plan should be revisited, a row of Cypress trees is shown along the side, will be a solid green wall next to neighbor, and will block light and will be messy, Redwood tree proposed in rear is three to four feet from the patio and fireplace, will create a lift problem for the patio because the tree is fast growing; • Three chimneys proposed, air quality standards prefer to see gas fireplaces, could put in one chimney for a wood burning fireplace and direct vent the others. • This is in a hillside area and think there is an issue with blockage of distant views, this needs to be addressed, view ordinance does not only address bay views, but to distant views of hills as well; There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. 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 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal recused and C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais. 8. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND AMY GONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN STEWART, AIA, ARCHITECT) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel, San Carlos, project architect, and Michael Gong, 1325 Howard Avenue, #221, property owner, were available for questions. James Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive; Christine Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project. Have a corner lot, all of my living space borders this property, although it appears that it meets all the zoning requirements, it is massive; has there been an asbestos inspection? Will there be dust control during demolition? What is the duration of the project? Have seen projects take from eight to eighteen months; will the house be owner occupied? Will the parking requirement for a five bedroom house be met, especially during construction, this is one block off El Camino Real, there will be no room for construction vehicles on the street; will there be grading when the house is removed, how much? What will City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 11 the base elevation of the house be, the property line fence is called out as six feet, would like to see six foot fence with one foot of lattice; would like to see additional landscaping along side and consideration of my windows for placement of window openings; there is an existing sewer problem in the area, the current system is old and beyond capacity, understand there will be infrastructure improvements in the future, but don't know when, the volume generated by a house with four bathrooms should be considered in capacity; should look at the impervious surface areas and impacts on drainage, there are no storm drain inlets in this area; the size and character of the house is much bigger than the existing house, there are no homes of this size in this area, it will be imposing; the survey does not accurately depict the house and garage on the adjoining property. Public comment continued: very concerned with plans, size and scale of project is out of proportion with the block, most houses are single story or split level, how will the property be graded, especially the right side elevation; this property is three to six feet higher then neighboring property, will be tall; concerned with drainage, will have runoff from the driveway and garage, have sewer problems already; concerned with privacy, the master bedroom windows will look into our master bedroom; concerned with parking, this house will be 200 feet away from apartments on El Camino Real and the Adeline Market, there is already parking problem on our street; hope the driveway will accommodate the additional cars on site; this is not about property values it is about quality of life; this is another case of a house being built to the maximum allowed; will only be four foot side setback, the front will be flat faced, this will make it look bigger, unfortunate that there will not be a front porch, chimneys are massive, looks like Taco Bell, too big, not consistent design with any other structure on the block; is survey accurate? Should take plate height down a foot to reduce mass. The applicant noted that the issues with drainage and sewer will be addressed as part of the building permit. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design: • There is one area on the front elevation above the front window on second floor that looks barren, could put some Spanish detail there to enhance it; • Plans are lacking dimension in the details, there is no sizing shown of the rafter tails, does the front door open to the left or right; • Not happy with the flat roof, the overall height is below 30', propose a 10' plate height on the first floor, should be reduced to 9' which will give the opportunity to eliminate the flat portion of the roof; • Not much articulation on the right side elevation, would like to see more articulation and more windows to give it character; • The chimney is six feet high and the top cap is 3' by 3', appears very massive, should reduce size; • Right side elevation reads like a two story wall the full length of the house, with 10' plate height and the mass close to property line it will have impact on neighbor, needs to be addressed; o inconsistency with neighborhood, o two story wall on right side and front adjacent to houses that are no where near that tall; o has big impact on neighbors, look at the location of windows and patterns next to adjoining houses; • Consider adding vines and shrubs along sides to break up the mass; • Concerned with piece on left side of front elevation, doesn't read well with the rest of the house looks like added on a one story element, is house Spanish style or not; • Like the single-story battered section on the left side front, adds character to the front; • There is an 8' difference in elevation between the front and back of the lot, this slope does not seem to be reflected in the elevations, they are drawn as if the lot is flat; • Exposed rafter tails look like 3x material, but not labeled, need to clarify, should be at least 3x. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 12 • Consider putting in an automatic gate across the driveway so that two cars can park in driveway, make sure it is far enough back so a car can also park in front of the gate and not encroach on sidewalk; • Elevations need refinement to show the true location of slope of the property; • Needs some work to reduce mass and bulk, needs to be better articulated; and • Vary the roof lines at the second floor so that there is not a straight line that runs around the perimeter. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. 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 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 9. 1625 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SECOND FLOOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TOM BRUNO, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself, he then left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Tom and Jennifer Bruno, 1625 Lassen Way, were available to respond to questions. Commissioners noted that the house is designed well, it is difficult to put additions on this style of house, in this case the mass and bulk is in the right place, the plate heights are the right height and the design is stylistically consistent. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design: • Concerned with landscaping, there is a particular style of landscaping in area, low level, trim lawns, which will be inadequate with the added height of the addition, need to mitigate the mass of the second story, need to add something that gives height, there is room to add planting with larger scale shrubs, • Should also add tall trees, refer to the approved tree list available at the Planning Department, Bay Laurel or English Laurel would work, should also keep in mind that the landscaping needs to tie in to the planting patterns on the properties on either side; • Can put in a larger tree near the driveway to break up the mass; and • Problem with the curve windows in the garage doors, inconsistent with the rest of the house, could change to rectangular style more typical of the house design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above-noted revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. 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 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 13 10. 608 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS AND KERRIE RONAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Cauchi recused himself from the discussion on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater, project applicant was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that this is a difficult type of house to add on to and the applicant had done a nice job. Commissioners requested the following revisions: • There is a long flat wall on the left side, would like to see more detail or articulation on that wall; • Declining height envelope is not drawn correctly, don't think it will make a difference, project will meet requirement, but should be drawn accurately; and • Take a look at the landscaping, there are opportunities to add taller shrubs, come back with a landscape plan. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above noted revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. 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 4-0-1-2 (C. Cauchi recused; C. Brownrigg and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to his seat on the dais. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 3, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of April 3, 2006. She noted that the City Council will hold a public hearing on the Anza Point North zoning on April 17. CA discussed briefly the article on the Turlock Wal-Mart decision. Noted too in the absence of the vice-chair the in coming secretary should sign the resolutions for the projects on tonight's agenda on which the secretary had to recuse himself. - FYI – 1512-1516 Floribunda Avenue – changes to approved residential condominium project. Commissioners looked at the proposal to add windows on the corner of the building where the applicant had proposed removing the windows. Suggested that the new windows would work, but felt that the window closest to the street under the balcony should be called out with a tile surround and sill like the windows above. This window can be seen from the sidewalk. - FYI – 1818 Trousdale Drive – progress of redesign of Sunrise Assisted Living Facility City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2006 14 C. Osterling noted that the applicant had had a brief conversation with him about this revision. Noted that the building has been moved closer to Ogden and Trousdale, also like the cut in for loading and unloading on Ogden. Concerned about how many people visit this site using the front door, the proposed entry location is where there will be a lot of traffic. Note that there is a card reader with intercom on the driveway, people can gain entry to the below grade garage and drop off and pick up residents, reduces the impact on the street entry. Don't see a clear way to get from the first floor into the open space provided on the site. This should be clarified. Entry design should be extended more toward the second floor so that it "thinks entry", as it is it does not look resolved; why did you choose to put the entry across the corner, makes the formal auto drop off appear to be a gesture. Staff noted that the City Traffic engineer has not reviewed this proposal and its impact on the corner of Trousdale and Ogden; and staff has not plan checked the parking or setbacks. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.04.10.06.doc