Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062606PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 26, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the June 26, 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 Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin. III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 12, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following corrections: Page 1 item 1 at the end of line 5 add (italics) Commissioners noted that a beauty shop or nail salon with five stations could generate more parking demand than the proposed retail space with 75SF of instructional area because of the short stay of retail customers and the small size and off hours emphasis of the instructional activity. Page 4 at end of last paragraph of Commissioners comments: "C. Deal noted that while he had voted for this item previously, he would oppose the present application because the conditions do not include a sunset clause;" C. Deal moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 with C. Osterling abstaining because he did not attend the June 12, 2006 meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that Bill Lee of Economic Research Associates was present tonight to discuss the conclusions of the Downtown Economic Study with the Commission. She asked if the presentation could be added to the agenda before From the Floor so members of the audience could comment on the conclusions if they wished. The commission agreed to the amendment. V. PRESENTATION William Lee of Economic Research Associates presented a summary of the Downtown Economic Study which was prepared as a precursor to the preparation of a downtown specific plan and included an analysis of the potential for mixed use on the Safeway site at Howard and El Camino. As it turns out the economic study will also provide valuable background for the Downtown Design Charrette to be held at the end of September on Howard Avenue. After a Power Point presentation of the high points and conclusions of the study the Commissioners asked questions: noting the age of the respondents to the residential survey; that the schematic shown for the mixed use on the Safeway site was only one of a number of schematic designs which could work on the site; asked how the cost of relocation of the box culvert was determined, Mr. Lee noted that Public Works based it on the cost of a recent project at another location and they inflated the price to be sure that the actual cost would be 'in the ball park'; explored the details of why the Auto Row area was not appropriate for housing and how the new Auto Row City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 2 on Adrian Road might develop, Mr. Lee noted that the environment of the current auto row is not supportive of residential development, there is a high potential for expensive hazardous clean up with the change in use, and the auto dealers are benefiting from low land and improvement costs and an established location which is regionally accessible and convenient to mass transit for service, and finally auto row is a major contributor to Burlingame's sales tax revenue advantage in the county. Wanted to know why promoting expensive condominiums in the mixed use, Mr. Lee noted that the service costs to the community are the same for housing at all values but the tax revenue for dwellings which sell for more are substantially greater, and the market is there for the higher cost units; the need and benefit for the downtown to be attractive to outsiders was discussed, and it was noted, is as important as bringing more residents into the downtown area to increase the market size, Mr. Lee noted that there was sufficient capacity to add residential uses on Howard to absorb the near term (10 year) housing demand. Mr. Lee noted that current retail challenge is that the large scale national tenants with broader attraction can force out the small scale tenants who give the downtown its character; mixed use is an advantage since these retail spaces are small, attractive to the smaller retailer, and the housing, at the proposed price, can support below grade parking allowing the retail to share the public parking so more than one retail visit can be made without moving the car. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VII. STUDY ITEMS Chair Brownrigg confirmed with all the commissioners that they had visited all the sites with projects on tonight's agenda. 1. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ƒ concerned that the proposed addition doesn't comply with front setback requirements, could reconfigure the kitchen or other space to make the addition comply; ƒ the existing masonry wall along Crescent Avenue extends into the public right-of-way, can staff confirm if an encroachment permit was issued; ƒ the existing façade along Howard Avenue has character, why are the shutters and other details being removed? Suggestion retaining the existing shutters and other architectural details throughout; ƒ have a large front yard with nice landscaping, apple tree may be negatively affected by the proposed addition, need to consider this more closely, show proximity of apple tree to proposed addition more accurately; ƒ clarify purpose of new stucco molding along the roof edge, not appropriate for aesthetic reasons, but may o.k. if it is for water proofing; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 3 ƒ slope of the roof at the addition may be too flat for the tile roof, confirm that slope is adequate; ƒ encourage use of wood or aluminum wood clad windows throughout the house, note on plans; ƒ house clearly reads as if front is on Howard Avenue, can staff provide a setback analysis with Howard Avenue as the front of the lot; ƒ concerned with 6' tall masonry wall along Crescent Avenue, can staff provide fence regulations for this lot; and ƒ want to be clear that comments regarding stucco mold, affect on apple tree and suggestions for windows do not affect my review of variance request. 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 7:55 p.m. 2. 1315 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN SCHLENKE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELISEY SOKOLIK, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner noted that he met with the property owner on site to review location of the addition at the rear of the house. Commissioners asked: ƒ this is a small lot but more FAR is allowed on smaller lots, in addition an incentive is offered for detached garages, so lot size is not a hardship; ƒ why can't the bedroom be added on the second floor, would eliminate the variance request; and ƒ applicant needs to provide more justification for the lot coverage variance, what are the hardships on this property? 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 8:00 p.m. 3. 1820 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT FOR CONVERSION OF OFFICE USE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE (JERRY WARREN, APPLICANT; GENE WARREN, DESIGNER; SUSAN FULLERMANN AND JERRY WARREN, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner noted that the comments from the Chief Building Official in his memo dated November 21, 2005, regarding requirements for handrails at stairways is incorrect and should be fixed; staff will discuss this issue with the Chief Building Official to get the correct information in place. Commissioners asked: ƒ condition needs to be added noting that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, replaced, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster; ƒ on site visit noticed a large storage shed in parking space #24 and other equipment in parking area, shed and all other equipment needs to be removed to make all parking spaces available at all times; and ƒ landscaping needs to be added around the garbage area. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 4 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 8:05 p.m. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Chair Brownrigg suggested that this item be moved to the end of the agenda, since it is not a public hearing and currently an item for Commission discussion. Commission concurred with the change. VIII. 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. Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. A member of the audience asked that item 5a 1017 Balboa Avenue be placed on the action calendar for a public hearing. 5b. 1410-B BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES INCIDENTAL TO A RETAIL USE (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5a. 1017 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant and left the dias and chambers. Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, architect represented the project; Dave Steinberger, 1021 Balboa Avenue. Neighbor noted that during the rains this spring he saw a lot of water on his property from the property at 1017 Balboa, and wanted to know if this project would address this condition. Architect noted that all drainage will be directed to the street as required by the city of all new development. Commissioners noted that the new driveway would be pervious which should also help City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 5 reduce surface drainage. Staff noted that there were conditions required of this project which address surface run-off and will be implemented through the Building permit. Commissioner noted that a condition should be added that this site should be maintained in a 'neat and tidy' condition throughout construction and that all landscaping should be maintained during construction. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, including an additional condition that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition throughout construction and that all existing landscaping shall be maintained through out construction and with the following conditions in the staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 1, 2006, sheets T-1 through A-7, L1.0, and with the driveway paving material correction added to page A-0 on June 14, 2006; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition throughout construction and that all existing landscaping shall be maintained through out construction; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s April 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator’s May 1, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 memo shall be met; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 5) 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; 6) 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; and all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8) that 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; 9) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 10) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 11) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 13) 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; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 6 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added condition that the site and existing landscaping be maintained throughout construction. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat. 6. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS, FRANK KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Frank Knifsend, property owner, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue represented the project. Lived here 7 years, family growing, incorporated most of the good suggestions from the study review. Commissioner noted that there is a Dogwood in the rear yard near an Acacia at the rear, these two will not do well together, can the Acacia be removed and a more substantial tree from the Street Tree list be put in the place of the Dogwood? Acacia is in the easement, believe planted by the neighbor, will ask if can remove and will plant another tree in my yard. Why are you working within the existing foundation of the house, removing most of the walls and under pinning the foundation, might be better, more conforming to zoning code and cheaper to begin with a new house; will talk to a contractor, wife likes first floor layout reason did not begin from scratch. Only reason given for variances is cost, cost is not a hardship on the property, hardship must be a physical condition on the lot. Feel that the exceptions to the code are small, 2 inches, 4 inches and a substantial reduction in the amount of the existing house which encroaches into the front setback a foot. Previous comments made at study are not adequately addressed including the relationship of the first floor to the second floor at the front, lack of detailing on the front porch which will result in not being able to build the porch as shown and a return to the Commission with an FYI, poor detail on the gable ends, so may not turn out as shown, on the rear elevation the windows at the bay on the second floor are not resolved; right side elevation upper balcony with bay window does not work, it is not integrated into the façade; wainscoting around the house is not an even height, not sure what is going on below, it is okay on the front but too small on the sides; lack of detailing will result in it being built differently so will have to be changed in the field and will result in an FYI. Commission noted not so concerned about the variances as I am about the detailing, the wainscoting on the left side is broken at the utility door, should continue around to the rear, and if it is on the side needs to be full height, will reduce the apparent height of the building if it is the same height all around. Have same concerns about design detail and bay window on right side, also need better gable end, on front elevation the gutter return on the left does not balance with the right side. Architect noted that this maybe because of the visual projection of the bay window on the side elevation. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: not able to support the number of variances requested because the design is not resolved, the work to address the comments at study was not well integrated into the design; agree a jumble of components, perhaps responded too fast; variances requested are understated, 2 inches on the side, front City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 7 is OK because encroachment is reduced substantially, concerned about the garage created from the shed in the rear, design of this building is not related to the house at all, feel a denial is appropriate. C. Vistica, noting that it would be cheaper to begin again on this design, moved for a denial without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Applicant has heard comments, should listen to tapes, denial without prejudice gives him the most options in terms of time and design; clarify not as concerned about the variances, generally minimal, and would support if had a design that would stand up to the objectives of the design guidelines; can this item be referred to design review? CP noted that it cannot be referred to design review now, but if denied without prejudice a resubmittal would be treated as a new project and can be referred to design review, a denial without prejudice leaves the amount of change for resubmittal up to the applicant, no additional fees are charged by the city although the applicant would be required to pay for the design review process if it is required. Need to give the applicant direction: ƒ combination of lack of design and number of variances makes the project unapprovable; ƒ cannot support motion because do not believe have given appropriate guidance; ƒ difficult to develop dynamic design because confined by existing nonconforming conditions, with new building could loosen up and make a better design possible; and ƒ plans lack detail, no definition of the window type, want sizing of corbels, outriggers, dimensions missing in many places, cannot tell room sizes etc. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 7. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TINA CHENG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tina Chen property owner represented the project. She summarized the change they had made to the plans since the study session. Commission asked what surface material was proposed for the driveway, stamped concrete would be OK since there is not much hard surface proposed for this site. It was noted that the project would benefit from a more artistic garage door conveying a more elegant appearance stylistically supporting the design of the house; also the second floor balcony at the rear is rather large, in this case it might work since it is at the center of the lot, but generally discourage such large balconies because of impacts on the neighbor's privacy. Applicant noted they were willing to reduce the size of the balcony. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Like to note a typo on the data chart, FAR .49, does the trellis cantilever from the wall? Yes. Counted the Spanish houses in this area, there are a lot but most of them are one story; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 8 this design is OK but the rear is more pedestrian friendly than the front, will invite entertainment in the rear yard; good house, but too big. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that little bungalows predominate in this area, this project will stand out, but they have kept the tree, reduced the garage from three to two cars, this is a much better project so move approval 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 June 13, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and L1 and dated April 25, 2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s April 3, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be met; that the property owner should prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit; (3) that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates windows and conveys a more elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an FYI by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit; (4) that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all current landscaping shall be maintained until it is replaced; (5) that the property owner shall prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission FYI before issuance of a building permit; (6) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (7) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; (8) 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; (9) 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; all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim; (10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (11) that 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; (12) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (13) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (15) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; (16) 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; (17) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 9 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (18) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: could leave the selection of a better garage door to the applicant; agree with the design reviewer that the landscape plan needs to be improved, currently does not define where the materials begin and end; should add a condition to keep the site neat and tidy during construction and to maintain the existing landscaping during the construction process; number of current conditions from public works and NPDES address maintenance of the site during construction, seems it will be difficult to enforce the site maintenance as a planning condition. Need to clarify amendments to the conditions of approval: ƒ that the property owner should prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit; ƒ that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates windows and conveys a more elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an FYI by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit; and ƒ that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all current landscaping shall be maintained until it is replaced. The maker and second of the motion to approve accepted the additional conditions to the motion. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with three additional conditions addressing submittal of a full landscape plan, maintaining the site and site landscaping during construction, and replacing the garage door with one that better matches the proposed design and supports the quality of the new construction. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 ( C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1520 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM AND LIZ O’CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNERS) (115 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff to clarify the separation requirement between the house and detached garage. Plr noted that 4'-0" is the minimum required separation between structures, measured eave to eave. In this case, the distance was measured from the garage eave to the house wall since there is no eave at the first floor portion of the house. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, represented the project, noted that there is a three-story apartment building across the street on Arc Way, to minimize the impact decided to reorient the front of the house Walnut Avenue, also will give it a more single family residential feel; adjacent neighbor at 1524 Arc Way has its rear yard abutting the right side property line of the subject property, neighbor requested that the new house be set back as much as possible to reduce the impact on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 10 their rear yard, accomplished that by designing a u-shaped house with a center courtyard; the new garage will be in approximately the same location as the existing garage; the amoeba-shaped parking area at the front of the lot will be good for guests and will help to take cars off the street on Walnut Avenue. Designer submitted several letters from neighbors in support of the project at 1524 Arc Way and 819 Walnut Avenue. Commission asked if the designer considered attaching the garage, would be functionally better and create a greater separation form the neighbor to the south, as proposed now it reads as though the house is attached. Designer noted that the owner wanted more square footage and an attached garage would require reducing the size of the house, don't want to do that. Commissioner added that variance might be warranted inasmuch as there is a clear hardship, namely the house fronts on two streets at front and rear. Attaching the garage without penalizing the interior space (FAR) might result in a better design along the rear street frontage. Jim Keighran, 1600 Willow Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Noted that the designer has done a good job with the design, the neighbors are delighted with the proposed house, the owner designed the house to accommodate the neighbors' concerns, don't think it is appropriate to penalize the owner by reducing the square footage with an attached garage; this is a beautiful house, concerned about parking in the front setback but will take cars off the street, there is going to be a lot of paving on this lot, keeping the hedge along Walnut Avenue at its existing height will help to screen the cars parked in the front yard. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. The Commission noted that overall the design works well and had the following comments: ƒ concerned with the stone veneer water table at the front of the house changing to a stucco water table along the side and rear of the building, need to choose one material for the entire house, a rustic stucco would work well in this case, could use stone veneer for the chimney; ƒ concerned that the front porch posts and bases are too small, should use 6 x 6 posts with larger bases; ƒ concerned with the landscaping at the front, Manzanita and Rhododendron planted next to each will not do well; ƒ lavender proposed in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk may get too tall, suggest pavers or a different ground cover; ƒ street tree shown as a Walnut tree is actually a Locust tree, concerned that the street trees and on-site trees may not survive during construction, would like to add a condition requiring a tree protection plan, must be completed by a licensed professional and submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; ƒ concerned with contemporary rake on some gable ends, gable ends should have a traditional craftsman style overhang; ƒ concerned with interior spaces, spaces appear to be narrow and small, closet doors are very narrow, area between kitchen counter and island is narrow, designer should check all interior spaces to be sure dimensions will work; ƒ double-check all windows sizes and locations to be sure they will work; ƒ detached garage is appropriate, breezeway between house and garage is a nice feature, proposed fence between the house and garage provides a nice integration between the two structures; ƒ concerned with the scale and impact of the detached garage on Arc Way, suggest lowering the plate height to 8 feet, adding decorative dormers, having two single-wide garage doors or a garage door that gives the appearance of two single doors, etc.; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 11 ƒ should consider stepping down the house at the rear (bedroom #5, bathroom #4 and mudroom), would add interest in the hallway and reduce the height of the stucco water table at the rear by a few steps; ƒ parking variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for garage location are appropriate given the two different street frontages on this lot, will help to alleviate the parking problems on both streets; and ƒ not in support of driveway and parking in front setback off Walnut Avenue, front yard should be landscaped. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg 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 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 9. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Michael Ma, architect, represented the project and noted that the remodel and addition is necessary because the interior connections are poor and overall the house is in poor condition. Leanne Legos, 3070 Hillside Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Would like to know when construction will begin, have been living with two houses under construction to rear for over a year; would like to make sure oak tree on property is protected during construction; would like to know if retaining wall shown on plans is existing or new; this is an expensive area in Burlingame, high quality materials should be used. Commissioner noted that the existing oak tree is far enough away from the proposed addition so that it will not need tree protection during construction. Architect noted that the retaining wall is existing and that there are no changes proposed to it. Commission commented: ƒ concerned with the proposed front entrance, it is out of character with the design of the house and does not look like it belongs, front porch needs to be better integrated into the front façade, there are many good examples in the neighborhood to follow; ƒ concerned with the window treatment at the rear of the house, it is not consistent with the rest of the house; arched head windows with gable above is not appropriate with this style, these windows and roof configuration above the windows need to be redesigned to be consistent with the rest of the house; ƒ clearly indicate type of windows and window trim proposed, show and note on revised plans; ƒ strongly suggest using wood or wood clad windows, adds character to the house, vinyl windows lack detail and thickness; ƒ clarify which windows are to remain, windows to be replaced and all new windows; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 12 ƒ roof above the new stairway along the left side of the house (south elevation) needs to be better integrated into the existing roof; ƒ attached garage at the front of the house is a prominent feature, should consider upgrading the garage doors to add curb appeal; and ƒ story poles are not required for this project since the addition is not that tall at the rear of the house. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg 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 9:55 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS (CONT.) 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe noted that state law requires that the General Plan and its Specific Plan components be consistent with any zoning created to implement the plan. Over the past two years the Planning Commission has prepared and the City Council has adopted, 5 new zoning districts to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan, adopted in 2004. During the course of preparing these zoning districts, a number of edits and corrections to the Specific Plan were noted. These were all identified with the adoption of each of the zoning districts, and found to be consistent with the mitigated negative declaration adopted as a part of the plan. Therefore, the last step in implementing the Bayfront Specific Plan is to adopt the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan in order to achieve consistency. Corrections and clarifications include that hotels in the Inner Bayshore area are limited to the Bayshore Overlay area; building design guidelines set the maximum development density based on FAR; that the height limit in the interior of the Inner Bayshore area is based on the 35 foot review line while in the Bayshore overlay area the height limits reflect the standards for the Shoreline area across the street. In the Shoreline area the clarifications are based on the fact that retail development including commercial recreation can locate in any of the identified retail nodes and that the design guidelines for view corridors, landscaping, gateway, and height are suggestive, not requirements. In the Anza Area there was wording added to address issues such as underused land, clarify subarea diagrams, and insuring that landscaping and building design guidelines are suggestive, not requirements. In the Anza Point subarea most of the changes are based on the fact that the subarea was divided into two zoning districts, and the text was written as if the area was a unit. The text and land uses were separated to distinguish between the land use potential for the already developed South Anza Point (Beach and Lang Roads) and the North Anza Point area which is currently vacant land. Design guidelines were amended to clarify the importance of compliance with the community wind standard and the fact that the guidelines are suggestive, not requirements. Commissioner asked if these changes incorporate flexibility in developing the commercial nodes in the Shoreline area and about the location and potential of the Morrell Avenue bicycle connection. Commissioners noted that they felt that these proposed amendments were complete and consistent with the adopted zoning and mitigated negative declarations and should come back to the commission without City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 13 change for action. Staff noted that action would include a public hearing and recommendation to City Council. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 19, 2006. CP Monroe noted that council adopted the FY 2006-2007 budget and discussed placing a bond measure for storm drainage and community facility improvements on the November ballot. She noted that there would be a presentation to the commission about the scope of the measure at the July 10, 2006 meeting. - FYI: 535 Almer Road – changes to previously approved residential condominium project. Commission noted that there were a number of changes to this project; however after reviewing changes in the field felt that they did not work against the originally approved design. Commission did note that the stand pipes look terrible, asked staff to see if there is a way to avoid this prominent location in the future; also asked if there was some way that the applicant could place landscaping or other screening around these. - Commission comments regarding 3121 Margarita, 1464 Vancouver and 2301 Hillside Drive. Commission thanked staff for following up on these inquires. Understood the implementation of 3121 Margarita and 1464 Vancouver. However, the heavy balustrade on Hillside Drive is not necessary as a safety railing, looks over blown and should be removed. Staff noted that the balustrade is like a fence and since it was 42" tall would be allowed in the side yard; will work with the City Attorney to see how this can be addressed in the future. Commissioners also noted that the approved plans had the exposed concrete side of the stairs and landings covered in brick, these stairs and landings are clearly concrete and no brick was added to the sides. The brick veneer should be added to the side before the final inspection is completed. - 2006/2007 Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments. Chair Brownrigg reviewed the committee assignments for FY 2006-2007. He noted that the work of several of last year's subcommittee's has been completed, so is creating several new subcommittees for this year. Each committee has an appointed chair, who will be asked to report periodically to the Commission about the progress and deliberations of the subcommittee. The subcommittees for FY 2006-2007are: North End: Auran, Brownrigg, Vistica; Sign Code: Cauchi, Osterling, Terrones; Affordable Housing: Auran, Brownrigg, Vistica; Permit and Process Review: Auran, Cauchi, Deal; Downtown: Auran, Vistica, Deal; Neighborhood Consistency: Brownrigg, Osterling, Terrones. - Discussion of Summer Schedules. CP asked for possible vacation schedules to be sure that there would be a quorum at all meetings during the summer months. It appeared that there will be no problem. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary V:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc