Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050905PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 9, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the May 9, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (left at 10:00 p.m.), Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer Doug Bell. III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS Chair Osterling passed the gavel to C. Auran, who will serve as Chair of the commission for the coming year. C. Brownrigg will serve as Vice-Chair and C. Deal as Secretary of the Commission for the coming year. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the April 25, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item 7, 2750 Adeline Drive was inadvertently placed on the action calendar when the commission had voted to place it on the consent calendar. Item 7 should be placed on the consent calendar following item 3. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Chair Auran noted that the commission would like to hear from the public regarding any issue not on the agenda; because the item is not on the agenda the commission cannot comment tonight. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue expressed her concern about the way the drains required with sump pumps were being installed in her neighborhood, seem to have water pooled at the bottom and are a good place for breeding West Nile mosquitoes, would like city to review their standards. Also expressed concern about the heavy trucks used in construction and the damage they are doing to local streets and parking aprons, this also causes water to pool and creates breeding sites for mosquitoes. Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue, live on the other side of the house with the open sump basin, the water is deeper than one inch, its 6 feet from her windows, why have the city inspectors not seen this as a problem? Agree about truck damage to aprons on streets, tree roots have a similar impact. Think that the Commission should create "rule of conduct and respect to neighbors" for contractors. In her neighborhood contractors leave refrigerators on the front lawn, take excessive amounts of time to build, clearly do not care about the neighbors. Chair noted that these items were the responsibility of the Public Works Department and the Commission would refer them; know they would be happy to discuss these concernswith these residents. Dan Ionescu, 1611 Boreal Place, San Mateo, would like to have the commission schedule a time, 20 to 30 minutes, for him to present a design for the west side of Donnelly Avenue (on public parking lot L). Chair City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 2 Auran noted that the commission cannot discuss items not on the agenda tonight. Commissioners asked if could ask to place something on a later agenda, have some interest in visions for downtown and hearing from the Mosquito Abatement District; like to know how the city addresses these drain issues. VII. STUDY ITEMS 1. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM 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 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. She noted that this building was commercial condominium structure built in 1981 when there was no distinction between the residential and commercial condominium guidelines. So this building included required private open space (balconies) for each unit and common landscaped open space at grade. In addition this building is located in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area assessment district for parking and was built when on site parking was not required for buildings of 15, 000 SF or , with a conditional use permit, for the first 15,000 SF of a larger building. As a result the current building has 21 on site parking spaces, where the code would require 71 based on the 1:300 SF code requirements. Commissioners asked: • Can applicant justify any special circumstances on the property in order to grant the parking variance? • With 19 tenants in the building, wouldn’t this be granting a special privilege to only one tenant? What is the special circumstance to this one tenant? • Provide information on the street metered parking and timing in the immediate area? • How many public lot spaces are available in the immediate area? • Have we implemented any parking in-lieu fees to projects in this area? Would a parking in-lieu fee be of assistance in this situation? • How is this parking situation classified now? • Do these submittals really talk about a hardship on the property need to be redone? • The proposed new curved surfaces should match the curves and material on the floors below, should be documented and noted on plans. Staff responded that at the time the building was built it was granted a CUP to build a larger building, under current code it is considered non-conforming. Commission requested copies of the minutes from the 1981 Planning Commission meeting where the project was approved and stated that they are mostly interested in the comments on the design of the original building because this addition degrades the quality of the building. 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 7:30 p.m. 2. 1419 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 3 SINGLE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KOBERT SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What can be done to alleviate the overgrowth of the hedge into the driveway? • Can a condition require trimming or removal of this hedge? • Elevations should be provided that show how the new garage looks with the existing house. 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 7:35 p.m. 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. 3. 1216 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFF AND JENNIFER LABORDE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran noted that he had requests to speak on item number 7, 2750 Adeline Drive, so he would put that as the first item on the action calendar for a public hearing. He then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call item 3, 1216 Drake Avenue, off the consent calendar. There were no requests to remove item 3. C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0 . Appeal procedures were advised. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 7. 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING SCHOOL USE IN AN R-1 ZONE INCLUDING A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SCHOOL GYM AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (LAURA HELD, PRINCIPAL, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANT; DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT; MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 9, 2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: condition 8 requires an arborists report at the time of submitting for a building permit, why not with planning request? CP noted that no protected trees are affected by the expansion of the physical education building so the arborists report can come later. Will the use of the physical education building be limited to the same hours City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 4 as the school? CP noted that the applicant would respond to that. There were no other questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Land Weismehl, DES Architects & Engineers, and Cheryl Nash, 13 Chilton, San Carlos, Vice Principal, of Mercy High School represented the project. Noted that they were unaware of the problem with arborist, contacted one today, tree to be removed has a diameter of 4 to 6 inches. Expect the physical education building to be used until 6 p.m., the area to be remodeled is basically the locker room and two sides of the swimming pool. Commissioner asked: will the swimmers start early in the morning? Have two teams of 40, may add a morning practice to reduce size of the group to 20, if so they would begin at 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. however, the use of the building is limited to physical education. Would there be week-end swim meets? No, the meets are always on week days. If hours for use of building were set between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. would that be sufficient for your program? It would never be earlier or later than that. Is the pool used all year round? Water polo is mid-August to November; swimming is February 1 to second week of May, pool is used for summer sports camp which is 5 weeks mid-June to mid-July, 8:30 to 3:00 p.m. Chair noted that the applicant could respond after the public hearing. Neighbors spoke: Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue; Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive; concerned about the overflow parking into the neighborhood, not enough on site for the events and students, Alvarado is narrow and parking on both sides makes it hard to use for two way traffic and causes a safety problem, Mercy has room to add more parking to cover use of the school and rental of the facility for events at night and on the week-ends. Commissioner asked, when is the parking a problem? Sometimes at night, less of a problem on the week end. Live across the street from the service entrance to Mercy High School, noted in the staff report that this use permit is just for the high school and caused as the result of adding to the physical education building, why was a use permit not required for the convent when they did extensive remodeling several years ago? Remodeling which allowed them to create a retreat center which has become a big business. Since 1979 the use of Mercy High School has intensified each year, no limits are suggested for week end use and use during the week nights, neighbors hear music; neighbors have been sent letters from the high school admitting to more traffic and events at the school, the neighbors are concerned about pedestrian safety caused by the school generated traffic; traffic impacts could be addressed by limiting the use of Kohl Mansion for activities; this use permit will increase activity when the school hastalked about less traffic; where will their irrigation water run off to? Plans talk about a shade canopy at the physical education building but it is not shown on the plans. Would like to have the 13 parking spaces on the service entrance removed so they could not be seen from across the street. The City's General Plan says that open space should be protected, and that this is open space, should not be used to park cars visible from the street. If the physical education building is subject to design review should install story poles for addition. If the addition is 250 feet from the street it will be seen. Will the new bleachers have an impact on the adjacent property owners, greater than present? Will there be an increase in night time activity in the physical education building which will use the bleachers? Hours of use of this building should be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with no Saturday use. The school is open for religious education, is the summer school also for religious education? Does the conditional use permit for the school include the use of Kohl Mansion? Staff responded that it did. CA noted that the conditional use permit is to help define the use; to set a baseline for the uses on the school site. He noted that Ms. Abbey's questions were addressing concerns to help define the use of the site. Commissioner noted that some of the issued identified were more appropriate for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. Neighbor noted had spoken to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission in the past and nothing happened. Neighbor noted that the Planning Commission seemed unaware that this action included a conditional use permit for the school use including Kohl Mansion. What are the hours for the use of the mansion, how many events occur there, semi-trucks to serve events at the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 5 mansion block Adeline because they have to back up the service road; there is also the issue of storm drainage. Commissioner noted that there were valid questions asked regarding the baseline use of the site and it would be better to continue this item so that the neighbors could write down their questions and the applicant could address them directly. Chair Auran closed the public hearing noting that additional information was needed to establish a baseline for the conditional use permit for the school, and this item should be continued. Commission comment: need to clarify this is not just to look at the physical education building; it includes the entire school site but not the convent site. Based on CA comments, this will take several hours of public hearing, so should continue to better address issues; need background on the school use of the site versus the public function use on the site; for the physical education building want to know if there will be an increased number of students using it, and the other facilities on the campus. C. Deal moved to continue this item. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: • Need specific parking usage information, what does the high school generate in terms of parking; • Would like the neighbors to put their questions in writing; • Would like to know about the overlap of parking for the school and use of Kohl Mansion, quantify the times of overlap and what the numbers might be; it is clear that the physical education building addition is not driving the parking demand for the Kohl Mansion; • The scope of the use permit needs to be clear about the operation of the school and the use of Kohl Mansion, then add the use of the physical education building; The value of establishing a baseline is so that change can be measured in the future and impacts assessed; • Baseline should address current parking occupancy, hours when parking is used, for the school and Kohl Mansion; and • Provide the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission minutes regarding Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion use. Continued comment on the motion: Suggest that the motion be amended to give neighbors two weeks from tonight to respond with all their questions in writing and then give the applicant another three weeks after that to put the responses together for the baseline, with the public hearing set as soon after that as possible. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the motion to continue. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to give the neighbors two weeks from tonight to submit their questions and comments in writing; and to give the applicant three weeks after that to submit their written responses to staff, and for staff to set this item for public hearing with renoticing to the neighbors as soon as possible after that. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The CA commented that it is a good idea to set a baseline which establishes the school's legal right to continue. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 6 Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves from this item since they both live within 500 feet of the project. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Brownrigg asked if all present Planning Commissioners had visited the site, all responded yes. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project and offered to answer questions. Commission did not see any fault in the design, but had concerns over the elevation drawings showing one size window where the floor plans show another size window, look carefully at the kitchen windows and cabinet location; this needs to be addressed and cleared up at this stage of review; egress windows need to be noted and to scale; do not want FYI or second Planning Commission review when under construction. Designer agreed that all windows should reflect correct sizes. Commission stated that designer needs to be more careful in future to make sure windows drawn match size indicated. Same house plan as on Cabrillo? Yes, but added wrap porch in front. Is this porch deeper and longer? Yes, this porch is 6’-5” deep and is longer. Commission noted they see this as an improvement to the Cabrillo house. Mark Hammitt, 1326 De Soto, happy that lot is being developed; the proposal on this sloped grade looms; drove by house on Cabrillo Ave. and feels it is a nice house, but is hard to imagine on De Soto; street can stand some improvement, but this house is out of character for this block; does that matter, leave it up to the Commission. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to place this item on the consent calendar at the May 23, 2005, Planning Commission meeting after the windows and their dimensions had been corrected on the floor plans and elevations. He noted that the “neighborhood” extends beyond the 1300 block of De Soto and that this house works with the neighborhood; this house is fine. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: The focus in design review is not just on this block but within the broader neighborhood, and design can also vary between different sides of a street; the proposed house has a lot of traditional aspects to it and this is what Burlingame is trying to achieve in the design review guidelines; this is an improvement from the house on Cabrillo because things have been done to break up the front façade and the bigger front porch is good; do not want to see this design again; this is a great job and would support it; frustrated with designers casual response to Commissioners comments about the windows and the plans. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to continue this item to the May 23, 2005, consent calendar when plans had been corrected as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Chair Auran and C. Osterling abstaining). This item was set for the May 23, 2005, Planning Commission meeting and it will not be re- noticed. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 5. 1532 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND MARY JO NEJASMICH (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Brownrigg and C. Keighran recused themselves from this item since they live within 500 feet of the project. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 7 Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted that this project was referred to a design reviewer and is a complete redesign of the original project. Commission questioned the address on the design review letter written by Jerry Winges and ZT Strohmeier responded that was a typo on the design reviewer’s part, this is the response letter to 1532 Bernal Ave. Commission asked if the FAR calculation included the residual square footage after the 100 SF exemption for covered porch; staff responded yes. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Riffel, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway, represented the project. Commission commented on windows in the guest bedroom and asked if they will meet egress requirements; wood windows have no mullions at the master bedroom on rear elevation are different then all other windows and need to match; like the overall design; front seems to be lacking articulation because of the two large floors; second floor should have plate height of 8’-1” instead of 9’-0”, the lower plate would still allow for vaulted ceilings on second floor; door on back porch off of mud room should add an overhang with similar detail to other overhangs on the house; is a great improvement; change is much nicer; beam should be revealed on front elevation to show craftsman style of the house; wood railings should have more detail; comfortable with existing detail, knee braces are fine; corbels should have a heavier dimension to stay appropriate with the style. Larry Nejasmich, property owner, 1720 Crockett Lane, Hillsborough, stated that he wants to see the project passed as is without any changes, that these changes would cause a huge time delay, that he cannot afford to postpone the project, and that he does not like the direction the Commission is going but that he would make minor changes to the project if that is what the Commission wants. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Directed: • Review and make all window sizes on plans and elevations; • Note all egress windows from bedrooms, confirm that opening dimensions meet CBC egress requirements; • Larger corbels should be added; • Uncover header at the porch • Make the mullion patterns at the rear consistent with the pattern in the rest of the house; • Add a cover over the back porch off the mud room which matches the roofs over the other porches on the house; and • Reduce the second floor plate height to standard 8’-1”. C. Vistica moved to place this item on the consent calendar at the May 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting with minor changes to the plans that were discussed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on Motion: the changes requested are minor and can be addressed by placing this item on the consent calendar. Chair Auran called for a voice vote to continue this item to the May 23, 2005 consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Brownrigg and C. Keighran abstaining). This item was set for the May 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and it will not be re-noticed. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 6. 2505 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 8 AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE AND SHARON CALAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Shadi Torab, designer, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway Road, represented the project. Commission commented: Concerned about changes and effect on façade over garage; not enough window space, windows could be added to closet and shower; those areas generally don’t have windows, but to accomplish a certain look, windows should be incorporated. The designer responded that the front elevation shows what’s going on behind, changes were made per owner request and it now looks more symmetrical. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, as proposed, 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 April 6, 2005 sheets P1 through P6 (Revised Drawings), site plan, floor plans and building elevations; and that the covered porch area shall not be enclosed; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist’s memos date February 23, 2004 shall be met and the City Arborist’s memo dated April 15, 2004 shall be met; 4) 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; 5) 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; 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 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; 8) that during construction 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; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on motion: A condition should be added that states that the covered balcony area shall not be closed in. Not in favor of the motion as made, feels a small window in a closet is a fine thing to request because the house is so close to the street Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the project as proposed. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Brownrigg, Deal and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 8. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR USE DETERMINATION OF M-1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 9 ZONING DISTRICT - PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe noted that this is a request to determine if a proposed use is "similar in nature to existing permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zoning district”. She noted that affirmative action on the determination does not prejudice the Commission's future action on any project. The staff report summarizes the aspects of the proposed use and the various permitted and conditional uses currently allowed in the M-1 zoning district. Commission asked: are night watchmen allowed in the M-1 zone? CP noted that they are. Is there an additional parking requirement for classroom use in the M-1 zone? Yes, and it would be applied to this site. Is it necessary to address the possible noise impact on the neighborhood or animals at this time? No, that would be a design issue to be address at the time a project is submitted; however, the aviaries would be outside. Chair Auran asked CA Anderson what the function of a determination hearing is? CA noted that a determination hearing is the first step in zoning administration, and it may lead to the future development of the site. Several commissioners noted that they had met on the site with the applicant and saw no problem with the consistency of the use with the current zoning in the area; however, there may be issues when see the layout of the project. There were no other questions of staff by the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Nov Omana, Chairman of the Board for the Human Society & SPCA; Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA were there to answer questions. They submitted a letter from Jerry Hill in support of the determination. They submitted a preliminary sketch for development of the site, noting that they understood that tonight's action would not prejudice any future action by the Commission on the project. Commissioner expressed concern that this is a noisy area, would that be a problem for the animals. Applicant noted that the present site is noisy, close to the Police firing range and US 101, even the wild animals are accustomed to such environment, he noted that the new facility would be designed to address the sound needs of the animals inside the building. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: how should the commission move foreword? CA responded best to determine if the project as described is similar in nature to one already allowed" in the M-1 zone. C. Vistica made a motion to determine that the proposed use is in keeping with the uses already located in the M-1 zoning district. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: can support the use but feel it is premature to talk about the structure; there are a number of questions that will want to ask then. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion finding that the proposed Humane Society use, without the animal control function, is similar in nature to uses already allowed in the M-1 zoning district. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 9. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA AND DEFINITION SECTION – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Chair Auran asked how many in the audience were there for item 9, the zoning code revisions for the Bayfront area. Based on his observation and the late hour he suggested to the Commissioners that the zoning matter be moved to the end of the agenda, after the design review items, so that the representatives of the design items could leave earlier. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 10 C. Deal made a motion to amend the agenda to move action item 9 to follow the design review calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Item 9 was moved to the end of the design review calendar. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1388 HILLSIDE CIRCLE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAN AND MAUREEN MCCARTHY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission expressed concern over the plans indicating that one wall is going to be left and CP Monroe stated that the house is considered new construction. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dan McCarthy, property owner, 1388 Hillside Circle, represented the project and stated that he has lived at this residence for 20 years. Commission asked why there is no toilet shown in the master bath powder room, will one be added? Yes, one will be put in. Commissioners made the following comments: • Drawings appear to have been reduced in scale and nothing on the plans is scaleable which makes it extremely hard to check some things; • Second floor is labeled with a 9’-0” plate height but scales at 7’-4” and is not reflected correctly on the plans; • Second floor should be reduced down to 8-1” plate height; • All emergency access windows should be labeled with size shown, all window treatments should be looked at by the design reviewer; • Project should comply with the declining height envelope or applicant should apply for a special permit; • Leaving up one wall does not entitle a variance; • Drawings are hard to read, the information is misleading and mislabeled; • Project is a good candidate for design review which would help to coordinate the drawings and to expedite the design process; • Elevation proportions could use some work; • A landscape plan and tree protection plan for the site is needed; • The front porch needs some attention because it looks minimal and insignificant; the roof over it is too narrow; and • Not enough information on the plans for the design to hold together. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made, stating that the representation of elevations needs to be worked out and that design review would help to get the project approved. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: Feel the applicant is hurt by sub-par drawings; the design reviewer should look at the window treatments; a lot of detail would be improved with better drawings, there is not enough information currently for the design to hold together. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 11 Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 209 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT A. WOLF, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEBORAH RUSH, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Robert Wolf, architect, 1650 A Solano Avenue, Albany, represented the project. Commission commented: Right side elevation has a large blank wall, a large high window would be appropriate. Property owner did not want any eastern sunlight coming into the master bedroom and that is why they do not have a window there. Windows are what tell us people live in the buildings; like the ways that the eaves are tied into the house; how will all the rain water be carried to the street? A gutter system will be put on the edge of the roof when the house is re-roofed. Is there a door into the whirlpool on page A-3? The door is therefore replacing the spa equipment. Deborah Rush, property owner, 209 Dwight, in master bedroom set of French windows will be glass and would not like windows on east side to avoid light coming in from that side of the house; provides for more privacy without a window on that side of the room. Have you spoken to your neighbor to the north? No, figured they have received blue notice card. Commission concerned over a substantial amount of house in the back and would like to head off any potential problems with a neighbor now rather then later. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners made the following comments: • A high window, that is not full length, like a clear story, would help break up the blank wall on the right side elevation; • Small windows could be put into the closets on the east sides; and • Planting should be added in this area. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when a revision to the blank wall on right side elevation has been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: Additional landscaping and screening should be considered on the right side of the building to cover the blank wall; story poles do not need to be constructed for this 250 SF second story addition. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 12. 1312 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN SHANLEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Auran recused himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project and C. Deal recused himself from the project because of a business relationship with the applicant. They stepped down from the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 12 dais and left the chambers. ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. C. Brownrigg requested that C. Osterling act as Chair because he had to leave the meeting 10:00 p.m. to catch an airplane. Commissioner Brownrigg left the chambers. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Whitney, designer, JD & Associates, 1228 Paloma Avenue, represented the project and stated that the property owner could not attend the meeting because he is a fireman on duty. Commissioners made the following comments: • Would like to see a letter from the neighbor at 1316 Vancouver stating that they’ve looked at the plans; • Could some of the massing be shifted to the right? know there would be a loss of symmetry; • Concerned with what’s happening on left side of the house and its impacts on the neighbor; would like to see more landscaping, it is important to consider more landscape trees that will be visible from the street; • Show where the adjacent garage is on the site plan; • Project is nicely designed and proportioned but a different treatment should be used for the base at the first floor, perhaps something as simple as a similar stucco texture or stone base; • Problem identifying the front door location, can it be relocated?; • Design is nice and well articulated; could a window (high window) be added to the blank wall on the east elevation? • Project is well done, although generally like to have the front door stand out; • Can garage be moved to have more than a 1foot separation from the rear property line for maintenance reasons? • Would like to see a landscape plan and tree protection plan; and • The house should incorporate more greenery, such as a vine on the house or a trellis, up to architect to be creative. Designer noted there are a significant number of trees shown on the plan and that the garage could be moved one additional foot from the rear property line. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Acting Chair Osterling 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. Brownrigg absent, Chair Auran and C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 13. 12 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL HOWARD AND FRANK MARINERO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (93 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked: Are we counting the parking area as building area? Staff replied yes as lot coverage. Are the parking areas counted in the square footage calculation? Staff replied no, the office, lobby, stairs and trash area are counted in the square footage City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 13 calculation. Does the handicapped space have to be van accessible? Staff replied yes, and if the handicapped space were to be in the garage, the ceiling height would have to be 8’-2” to the lowest object. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, architect, 1290 Howard Avenue, stated that this has been a hard lot to sell because of its size, the price has dropped dramatically. The owner is a professional and needs approximately 4,000 SF with the lobby to make this project work for his business. The architect submitted a materials/color board to the Commission. He stated that the building was pulled back 25 feet from the front property line and 45 feet from the rear property line, that it is below the height limit and that only one variance is being sought for parking. Commissioners made the following comments: • The first parking space in the garage would be hard to get into but rest of the layout is good; • The parking requirement dictates that you have to have a second floor; • Could the mechanical room on the first floor be smaller? • The two parking spaces in the front should be pushed under the building and landscaping should fill in the front to soften up the elevation; • The material of the roll down grill in the front should match the material of the metal mesh on the south elevation; • The spacing of the mullions on the second floor window over the garage entry should match the spacing of the mullions on the first floor window; • It is a good job but parking situation is baffling; • Proposal is a strong contrast to the funeral home but a strong landscape system would enhance the building, maybe some large trees; and • Are the colors on the board the final colors? Frank Maranaro, property owner, stated that he has a small professional firm where the occasional client will visit throughout the day. The architect replied that the mechanical room on the first floor could be made smaller, that they would love to not have to place the two parking stalls in front of the building, but that by putting the handicapped space under the building they would probably lose three stalls instead of two and that the colors on the board are the final colors proposed because they work well with the other buildings on the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented: Omitting the parking space in front would do wonders for the front of the building, but there is a penalty involved with that because it would require removal of another parking space; applicant might try to make both the mechanical area and the lobby smaller. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when all revisions have been made and plan checked and all findings for the parking variance have been made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: A handicapped space up front would go unused and should be placed down below, but that would bring the number of spaces to around 11; would be flexible on front setback if it would allow flex to relocate the ADA space; the applicant can come up with a solution that fits best on the site. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and all findings have been made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 14 9. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA AND DEFINITION SECTION – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the staff report calling attention to the changes which were suggested at the study meeting and had been made and were documented in the annotations for each of the zoning districts being considered: Inner Bayshore; Shoreline; and Unclassified (Anza Extension). Commissioners asked staff to review where biotech uses were allowed, staff noted in the interior of the Inner Bayshore subarea where the light industrial uses are now allowed, but not along Bayshore Highway (east and west sides) to promote hotel and tourist support uses. In the Shoreline area is the street wall 55% of the width of the lot? Yes, a maximum of 40% of a building must be at the 10' setback 15% more must be back no more than 15', the remainder may have a greater setback, but the 55% sets the edge. Would parking be allowed in the front setback in the Shoreline area? No, the front setback is 10' which is a minimum needed to establish a green edge between the sidewalk and the paved parking area on the side of the building, however, a Porte cochere or paved driveway for loading and drop off would be allowed in the front setback should the developer wish to do so. On the west side of Bayshore Highway parking in the front setback is also discouraged, this reflects the intent in the plan to establish a green edge along the west side for a better appearance for visitors and guests. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to recommend the zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and changes to the Unclassified zone, as well as the new definitions, to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the new zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas, changes to the Unclassified zoning district, and new definitions to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of May 2, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 2, 2005. Commission also discussed Dan Ionescu’s request, staff noted that he had also made a request to the City Council to make a "Smart Growth" presentation similar to one he made at the Progress Seminar. City Council suggested that how to go forward on this be discussed at the joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting on June 13, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. before the regular Commission meeting. Staff also asked the Commissioners how useful the story boards were. The consensus was that it would be more useful to have applicants prepare a pictorial display which included the project site and the two houses on either side of it. This could be reproduced on paper which could be included in the attachments for the staff report, so would become a permanent part of the file. If the commissioners felt they needed more information on height, elevations, setbacks between houses, etc., based on their review of the initial submittal they could ask for it at the design review study meeting and it could be prepared and included in the materials for the action meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 15 Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. to cake in the rotunda in recognition of the service of the past officers of the commission and the new officers rotating in. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.05.09.05.doc