Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061305PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 13, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the June 13, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 23, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted Council was looking at ways to notify the public about projects other than the blue cards and noticed in Berkeley they post sign boards on properties where developed is proposed. The boards have an architectural renderings of the proposal with a phone number and address for the public to get more information. Thought this was a good idea that should be considered. John Root, 728 Crossway Road, comments on study session that was held at 6:00 p.m. this evening with City Council. Want to make sure there is plenty of public input on the RFP for the Burlingame Downtown Economic Study. Concerned with any decision made on Safeway based on economic study. May find that the economic study doesn’t match the vision of the people, should not take the vision from the economic study, it is dangerous to piece meal this process and delay too much on economics, need to make sure that public is involved the whole way through. Bernard Corry, 1224 Cabrillo Avenue, has been some confusion with the memo staff prepared regarding FYI item 1224 Cabrillo Avenue. Has provided a letter explaining the changes for the Planning Commission, please consider approving the “as-built” drawings. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1A. 800 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARIE BENEDETTI, PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 2 1B. 1808 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CAROLYN AND KEY WAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1C. 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID AND HOLLY PARRY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests from the public. However a Commissioner had some comments on item 1D. 1312 Vancouver Avenue and asked that this item be moved to the regular action calendar. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar items 1A. 800 Burlingame Avenue, 1B. 1800 Davis Drive, and 1C. 1800 Ray Drive based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 1D. 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 because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property, C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the property owner, they both left City Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Shanley, property owner, was present to answer questions. Commission concerned with how close the garage is to neighbor, has the property owner tried to contact the neighbor since the last meeting. Mr. Shanley noted that he left messages for the neighbor including his phone number and email address but has had no response from the neighbor. Commission noted that the plans have been revised so that there is 2 feet between the detached garage and the property line at the rear and at the side property line, this is better than the 1 foot originally proposed. One foot is pretty tight to get in to maintain the structure, but with the new site plan provided there appears to be 4 feet to the adjacent garage, so if the owner wants to have only 1 foot between the garage and the property lines it is o.k.. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application as submitted with the garage 2 feet from the side and rear property lines, 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 18, 2005, sheets 2 through 7, and G-1, floor plan, building elevations and garage plan, and sheet 1, date stamped June 1, 2005, site plan (including landscaping); and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment; 2) that the property owner shall trim the existing hedge along the driveway as often as necessary to provide adequate vehicular access to enter and exit the new detached garage; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 3 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; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and City Engineer’s memos dated March 7, 2005 shall be met; 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; 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 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 10) 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. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as submitted. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Deal returned to the dias and took their seats. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERNIE SELANDER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves because they live within 500 feet of the subject property and left Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that the noticing was done incorrectly with a special permit for height noticed not a variance for height which should have been noticed. He instructed the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing and then place the item on the next consent calendar for action when the project will be properly noticed for a variance for height. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ernie Selander, architect, noted that they did not want to wait two weeks more for this project because of noticing error. Was instructed by the Planning Commission to apply for the height variance, can they at least apply for the building permit? CP Monroe noted that they can apply for a building permit and begin plan check process, but that it can’t be issued until City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 4 the Planning Commission’s action is final, which can be before the building plan check is done. Commission noted that this is a dramatic change from previous proposal, positive changes made. Commission asked the applicant to explain how the 10’ plate heights work. Plans look like there is an 8’4” plate height on first and second floors, usually see not more than 8’1” on second floor, but there is one area where the plate height is as high as 9’9”. Mr. Selander noted that is only the turret area. Planning Commission clarified that it is a 17’-18’ long area on the left side of the east elevation, high plate height in this area needs to be reduced to 8’4”, appears to be 9’ because it will appear massive when the house is built. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • project has improved, but concerned with front landscaping, 38’8” height is because of the slope on the lot, but there is hardly any landscaping at the front of the house, add another tall, wide evergreen at the front from the City street tree list; • nice project but need to add more landscaping at the front; • reduce plate height on east elevations to 8’4” in the 17’-18’ area noted by the Planning Commission. C. Keighran moved to place this item on the consent calendar when the item has been properly noticed and when the above comments have been addressed and revised plans have been submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Auran and Osterling abstaining). This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dias and took their seats. 3. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 200, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE USE (APR REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT; S.J. SUN AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (91 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Cauchi recused himself because he is an employee of APR Real Estate Services, Inc., and he left the City Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, and Joanne Quandalski, manager of Alan Pinel Realty, noted that Chapin Avenue has become a financial center, with real estate uses, financial consultants, and banks. Success story for the zoning code which was updated in the 1980’s to move these types of uses from Burlingame Avenue to the side streets. When this building was constructed real estate uses were in mind for occupancy of the building, 160 on-site parking spaces were included. Parking statistics show that this is an over parked building, last year when the conditional use permit was processed for this suite there were 10 or 12 real estate offices located in Subarea B. The Planning Commission was worried about parking, however real estate offices usually are not occupied by the realtors much because they are out in the field, have cell phones and home offices. The parking statistics show there City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 5 are many parking spaces available during the day at this site, especially on the lower level, which is virtually unused. The subtenants in this suite did not take ups all of the space, building has an interior courtyard, hard configuration to work with, only 1,000 SF left in suite. This is a service business that will bring people to the downtown area to use our restaurants and shops. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 8,465 SF in Suite 200 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 23, 2005 (8½" x 11" sheet); 2) that the real estate business shall not expand into the remainder of the tenant space (5,530 SF) without an amendment to this permit; and that the subleased area shall not be occupied by any other business which has an employee to office density exceeding one person to 300 SF; 3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week; weekly agent meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., with a maximum of 54 persons on site during the meeting which includes agents, full-time employees, and managers; 4) that the real estate business shall have a maximum employees/managers of 73 part-time agents and 5 full-time employees/managers (with a maximum of 10 persons on-site at any one time except on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for group meetings); the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents, employees and managers for a real estate use in 8,465 SF of Suite 200 and the maximum of 10 persons on site except for one hour on Monday, shall not be increased (from 78) without an amendment to this permit; 5) that the owner of the property shall file a report with the City Planner by July 1 of each year declaring how many managers, employees, agents, and independent contractors have been working at the site over the previous calendar year, and the date and maximum number of employees, agents and independent contractors who have been on-site at any one time and the report shall include the usage (business and employee count) of the 5,530 SF sublet space; 6) that due to the impact of weekly agent meetings on parking in this area, the owner agrees to schedule the weekly group meetings or client conferences so that the parking impact is minimized and will consult with the City Planner on an annual basis regarding any difficult times or days of the week and shall make adjustments that may be applicable; 7) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 8) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 26, 2005, memo, and the Recycling Specialist's May 27, 2005, memo shall be met; 9) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in two years from the date of approval (June, 2007) or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: there is enough parking on this site, drove by the site at various times and observed vacant parking spaces. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the dias and took his seat. 4. AMENDMENT TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (42 PROPERTY OWNERS AND 108 MERCHANTS NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 6 Reference staff report June 16, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Broadway BID had requested the City Council consider increasing the number of food establishments in the Broadway commercial area, that the new food establishments be limited to full service, specialty food shop or Limited food service, and that the review of such an ordinance be "fast tracked". Because the request was clear and in the interest of prompt review, this action has been brought forward directly to Commission action. Commissioners asked how would the new food establishments work with the present limit/existing of 24? CP noted that the ordinance proposes five more food establishments at five new locations, when these are approved these five locations would be fixed for food establishments so the food establishment use would remain until the use at the specific location changes to a non-food related use. Commissioner put in the record the results of a recent survey of the community for the Broadway Commercial Area. She noted that about 3,000 questionnaires were distributed, and she presently had 183 responses. Of these responses the overwhelming theme was that respondents wanted quality on Broadway, they wanted to create a "village" atmosphere, they wanted to walk to a healthy meal, food establishments should provide outdoor seating/open space for those eating and people should be able to walk from dinner to desert to coffee on Broadway. When asked what was missing among the retail uses on Broadway: 45% said a healthy restaurant geared toward families, 12% noted a sports bar, and third was a quality bakery. 82%of the respondents use Broadway, the majority live within walking distance. Commissioner asked for clarification about how food establishment sites came to be fixed. CP noted that originally food establishment sites were not fixed. The change came with the 1999 regulations because food establishment "rights" had become a saleable commodity, with each successive opportunity going for a higher dollar value. Council determined it was not the intention of the regulation to provide property owners with a saleable commodity. So in the 1999 amended regulations the location of the food establishments was fixed; and a reopener created so that when the total number of food establishments fell below a threshold for 12 consecutive months, the city would reopen the issue of the appropriate number of food establishments. Commissioner asked how will the demand be addressed with the five new food establishments? CA noted that the hope is that the 5 proposed exceed the demand for the food establishment land use and it will not be an issue. CP noted that the order of processing will be based on the time and date of receipt of completed applications. If one is not approved the next in order will be taken until the five opportunities are used. Commissioner noted that food establishments are one of the most likely businesses to fail today, would like to put as few restrictions on them as possible, so would not like to see any limitation on who or where the five new opportunities could be located within the Broadway commercial area. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Marisa Chu, 1224 Broadway, John Kervanian, 1241 Broadway, Denise Grover, Gateways to the World; Garbis Bejdian, 1199 Broadway, Nick Coros, 1230-46 and 1400 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway Business Improvement District; Cheryl Enright, President Downtown Business Improvement District spoke. Founding member of BABES of Broadway passionate to see Broadway change, close to residents, hotels and the airport, have opportunities to grow, Broadway currently does not represent the needs of savvy families, need to increase family style businesses and face lift the buildings, Broadway BID board unanimously voted to increase the restaurants by five. Have been on Broadway for 12 years in that time have only added Walgreens and Starbucks, not all of the present restaurants are full service, area can support five more; help Broadway grow, if restaurants attract other business they will be good for us. Without change all the businesses will be hurt, merchants and BID are unanimous that need more restaurants, support, residents want family oriented businesses on Broadway, should increase revenue to the city. Have spoke to landlords regarding the Broadway vision, excited, like to see change, good to see BID and Broadway unite, the right mix of restaurants will help. The DBID City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 7 supports an increase in restaurants on Broadway, may see Burlingame Avenue make a similar request in the future. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: commend the Broadway merchants for working as a group to develop a vision for Broadway, will benefit the merchants on the street and the residents who use the area; the incremental increase in food establishments will be a positive, people who eat go to retail, need foot traffic to bring in retail. Clarification of ordinance, should we be looking at designation among the 5 of the number of full service, specialty food shops and limited food service. CA noted that a bakery for example could be anyone of the three depending upon how it is operated, so a set number may be an additional constraint. Support the increase of food establishments, Broadway is my living room but would not like to see 2 or 3 of these opportunities go to one property owner. CA noted that the city cannot regulate who owns the land where a restaurant is located. Support, if provided by type of establishment it does not matter who owns the property; choice of type should be open, have statistics on failure, natural attrition, what survives will be what people want; asked what number of respondents on survey listed restaurant as a need. Commissioner responded almost everyone noted the need for food establishments. CA noted that a sports bar could occur if it had significant food service, as many do. Have a strong preference for outdoor seating, will help the image of Broadway. Chair Auran made a motion to recommend to the City Council for approval the ordinance amending the food establishment regulations for the Broadway commercial area to add five food establishments. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance to reorganize the food establishment section of the zoning code and to amend the Broadway commercial area regulations to allow five additional food establishments which could be full service, specialty food shop, or limited food service food establishments. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CP noted that this item would appear on the City Council agenda on June 20, 2005, for introduction and a public hearing. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATION AND PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICE FOR IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR ISSUES SUCH AS DUST, NOISE AND LANDSCAPING DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report June 13, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe noted that as a part of the conditions of approval for the Mills-Peninsula Hospital replacement project approved November 2004. Commission is required to review the applicant's proposed implementation programs for a number of the conditions. This is the first of those reviews. The proposal before the commission is the mitigation measures and process for allocation for the impacts created throughout the construction project on the immediately neighboring properties to the hospital on Davis Drive. Commission asked if the applicant was available to respond to questions. Staff noted that they were. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt represented the Mills Peninsula Hosptial project. Commission asked how the reimbursements would work if the correction exceeded the estimated amount allocated for each affected property. If over run in one area will draw from another area which is under spent, the amount is fixed for an item if the property owner prefers to do the work himself. Confident the estimates of costs are good. Applicant noted that there is a contingency fund included incase they have City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 8 under estimated the cost. You are proposing to address dust control for only these 20 or so properties, is that sufficient. Applicant noted that this program does not exempt the hospital from all the other dust controls which are required during construction. There should be little dust problem, but if there is a particular problem because these properties are so close, these funds would be used to address individual solutions on the specific property. Who will own the fence when it is built? Hospital has no desire to own the fence. Commission noted that this is an issue that you should discuss with property owners. How will the adjacent owners picking the vegetation between their property line and the water easement fit with the adopted landscape plan? Expect that some people will want lower vegetation for more light in the back yard and others will want taller for more screening. Applicant not do not expect to change the variety of species shown on the plan, but may vary their placement, should not have much effect overall. Staff pointed out that this mitigation only involves the 10 feet between the rear of the properties on Davis Drive and the water line easement. The vegetation on the easement itself and on the other side next to the hospital structure will not be affected. Regarding the fence, what will you do if not all the property owners want the hospital to be build them a new fence? Applicant noted that they must all agree before the hospital builds the fence. If they don't all agree, those who want a new fence will be given the money and they can oversee building their own fence. CP noted that the result will be a variety of fencing along the Hospital property line. Commissioner noted dust is not an issue, there are all kinds of conditions calling for dust control measures during construction, so the money is intended to be used in addition to meeting the standard construction requirements; the new fence should be built on the property owners land. Applicant noted that some of the current fences are on hospital property, it’s a small enough land area hospital is not going to dispute, concerned that requiring people to move back to their property may be seen as a taking and want to be a good neighbor. And the fence in the future? Applicant in the past the hospital shared the cost, if the property owner takes the money, will not feel good about also sharing the cost of construction at this time; but willing to consider once the site is back to 'steady state'. Commissioner noted regarding selection of the adjacent vegetation, people who have lived in their houses for any length of time know exactly where they need light in their back yards and where they will want the new trees to be located between their rear property line and the water easement. There were no more comments on the item. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this is a complex agreement but its intent is correct given the condition and it will provide mitigation to the immediately adjacent property owners along Davis Drive as directed in the conditions of approval, so he moved to acknowledge the proposal and approve it for consistency with condition 119 of the November 15, 2004, action on the Peninsula Hospital replacement project. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion that the proposed mitigation process and program are consistent with condition 119 of the November 15, 2004, conditions of approval for the Peninsula Hospital replacement project. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice. This action is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the commission's action. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1316 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A LOWER FLOOR, FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY AND KAREN FLOOD, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 9 Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, Burlingame, was available for questions. He noted that this is a classic bungalow that they are making more interesting with a second floor. The basement is more than two feet above grade, so it does count in the floor area. Floor area ratio is near the limit. However because it is partially in-ground the house appears visibly smaller. Noted that there is a drafting error on sheet A-3, on the second floor on the front elevation the four windows are suppose to be a clear band of windows on the same plane, the center two do not pop out as drawn. Commission noted that there was letter received by the neighbor at the rear regarding the fence height and screening shrubs, please meet with the neighbor. Commission noted that this is a difficult style house to add on to with the low sloping roof, but architect did a nice job, pushing addition to rear. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments: • new chimney has stone, recommend adding stone to the existing chimney to match; • clarify rear fence height and add screening at the rear for neighbors, should discuss both with rear neighbor; • would like to see taller trees added to this project to soften the height, need to add two Evergreens in back and one in front, pick from street tree list. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. Comment on motion: near maximum floor area but it does not appear massive because a lot of the square footage is below grade; nice addition, blends with the existing architecture and with the neighborhood. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. 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 8:41 p.m. 7. 1509 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACK AND KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ERNESTO BARRON, ARCHITECT) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Kim Stratton, property owner and Ernesto Barron, project architect, were available to answer questions. Commission asked if the property owner would be opposed to having a condition added to the approval that requires the rear setback to not get smaller, basically so there could be no addition to the rear of the garage in the future. The property owner was fine with that condition. Commission complimented the project, creative way to add space with out impacting views. Shingles will look great, this is a whole new look. Mr. Barron noted that the existing stairs are narrow and window was added to work with the design, larger porch area would block light to the dining room. Trying to make this addition work with minimal impact on the neighbors. Brackets are included as part of the bungalow component, shutter added to break up shingles. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 10 The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • need to add landscaping with taller trees and shrubs; • drawings need work, do not correctly convey project, trellis on front is not shown on side elevations, roof height shown on elevations is not consistent, plans need clarification and detail, there are a lot of discrepancies; • Front porch is big now, but with new design it is too small, column detailing is not appropriate, detailing on porch is awkward, porch should be expanded, porch is lost as the focal point with this project; • staircase is a looming large vertical element, too tall, the largest window is in the staircase, doesn’t seem right; too strong of a vertical element with stairs; • placement of addition is fine; • brackets on this house have no rhyme or reason; • not fond of shingles on this house; project needs design review; • no view blockage, complicated situation with existing house, they make the entrance look small, need more information and detailing on the plans; and • add condition to approval that requires the rear setback to not get smaller, so there could be no addition to the rear of the garage in the future. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: much improved from last project, addition is placed in the right location, improved over original project, no view impact, concern with porch, strong vertical element, porch should be expanded and would help relieve the vertical element, materials are o.k.,; south elevations of two story staircase will be overbearing, doesn’t have to be two stories, location is o.k., trellis on front but not shown on sides, plans need correcting, too many discrepancies, needs to be sent to a design review consultant, needs to built according to plan; not in favor of sending to a design review consultant, o.k. with design, problem with the porch, too vertical, make it longer, wood shingle is better than stucco; two major elements in the front need work, plans will be delayed if not addressed, may take longer to make corrections on own, design review can help this project; like the design, improved over original. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-2 (Cers Brownrigg and Cauchi dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. 1480 VANCOUVER AVENUE, LOTS 39 AND 40, ZONED R-1 (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOT LINE; B. 1480 VANCOUVER AVENUE, LOT 39 – DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. C. 1480 VANCOUVER AVENUE, LOT 40 – DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 11 C. Auran recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owners, and C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Both Commissioners left Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, project designer, 39 W. 43Rd Avenue, San Mateo, and Bob and Cyndi Gilson, property owners, were present to answer questions. Mr. Chu submitted a color rendering of the proposed houses and he noted that they shared the plans and rendering with the neighbors. The property owners talked with twenty or more neighbors about the project on Memorial Day weekend, there will be a colonial on the interior lot and one craftsman with shingles on the corner lot. Feel that these houses will fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that on the corner lot, front west elevation shows Pacific Myrtle #4 to be planted but they will grow too large and will encroach into the existing oak tree, should use lower shrubs, will be better. Tree near driveway has no species name, just says Evergreen, please label. On other re-emerging lot projects have had the first house at 100% floor area and the second house at 90% of the allowable floor area, this reduces impact on the neighborhood. Have applicants considered this approach? Mr. Chu noted that because lot 40 is on the corner the floor area ratio formula is already lowered, so corner house is smaller, it is 300 SF under the maximum floor area usually allowed. He noted that there is a lot of vegetation and landscaping that will be added to screen the house. Commissioner stated that they do not like to see a landmark house being torn down and replaced with two new homes. Nice designs but you have an existing 2,900 SF house being replaced with a total of 6,500 SF of buildings, concerned with impact with more than one house, if square footage is reduced the impact will also be reduced. Mr. and Mrs. Gilson noted that the corner house is quite a bit smaller to start with. When purchased the property researched keeping the existing house and removing part, but a structural engineer looked at the house and said that it has no foundation and can not be moved. Want to keep the 30’s style. Reviewed proposed with over twenty neighbors and they liked the project. The house now has a huge lawn area in the front, tried to keep this lawn area. As you come down Adeline you will still see a colonial. The corner lot was designed to have a wider setback along Adeline Drive, corner house is also smaller and has a lower height. The other corner neighbor really liked the wood shingle siding on the house on the corner house. Commission noted that the applicant appears to have done due diligence. Mr. Gilson noted that he got good input from the neighbors, Steve Anderson suggested that dental molding be added to the colonial, so they did add them. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: two houses proposed where one house was located, old house is a landmark house but the two new houses will also be landmark houses in 40 years, new houses are well designed, corner house has a lot of articulation, will be an asset to the neighborhood. The Commission had the following comments and concerns and asked for changes to the plans: • change tree #4 Pacific Myrtle on the front, west elevation to lower shrubs so that it doesn’t encroach into the existing oak tree; • tree near driveway on corner lot has no species name, just says Evergreen, please label; • right side on lot 39 has small windows, on other elevations the windows are spread out, match window pattern of other elevations. C. Cauchi 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. Deal. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 12 Comment on motion: this is a landmark house but new houses will also become landmark houses, change is healthy, nice designs will add quality to Burlingame; should Commission consider requiring story poles to show mass and bulk for the neighbors to see, new buildings will be closer to the street, impact of two houses may be a surprised and story poles may help, there is no neighborhood opposition, concerned that neighborhood is not aware; don’t think story poles are needed because the density of the landscaping won’t be reflected; the General Plan values having different houses on different size lots and it is unfortunate that these larger lots are going away, so will abstain form this vote. Action 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 4-0-1-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran recused, C. Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. 9. 1229 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK CAIRNS, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owner and because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property and he left Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Nick Cairns, property owner, was available to answer questions. He explained that he did too much work under the original building permit and sees that now, but noted that he wants to finish this project. Disagrees that the plate was raised, the old house’s plate height was 10’4” not 8’5”, the roof was slanted with 2’ x 6’ joists used. The new house has the same plate height but it is only a ½” increase in plate height due to double top plate used, 2’ x 12’. Commission asked if what is framed out there now is representative of the drawings? Mr. Cairns stated that no it is not, there is a lot more work to be done. Commission confirmed that the rest of the construction must be done as shown on plans. Commission asked if the windows will be true divided light wood windows or simulated divided light windows, the plans are not clear? The property owner did not know the answer to this question. Commission suggested that the applicant use good windows on this project, it is a simple design and it would benefit from wood true divided light windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Need to provide a landscape plan; • Plans need to clarify window type and note on plans that they are true divided light wood framed windows with wood mullions because they will be key to the quality of the design of this simple house. C. Visitica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. 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 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 13 10. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO COMBINE TWO TENANT SPACES FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOEL CAMPOS, APPLICANT; MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Vistica recused himself because of a business relation with the property owner and he left City Council Chambers. Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff for the exact number of parking spaces required, not the rounded up amount. Staff noted that based upon replacement of the mezzanine and the proposed storage and office on the mezzanine that 1.57 additional parking spaces are required. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Cronander, 1800 Laguna Street, San Francisco, project architect, Joel Campos, 454 Hazel Avenue, San Bruno, business owner, and Mr. Kareem Salma, property owner 1123 Burlingame Avenue noted that they will be doing a new storefront with this application, going for a more progressive design, business owner has two other restaurants in San Francisco, is making an effort to upgrade this Spanish colonial design building. Had some exiting issues with the Building Department, could not exit at the rear of the store, so there are two exits onto Burlingame Avenue. The new restaurant will have an open patio at the front at sidewalk level with plants, are planning to have a family restaurant. Commission complimented design of building , like the tile base with the lantern and window sash. Have a problem with the variance request, need only 1.57 spaces. Is the parking space on the this site communal? Mr. Cronander noted that he can use one space for this business, but it is existing not an additional space. Commission asked CA Anderson if this space can be counted for this use if it is part of the lease. CA Anderson noted that the space can not be counted for two businesses, this came up on a project on Whitehorn Way. If the space is to be used as mitigation then it must be recorded with the approval. CP Monroe noted that when the old mezzanine (which was non-conforming with no parking) is taken out, and a new mezzanine is constructed that parking for the new mezzanine area is required to be provided on-site, even if the new mezzanine is the same size. Commission asked if an in-lieu parking fee can be paid for the required spaces. CA Anderson noted that the in-lieu parking fee is only for retail uses, and has to be offered by the applicant. Mr. Cronander noted that existing mezzanine does not work for this tenant and is not up to code, they are trying to bring it up to code, not making it bigger, not sure how staff calculated parking. The mezzanine area will be used only by one person, the manager, and there may be another employee up there occasionally during interviews or meetings, but all of the accounting is done off-site. The mezzanine will not add to traffic congestion. Commission stated that they could not find a hardship on the property to grant the variance. Applicant needs to look at creative ways to eliminate this variance or come up with an in-lieu parking fee. The variances for parking downtown accumulate over time, and we don’t want to add to our existing 160 parking space shortage and impact downtown. Commission asked if the applicant has a design materials board? Mr. Cronander passed up the materials board submitted for this project. Commissioner asked if the size of the letters shown on the materials board is the real sign size? Applicant said he would clarify that point. CP Monroe noted that sign permits are not included in this application. A separate sign permit application will be reviewed upon submittal. Commission clarified if there is one parking space dedicated for this restaurant use on-site? The business owner, explained that he has an agreement with the building owner as part of his lease that he will have the use of one parking space. The property owner confirmed that there is one parking space that can be used by this business. Commission asked if the space is for sole use by this business? Property owner noted that there are seven tenants that use the area. CA City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 14 Anderson noted that staff will clarify the status of the parking issue with the property owner and the business owner before this item returns to the Planning Commission. Caroline Serrato, 8 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame, is a new resident, recently moved from San Francisco. Used to live in Glen Park where Mr. Campos had another restaurant she went to often. Encourages Commission to approve, he has nice facilities, clean, well run with fresh healthy reasonably priced food. Mr. Campos hired local people to work at his restaurant and was an asset to the community, donated to neighborhood groups and became active in the community. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Need to clarify parking requirement, is there a parking space dedicated for this restaurant only on- site, need to show on plan; • Concerned with hardship for parking variance, should submit findings; • Consider reducing size of mezzanine to reduce the parking variance to less than 1.5. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made, and plan checked, and the parking status has been discussed with the property owner and the business operator. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: parking impact will be the restaurant not the mezzanine, but need to make sure that there is a parking space assigned specifically to this tenant, project is tastefully done, think that suggesting an in-lieu parking fee for a restaurant is tough considering how tough the restaurant business is; need mitigation for the parking, no hardship to justify the variance; if one space can be dedicated for this tenant and the remainder of the parking demand is less than .5 may be able to consider impact to be de-minimus. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and the parking issue is clarified and addressed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 16, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 16, 2005. The AutoRow Omnibus Zoning Amendment was adopted and will become effective July 6, 2005. The continued public hearing for 1524 Vancouver Avenue was also on May 16, 2005. The project was approved by City Council 5-0. The colonial style was retained but was changed to stucco with wood windows and flower boxes were added at the front. The front wall of the house was moved back 4 feet on the lot, and the porch was made 1 foot deeper. There was discussion about lowering the site 18” however there is a protected oak tree on the neighboring property that would be damaged so this could not be done, however tree protection measures were added. The Bayfront Zoning for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas was introduced to City Council, and the second reading will be June 20, 2005. The City Council cancelled their meeting of July 18, 2005 and are considering canceling their August 15, 2005 meeting as well. This will be determined at a later date. The massage regulations and adult oriented business regulations were also cleaned up. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 15 - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 2112 Easton Drive. Chair Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project and would abstain form discussion. CP Monroe reviewed requested change to remove the shower window of the master bathroom on the second floor and noted that is being done because of a request by the structural engineer to increase the shear wall area. There were no other changes requested. The Planning Commission had no comments on the requested changes. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1224 Cabrillo Avenue. CP Monroe introduced the FYI noting that after this item was continued from the May 23, 2005, meeting; staff discovered that the plans presented as "as built" on May 23, 2005 did not represent the project as it is presently built in the field. Before the commission tonight are plans for each elevation of the house which accurately represent what is now built in the field and the changes which are possible to do to make the exterior of the as built house look as much as possible like the originally approved design. Also at your desks this evening is a letter received today, June 13,2005, from the developer making it clear that his request is to leave the house as currently built. Commissioners expressed dismay at the amount of staff and commission time which had been "burned" on this project just because the developer did not follow the plans as approved by the Commission. Commissioners noted that the conditions of approval represent a contract between the city and the developer, and he has violated this agreement. The commission approved the original project and this should be rebuilt to get the original, this house looks unfinished as it stands. Enjoy going around town and looking at houses which have benefited from design review; I will not be proud of this one. Burlingame has been very good to contractors, and situations like this cause the processes to become much less friendly. It would only have taken 10 days to get this reviewed during construction, so the review time was not an issue. Applicant came to commission a few weeks ago, we did a site visit, then delayed a few more weeks; did this applicant do things the right way? No. If he does anything in the city in the future, he will do it correctly, think front elevation is OK, there is less roof to look at. Commissioner asked CA what their choice of action was now: he noted if design as built is OK can accept; could look at changes proposed and select among those to have developer add; could put this over to a public hearing and have it noticed to the neighbors and do new design review; or could direct applicant to go back and build the house as it was approved. Discussion on the correction: ƒ Feel that as built the house has an odd trellis device that is not blended into the deign with awnings or vines; ƒ this is like the shutters that don't fit the window, a new idea that doesn't work; ƒ the original was a nicer design than anything shown to us so far; ƒ don't think it’s the Planning Commission's job to fix this problem so the applicant can make more profit from this project; ƒ question the trim on the windows at the front of the house, other windows have no trim at all, should be consistent; ƒ question is would we approve the house as built, is it consistent with the design guidelines? ƒ Trellis feature is odd; ƒ the open trellis/unroofed beams look like a sore thumb on this building; looks unfinished at least should be roofed. Direction: should send this project to a design reviewer who can make a recommendation to the Commission on what should be done to make this design consistent and acceptable in accord with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 16 design guidelines; item should be put on consent calendar when the design reviewer has made his recommendations and plans are submitted which accurately reflect the design reviewer's recommendations. C. Vistica made a motion to send this item to a design reviewer and have it return to the consent calendar when accurate plans reflecting the recommendations of the design reviewer have been submitted and checked, and when there is space on the Commission's agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran dissenting) voice vote. Staff also asked Commission about how to deal with occupancy of a project when all construction requirements for health and safety are met but the architectural features have not been completed as approved. Commission's consensus was that in the future for new construction occupancy (all utilities connected and people moving in) should not be allowed until all the architectural features have been installed. Commission noted that this is more di fficult when the house is a remodel and the occupants never moved out. A standard condition should be added to all future substantial/new construction projects requiring that no occupancy shall be allowed until all the architectural features are in place and have been inspected by the Planning Department. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1544 Los Montes Drive. CP Monroe reviewed the requested change to increase the roof deck area above the lower floor addition by 2’5” increasing the size from 90 SF to 120 SF, with no change to the footprint of the floor below. The change results in an portion of the roof becoming flat to accommodate the deck. The Planning Commission had no comments on the requested changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary