Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062705PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 27, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the June 27, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 13, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with recommended edits and the June 13, 2005 Joint Meeting were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERNIE SELANDER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1B. 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 1C. 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 27, 2005 2 1D. 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 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. CP Monroe commented that she did not wish to call item 1c off the consent calendar; however , in implementing Commission's study direction on 1480 Vancouver Avenue, Lot 39, Condition No. 4 should be replaced with the following: "that since a tree removal permit for the forty-six inch Cedar (Deodar) tree at the rear of Lot 39 has been denied, the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared detailing tree protection measures to be implemented before, during and after construction to be approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be installed prior to issuance of a demolition permit; and that the landscape plan shall be revised to relocate the concrete patio away from the root zone of the tree to a location approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit". C. Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of 1480 Vancouver so would recuse herself from that vote. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from 1229 Paloma because he lives within 500 feet. C. Auran noted that he would recuse himself from 1353 Vancouver because he lives within 500 feet and from 1480 Vancouver because of a business relationship. C. Brownrigg noted that he had received information from a neighbor at 1316 Paloma and that he would abstain from the action on 1480 Vancouver. Chair Auran called for a motion to approve the consent calendar. C. Osterling moved to approve the consent calendar. C. Cauchi seconded the motion. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the consent calendar, noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and findings in the staff reports with the recommended conditions as amended by the City Planner. The project at 1353 Vancouver Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) voice vote. The project at 1316 Paloma Avenue passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The project at 1480 Vancouver passed with amended Condition No. 4 on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining; Cers. Auran and Keighran recused) voice vote. The project at 1229 Paloma Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2a. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR ONE SPACE ONSITE AND TO BACK INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO COMBINE TWO TENANT SPACES FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOEL CAMPOS, APPLICANT; MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Vistica noted that he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the property owner. He left the dais and Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 27, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 3 reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that this item was moved from the consent to the action calendar because the revisions following the design review study added a variance not considered at the study meeting. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: the Chief Building Official refers to the new area being built as a second floor, the staff report calls it a mezzanine, is there a difference? CP noted that they are the same. Is there a legal definition of "de minimus" when it comes to parking spaces? CA commented "de minimus" in reference to parking can be defined in the code, in our case it is not, so a finding of hardship on the property must be made if the commission is to determine that there is no impact. Where is the second exit and why did the original two restaurants not have second exits. CP noted that each of the two original restaurants was too small to require a second exit. The proposed restaurant is bigger, and the second exit requirement is met by putting two separated accesses on to Burlingame Avenue. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Cronander, architect, represented the project. For exiting, based on size, an occupancy of fewer than 50 people does not need two exits (15 SF per person in the seating area); most buildings have an alley or street behind and second exit goes to that, since there is no public right-of-way at the rear had to build a fire resistant corridor within the first floor which took a lot of space; need storage area so relocated the mezzanine area; did best to get the mezzanine under the requirement for two parking spaces, computer calculates differently than staff scaling by hand, can reduce it further to make the parking requirement under one (0.97), but would like to have the space proposed. Commission asked if the 4'x12' area shown for storage was really usable. CP asked how much space was removed from the mezzanine proposed at study? Architect noted about 30 SF. Commissioner noted that if removed the 48 SF (4' x 12' area) could reduce the parking impact to one space, eliminating the second parking space and the required variance for the second space. Commissioner asked who would use the parking space at the rear and how frequently. Architect noted the restaurant owner would use it once a day and when it was not occupied, it would be used for deliveries. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Okay to back on to Hatch Lane, in this case it is an alley with little traffic, so it is reasonably safe without much impact on pedestrians or the use of the public right-of-way; feel that the 48 SF storage area should be removed which would eliminate the need for the second parking space on-site and reduced the required variances. C. Brownrigg moved by resolution that with the removal of the 48 SF (4' x 12' storage area) the additional on-site parking requirement is met by the one space provided, and there is a clear hardship on the site for backing on to the Hatch Lane alley which provides the only access to the rear of the buildings, which is not heavily traveled so it is relatively safe and the Lane is sparsely used by pedestrians, so it will not affect their safety; like the patio area and aesthetics of the proposed design and it will contribute to Burlingame Avenue's pedestrian orientation; with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15, 2005, site plan, floor plan and elevations with 208 SF of outdoor patio seating; and shall adhere to the color and material sample of the exterior materials of the building as shown on the materials board date stamped March 25, 2005; any changes to the colors or materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2) that the full service food establishment, with 623 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3) that the 623 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 4 extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 9) that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time; 10) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 11) 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; 12) that deliveries to businesses located on this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane, except BFI; 13) that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to the sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28, 2005, and shall be located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15, 2005; 14) that one on-site parking space 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on the south east corner of the property, and shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food establishment at 1123 Burlingame Avenue; the parking space shall remain free and clear of any trash cans, recycling bins or other storage materials or debris; 15) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist and Fire Marshal’s May 26, 2005, memos shall be met; and 16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project, including all the comments made by the commissioners in support of the action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 2. 9 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK STOKLOSA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CAROLINE LEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (25 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 27, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner complemented the applicant for asking for these changes before they had been added in the field. There were no other questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Stoklosa, architect, 480 St. Johns Street, Pleasanton, represented the project. He noted that there was an inconsistency on the main floor where two windows shown on the elevation were not included on the floor plan, they were on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 5 sides of the "pop out" in the dinning room. Commissioner asked about the large, dramatic window over the entrance, feels like there is an opportunity to do more with this glass area in the design by changing its shape. Architect noted this was conceived as a modern house, trying to maintain that style, owner wanted a more spacious entry, the two windows on either side of the door do not allow in enough light. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that she appreciated the applicant coming forward with these changes before they were built, agree with commissioner that the front elevation could be improved with a more interesting design for the window but the proposed window is consistent with the whole house, move approval by resolution with the changes shown and the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 23, 2005 sheets A-302 through A-501, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 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 prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that 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; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Fire Marshal’s and memos dated November 3, 2003 shall be met; 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. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 1546 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD SUPPLEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 6 Reference staff report June 27, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Edward Supplee, 301 22nd Avenue, San Mateo, represented the project. Applicant noted that the larger dormer was currently framed. Commission asked if all the skylights were tinted? Applicant noted yes. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made motion by resolution to approve the project as proposed, noting that the changes done supported the design, with the following conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9, 2005, sheets A-1 through A-8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that a tree (minimum 24-inch box size) which will grow to a substantial enough size to screen the second story addition shall be chosen from the City's tree list and shall be planted in the front yard between the front door and the driveway near the stepping stones; 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 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; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's June 10, 2005, memos, and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's June 13, 2005, memos, shall be met; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the proposed changes to the design for this project. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1548 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WILLIAM AND SANDRA LINDSELL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 7 SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. She noted that this project was approved by the Commission in 1999, but that approval has expired. These are the same plans with revisions for current submittal requirements. Commissioners asked CA in this case the drawings were prepared by another designer and now submitted by someone not tied to the original project. CA commented should have the applicant submit a sign off by the original designer and civil engineer. Concerned about the engineer sign off because of his insurance and liability. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 918 Grant Place, San Mateo, noted that his involvement was just to process the application, the owner's relationship with the original designer did not work out, he drew items now required including the existing elevations; might be hard to get a letter from the former designer but the applicants have a contract which they believe entitles them to ownership of the plans; the engineer's stamp on the plans has expired, so once the project is approved will go back to the engineer before applying for a building permit. There were no questions of the applicant and no additional comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioner discussion: would like to see a landscape plan which includes large trees and large shrubs, both are lacking on this site. Does Commission need a document assigning these plans to the current architect. CA noted the city's main concern is the engineer, the copyright issue on the plans is between the owner and the previous designer, if the commission wishes, they could ask to see the excerpt from the contract regarding assignment. Feel that the names of the previous designer and the engineer's stamp should be removed from these plans before they are submitted for action; tried to call designer but do not know where he is currently. CA noted that if previous designer's names are on the plans then copies should not be given over without his permission. These plans are designer's property, uncertain about removing his name. Also concerned about the 9'-4" height of the second story plate line. C. Deal moved to put this item on the consent calendar with the conditions in the staff report and the addition of a landscape plan showing the addition of substantial vegetation, trees and shrubs, as well as consent to use the previous designer's plans. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: CA noted should make a submittal which satisfies requirements. Commissioner noted that the issues of ownership of the plans and engineering approval needs to be addressed before this is returned to the commission. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when use of the plans has been clarified by the designer and engineer and a landscape plan has been prepared and reviewed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 150 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD BOYD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BAY AREA DESIGN, DESIGNER) (24 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 8 SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if this property is in the hillside area. Staff noted that the area across Skyline Drive is excluded from the boundaries of the area in which Hillside Area Construction Permits are required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Richard Boyd, applicant and property owner, 148 and 150 Loma Vista Drive, was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the addition over the center of the house feels tall, please explain. The applicant noted that the ceiling height in the existing first floor living room is 10' tall, so the second floor appears taller, the proposed plate height for the second floor is 8 feet. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • There are inconsistencies in the drawings that need to be corrected: the bay window which appears on the front elevation should also be shown on the side elevation; • the architectural details on the ground floor should be carried through to the second floor addition, should be consistent returns at the bottom of the gable on the roof; rafter tails should be shown throughout; and • although the second floor addition looks tall, understand that you are working with an existing 10 foot ceiling height on the first floor; wonder if there are any architectural details that could be added to soften the height and mass. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. 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 8:10 p.m. 6. 1309 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT JONES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Una Kinsella, project architect, 1484 Guerrero Street, San Francisco, was available to respond to comments. Commissioners made the following comments: The first floor has a nice feel, but there are a lot of details missing on the drawings, need to show the rafter tie and knee brace details; continuing the long sloping roof over the addition is out of character with the house, also needs something to pick up the detailing from the original front façade; concern with prominence of the second story wall at the back, it almost makes the existing situation worse, like to see a break in the plane between the existing and proposed second story wall, maybe something to create difference in the wall plane; notice that the design options are constrained by the existing staircase as well, looking to lessen the solid wall across the property; think it is a great project, nice design, believe in large back yards, the addition is set back substantially; suggest that a window could be added to the stairwell to break up the long expanse. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 9 Commissioner comment continued: The existing second floor is difficult, appreciate that the garage is being moved up and integrated into the existing house, addition is fine; think need something other than continuing the "ski slope" roof line on the side, should look at perpendicular gable, even if it penetrated the declining height envelope, if it improved the architectural character it could be supported; this addition is 63 feet back from the street, don't think it will be nearly as visible as it appears in the drawings, architect has done an excellent job, copying the elements of the existing house; while from the rear you can see the issue of the long sloping roof, for the neighbor, this option does minimize the height, while it is not ideal, it is better for the neighbor, gabling it out perpendicular to the existing roof would not be as good a solution. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments in conclusion note that the plans should be revised to include: • Add details of existing rafter ties and knee braces, follow through detail on addition; and • Add window to stairwell to break up the mass of the wall. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-2 (Cers. Deal and Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. 2517 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KERRY BITNER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the owner and recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jim Taschetta, applicant was available to respond to questions. Commissioners asked about the deck on the second floor, generally second floor decks are discouraged because of the impact on adjacent neighbors, explain why this is there, is there a way it can that it can be relocated or screened. The applicant noted that the proposed deck is narrow, don't intend to use it as a place to congregate, just want the opportunity to open the doors for air. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: noted that this is a modest and good addition, the variance is modest, the extension of the first floor wall will not impact neighbors and the hardship on the property is the pie-shaped lot; would like to see the width of the balcony decreased by two feet to respect neighbor's privacy. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revision has been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 10 • The width of the second floor deck should be reduced from six feet by at least two feet. Chair Auran called for a voice 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 8:35 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat. 8. 132 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEHL DESIGN/BUILD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ELOISE MADSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mahmood Pourzand, project designer, GEHL Design, 127 Arlington, Kensington, and Eloise Madsen, property owner, were available to answer questions. Commissioners expressed concern with the second floor deck and asked if they had considered screening options so that the deck would not impact the neighbor. The applicant noted that she had spoken to the neighbor, and that they agreed to add a lattice screen to lessen the impact. Commissioners had the following comments on the project: • Would like to see a landscape screen to lessen the impact of the second floor windows; • Concerned about the coordination of the new roof slope with the existing, the new roof slopes are trying to replicate the existing gable, however the slope on the new roof is flatter than the existing, would look better if the new roof was the same slope as the main first floor gable at the front; • Concern with the exposed piece between the two roof elements at the front, need to integrate that attic access into the roof; • On the north elevation, not happy with the dormer, should try to match the existing gable end; and • Need to see a landscape plan with emphasis on taller elements in the rear area where the deck will be located, looking for taller landscape elements at the front of the house as well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioners noted that this is a great start, the design review process will streamline and resolve issues with the design. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. 9. 216 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOELLE AND NEAL City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 11 KAUFMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, designer, 405 Bayswater, represented the project. Commissioners asked: is the side setback exception on the left side a continuation of an existing condition? Yes, moved the garage forward 6'-9" in order to add a laundry room at the rear. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. The commissioners commented on the design of the project: • the dormers on the north elevation are proportionately small, would be better if they were made larger; • second floor plate at rear is 9'6", will make roof tall so will see from front also adds more mass to front and rear than is needed, lower plate to 8'-1"; height and mass are an issue, the second floor that tall results in mass, should lower the plate on the second floor to 8'-1". • the front roof should be the primary roof and the rear a secondary, lower less prominent roof. • problem with the shutters, on A-5 rear elevation have window with one shutter and door with one shutter, remove shutters or put shutters on both sides, same with master bedroom windows; • style of shutters varies, some have two bolts through others three bolts, bolts visually dominant, provide an enlarged detail of the shutter and make them consistent, and more proportional to window they are covering; do not need shutters at all windows. • provide an arborist's report for the protection of the fig tree in the neighbor's side yard next to where the garage is being moved forward, install required protection measures during construction; • revise landscape plan, have sizeable changes in elevation of the house, add tall trees and shrubs to screen and provide a visual setback for the neighbors. C. Osterling moved to place this project on the consent calendar with the changes noted including the landscaping including the tree protection plan, address the shutters, lower the second floor plate at the rear to 8'-1". The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to put this project on the consent calendar after all the issues have been addressed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 20, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 20, 2005, noting that the Council approved the new zoning district regulations for the Shoreline district and amendments to the Unclassified zoning district, reintroduced the regulations for the Inner Bayshore area to consider adding light industrial and manufacturing uses to the Bayshore overlay area and introduced amendments to the zoning district map for the Bayshore area. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 12 The two introduced items will be acted on at the July 5, 2005 meeting. Also introduced the amendment to the Broadway food establishment regulations, set for action July 5, 2005. Directed staff to bring the issue of real estate uses in the Broadway area back to commission for discussion. - FYI: Processing – Consent Calendar Items. CP noted that because of the on going volume of applications and the problems for architects and staff providing quality plans and responses in a 24 hour period following design review, staff will no longer be placing consent items on the next action calendar. This will increase the review time by two weeks, but should result in better quality submittals and more accurate noticing and decisions. - FYI: Changes to R-1 Zoning Requirements. Chair Auran asked that the commissioners identify items where the R-1 zoning regulations and design guidelines overlap, and call them to staff's attention with the goal of simplifying requirements. Toward the end of the year, commission will begin review and update of the R-1 zoning district regulations. - Parking Study Update. CP noted that she included in the packet a copy for each commissioner of the most recent update of the downtown parking study. This study documents the effect of the pricing gradient being used to move the merchants and employees out of the highest demand parking downtown; and identifies the current parking shortages by "quadrant" within the downtown area. - Upcoming League of California Cities meeting in San Francisco (October). The materials for the League of California state wide meeting to be held in San Francisco in October was included in the packet. This meeting is interesting because it has both a planners track and includes all the other department tracks, so provides opportunity for a broader education. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary