Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071105PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 11, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the July 11, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, and Vistica (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 27, 2005, meeting were amended to correct a typo in vote on item 7, 2517 Poppy Drive, second to last line, "The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstained)"; and the minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway BID, spoke in support of allowing real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area as conditional uses, noting that the BID supports this change. Celia Ju, 140 El Camino Real, Millbrae represented the property owner at 1549 Alturas Dr, read letter in opposition to the proposed project at 1556 Los Montes. Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way, representing a property owner at 1313 Balboa, wished to call 1309 Balboa off the consent calendar. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, noted he was asked by the Davis Drive residents to speak regarding the commission's action on the mitigation program for the hospital project, noted that there was no input by the affected neighbors on the individual mitigation program before it came to the Planning Commission, have been told it was the applicant's responsibility to notify the neighbors, the neighbors should have been informed, now can sign up for the city's list serve or contact Planning staff; for the mitigation monitoring panel applicant should notice wide area which would be impacted by noise, pollution or traffic, do not want further misunderstanding. (C. Vistica arrived 7:15 p.m.) Terry Hubner, 1708 Davis Drive, June 13, Commission passed the individual mitigation fund, the public was not notified, do not feel that enough funds have been set aside, Commissioner noted at hearing that no neighbors were present, that was because we were not notified, condition 118 (the mitigation monitoring panel) should be done before anything more is placed on the agenda regarding Mills Peninsula Hospital. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, attending City Council meeting about a month ago for two planning appeals, there is a lot of construction on her block of Balboa, have completed a survey of most of the property owners on the block (24), in the past 10 years there have been 5 new houses built and 7 major remodels on this block alone, constant construction City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 2 and a change to the streetscape, request that the entire block be given an opportunity to weigh in on every project which might affect this block, entire block should be noticed 2 weeks before any action, notice should specify time when resident may review a project at the Planning Department, opposed to speculators reshaping our neighborhood without regard for the existing residents. Commissioner noted might look into the idea of placing a plaque with an image of the proposed house and the date of the Planning Commission on the front lawn. Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa, completed Giorni's comments, noting that renters damage the block, since houses rented while waiting to go through the planning review process. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AMEND ZONING FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ZONED C-1 WITH BROADWAY OVERLAY REGULATIONS – CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the 7.11.05 staff report. She reviewed the options for regulation of real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area, the history of recent zoning changes requested in the area, and the direction of the General Plan regarding this neighborhood shopping area. Commissioners asked: Is it possible to limit this use by block? Staff noted that it was, but it was difficult of enforce. Current real estate offices do both property management (rental) as well as sales, this combination is more commercial area friendly; current offices are small in terms of square footage and number of employees (4-5 at one location). How many real estate offices remain in the Broadway area? Two, AVR on the first floor and Walter Reiner on the second floor. Real estate use would require on-site parking, since there is only one building which has on-site parking , would all real estate offices require a parking variance? Staff noted that it would depend upon the previous use of the site. Concerned with a real estate use which has a lot of agents, think 20 on the site too many for the Broadway area, might work if could limit the number of agents/employees and the square footage, with a conditional use permit the commission could review each business for fit. Do not favor changing the code for a specific individual. Would prefer strict performance criteria, allow no exceptions and have real estate uses a permitted use to moderate Planning Department's work load. Parking matters and this will have an impact. Would like the BID to propose the maximum number, do San Carlos, San Mateo and Millbrae allow real estate offices in their downtown areas? Will the rents paid by real estate offices increase the rental rates for other uses in the area? Real estate uses do not contribute to the city's sales tax revenue, can we calculate what the lose of the retail square footage would mean? Would like to know the square footage in the two real estate offices on Broadway AVR and Town and Country (before it recently left). These two offices are small, independents, and good models to determine the number of desks, conference room, and number of agents. When a property sells the city's property taxes increase, so some revenue is gained. Would like to know how the business of AVR and Town and Country was divided among property management and property sales. Two years ago the Planning Commission debated this issue and decided not to allow real estate offices in the Broadway commercial area. What has changed? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 3 There seemed to be consensus that, if allow real estate uses on Broadway they should be: • Limited in terms of square footage; • Limited number of desks; • Limited in terms of number of people employed at the site; • Should require property management as well as real estate sales activities on the site; and • Should be a conditional use. Staff noted that they would work on collecting the information requested as well as drafting proposed regulation for the Commission to review. Given the work requested there is not time to get this back to the next meeting. Depending on the choices from the research, this may come back for study one more time before it is ready for public hearing. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Auran noted that there was a request during From the Floor to move the one item on the consent calendar, item 2, 1309 Balboa Avenue, be moved to the regular action calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 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 Reference staff report 7.11.05, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella , 1484 Guerrero Street, San Francisco, architect represented the project; and Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way, represented neighbor Donald Lee. Architect noted that she would answer questions. Mr. Lee lives next door, concerned that the addition lines up with his house and is within 8 feet of his bedroom, concerned that it will lower the value of his house and of the neighborhood; will damage the visual character of the neighborhood, not opposed to the increase in size but opposed to the attached garage with the second story over it at the location chosen. The architect responded that there was one issue at the design review study, realized that the house was adjacent, but did not realize that the area over the garage was next to the bedroom, are installing strip windows to maximize the neighbors privacy, the wall of the second floor is low, 14'-2" above grade and the windows are placed as high in the wall as can be, worked to avoid having the windows line up. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that felt that addition was not integrated into the structure before, agree that the windows are not large, unobtrusive and the head height is low, it is not good to have a big wall with no windows, problem is that the lot is 50 feet wide like many in the city and that has a big impact on the neighbors, but the design in this case has a minimal impact, so moved approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 4 June 8, 2005, sheets A-1 and A-4 and date stamped June 29, 2004, sheets A-2 and A-3, 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that 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’s April 28, 2005, memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshall’s and NPDES Coordinator's May 5, 2005, memos shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 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) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the property owner and recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff to clarify if the one foot second floor deck cantilever counts in FAR? Plr Hurin noted that the cantilever was counted in lot coverage, but not in FAR. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kerry Bitner, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions, noted that she submitted a letter with the revised plans explaining the changes, addition will not affect the neighbor's privacy to the left since addition and deck extend beyond the rear of the adjacent house and therefore will not be able to look into the neighbor's house; do not plan to be on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 5 second floor rear deck, the deck is more of an architectural element and makes the bedroom feel open into the rear yard; did not reduce the deck extension by two feet as requested by the Commission because the deck contains one foot posts which reduce the useable area, so six inches along with the posts reduces the useable area by 1'-6"; maintained the width of the deck to match the width of the bedroom, railing was kept to allow visibility into the rear yard, more concerned with privacy into her bedroom than with being able to look into neighbors' rear yard; noted that the neighbors have reviewed the plans and had no objection to the project. Commission asked why is the redwood tree being removed? Applicant noted that the redwood tree is very close to the existing foundation, the addition was set in two feet to work around the house, however the arborist report noted that the tree is healthy and vigorous and that in five to ten years it would have an impact on the tree, the tree had already raised the existing fence, would like to remove now to make the construction easier, will be installing a replacement tree as required by the City Arborist. Commission asked why couldn't the deck be reduced further since the applicant stated it would be not be used? Applicant noted that architecturally it would look strange to have a first floor roof projecting out below the deck. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission noted that the lot slopes downward from the street, neighbor to rear called water now draining to the easement and into his yard, asked the Asst Dir DPW/CE Syed Murtuza to clarify site drainage requirements for this project. Asst Dir DPW/CE noted that when improvements are proposed on a site, all water is then required to be directed to the street, in this case it will have to be pumped from the rear of the lot out to the street. Feel that the one foot deck cantilever adds articulation to the house, useable space is only 4'-8", nice to be able to leave the door open for ventilation. Do not agree with the deck size as proposed, applicant can get what they want with the deck reduced, the deck will be less likely to be used if it is made smaller, not a big deal if there is no overhang; disappointed with the redwood tree being removed to make the addition easier, could have designed the addition at the rear around the tree, question the layout of the design. Commission pointed out that the arborist report indicates that the existing tree is young and vigorous and that in 10 years will damage this and the neighboring property; the existing tree would screen the blank wall; there is no reason why the second floor deck couldn't be pushed back to line up with the first floor wall at the rear of the house, would like to see project come back on a consent calendar with this minor change to the deck. Commission noted that originally asked deck to be pushed back by two feet, suggest taking action on the project with an added condition that the second floor deck be pushed back to the line up with the first floor wall below. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 13, 2005, sheets 1-5, and date stamped June 28, 2005, sheets 6-8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit and that the outer edge of the second floor deck on the South Elevation of the house shall line up with the first floor wall below; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 6 been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 7, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's April 8, 2005, memos, the NPDES Coordinator's April 11, 2005, memo, and the Recycling Specialist's April 15, 2005, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 3-1-1-2 (C. Vistica dissenting; C. Deal abstaining; Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 4. 1609 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FORBAIT LLC, TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commissioners. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Roberston, designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the design improved greatly, asked the designer to explain why a gable end was used on the North Elevation rather than a hip roof; designer noted that a gable end was used to match the first floor gable end on the other side of the house. Commission asked if the garage door could be dressed up to improve its appearance? Designer noted that a high quality carriage house door will be used for the garage, will look better than what is represented on the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the project improved tremendously, this is a great example of the design review process working and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 13, 2005 sheets 1 through 6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations including the revisions suggested by the design reviewer and that a high-end carriage house style door shall be used for the attached garage; 2) that should the dwelling structure this lot ever be demolished for any reason, the variance granted for this remodel shall be voided; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 7 Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal’s memos dated March 28, 2005 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) 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; 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. Vistica Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (144 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report July 12, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. Plr noted that there was a letter at the commissioner's desks from the Flora Manor Homeowners Association, next to the project. There were no questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Ed Stevens, Cashin Company, 1412 Chapin, represented the project. The architect presented a rendering of the front elevation showing the redesigned forth floor, reviewed the changes since the last hearing including redesign of the exterior, change in unit sizes, made interior of affordable unit more user friendly. Commissioners noted: better with the forth floor pushed back, affordable unit still small in comparison to oversized market rate units; would prefer more units on this site. Applicant noted that market study determined that there was a large demand for larger units for people down-sizing in the surrounding communities, there are other condominiums in the area with large units, there are waiting lists for people wanting these units; think these City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 8 proposed will market for $1.5 to 1.7 million, two at 1520 Floribunda a little smaller (2,250 SF and 2,300 SF) have recently resold at $1.35 million and $1.295 million. Affordable unit intended for a single person or couple without children, first time buyer, unit is spacious for single or couple. Could the height of the elevator/stair penthouse be reduced? Applicant noted that the height was set by the head clearance required for the stair, could reduce some as long as the required head height is met. There appears to be a laundry area in all the units except the affordable unit. It is difficult to gain access from inside the building to the common open space, need a direct access from the elevators to the rear yard for any disabled tenants or they cannot use the common open space. The balconies, in many cases, are shallow, just enough to allow the French doors to open inward for ventilation; applicant noted that these balconies are part of the exterior design of the building , with protective railings to allow for ventilation and not counted in private open space calculations. See these units as basically the same size as we saw before, would like to see the affordable unit increased in size to provide housing for a young family; concerned about the landscaping, show large trees in planter boxes over the garage, prefer plantings in dirt, rear elevation has a strong vertical element need to break up between the balconies with tiles as you did at the front, plain stucco does not help appearance of mass and bulk; expressed concern about how big the plants in the 30 inch planters would really get, would they screen the mass of the building the way that the elms do on Primrose, applicant noted that he is relying on landscape architect to be sure that plants selected for planters will do well in the planters, made them slightly deeper (30 inches), CC & R's will address maintenance. Concerned about the trees shown on the rendering, appear to be on neighboring properties, but no space between the developments for the plants given the neighboring garage is below grade, need to add screening at appropriate scale at the entry, trees two stories tall, not going to happen in a planter; common outdoor space appears to be what is left over when place a rectangular building on a lot which is not a rectangle, master bedrooms and bathrooms face the common open space which will make it less attractive to users, should be accessible from inside the building not just from the public sidewalk at the front of the building. Comments from the public: Don Dolittle, 1520 Floribunda, representing the homeowners association; Karen Key, 1499 Oak Grove. Opposed to the project but the building is much more attractive than before; object to the over all height (other buildings are 35 feet); affordable housing is always sold to a relative of the developer; concerned if this building is approved it will be a defacto change, increase in density which will have a substantial cumulative impact; shadow study did not look at the early morning hours when the shadows are deeper; height has increased from 45'-3" to 53' for tower, why add the tower, it serves no function, easily removed; concerns expressed about common area are appropriate, have similar bedroom adjacency on one side of the common open space at their condominium, all owners are reluctant to use the side by the bedrooms. Clarify what applicant meant about parking at the rear. Applicant was referring to parking on adjacent property at the rear. Live on the other side of Floribunda, lot of trees at four story height next to unit which were trimmed, have light back now can grow flowers; concerned about renters parking cars in the front yard of this site while waiting for approval, also a lot of trash in front yard. Architect responded: shadows from this project will not extend to Oak Grove; tower height will only affect the right front corner, it is 15' by 20' and set back 17' from the property line, adds to the design of the building; timing for the shadow study was given by the Planning Department. How did you arrive at four story height choice? Options were three stories with a penthouse (3 ½ stories) or a fourth floor which took up half the area of the roof, height is the same; reduced the square footage of units on forth floor. How does this project compare to the one on Primrose across from City Hall? Primrose 8 dwellings, this 9; all the units on Primrose are the same size (2 per floor), the units in Floribunda vary in size from one, two and three bedrooms; Floribunda provides more guest parking than Primrose; Floribunda has more open space which is spread out because of the shape of the lot, Primrose most of the open space is at the front of the lot. Asked staff about how the incentives work with inclusionary zoning; staff noted that with tower no longer use City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 9 height exception incentive, need a height variance; height was the only incentive they used, entitled to use two. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: question the forth floor, understand not compelled to allow, but must with inclusionary unit, removing the fourth floor would make a dramatic change to the project; Burlingame is going to get more dense, have discussed in the past and been willing in other parts of the city, am comfortable with 35 feet here. Architect done a nice job designing four stories, would like to see more units in this project given its size, comments have to do with open space, it seems to be an after thought, they need to include amenities to draw people to the common open space, the bedrooms of the units on the first floor are too close to the common open space, landscape plans shows private patio with affordable unit but it is completely landscaped, think tower adds character to the design; only problem is open space. Not sure that this is the place for such a prominent four stories, Primrose has bigger buildings adjacent; open space is handled poorly, should not just be circulation around the building; the size of the building is over bearing on the site given its location; would like to know how the square footage compares to Primrose; impact on street at front is strong, all plants in planters will not screen, not comfortable with the project as it is, where will the fire department stand pipe be and gas meter locations these too will impact the front of the site. Feel that this architecture is an improvement, agree that open space is not enough and at a poor location; landscaping , given the planters and size limitation is not enough and not at the right scale, need to screen the building particularly at the front; am concerned about the fourth floor, Burlingame will be changing density in this area, want affordable housing, if use height incentive for forth floor, like to see scaled back, particularly given the size of the proposed dwelling units; tower is OK adds an architectural element, is nicely articulated; push the fourth floor back at the front to reduce the scale of the project. Commission comments continued: like the revised design, reduces the shadow impact; landscaping on Primrose helps but no trees that size present or possible here, need to find a way to add large scale plants; the affordable unit should have the same amenities such as a laundry room/area, utility room; community open space should be accessible from inside the building and should be disabled accessible. The design of the driveway directly from the street to below grade creates a dark hole at the front of the building, noted before and should be addressed now so not look directly into. Noted like the wood element on the fourth floor should be retained when push back at the front, add to other facades; the affordable unit needs to be compatible with the other units in the building needs to be two bedrooms; the elevator tower needs to be stepped down; need a streetscape elevation showing the buildings on either side and how the landscaping will work; add a condition that the fourth floor deck shall never be covered or enclosed for living area; and provide direct access from the lobby through the building to the common open space at the rear, present access is insufficient to make the common open space useable and accessible, requirements of the condominium guidelines. C. Vistica made a motion to deny this project without prejudice, taking no action on the Negative Declaration and denying the proposed map without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the condominium application without prejudice taking no action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and denying the proposed map without prejudice. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 10 6. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (BAY LANDING HOTEL, APPLICANT; WILLIAM SCHUPPEL & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; PIETRO PARTNERS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (7 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CA provided a history of the long term parking tax established in Burlingame; in 2001 City Council adopted a tax ordinance which taxes long term airport parking 5% of the gross daily rate with an exemption for hotels providing park and fly programs where a room rental is required in order to leave the car on site, did not want to see hotel parking lots become long term airport parking, but wanted to allow hotels to benefit. Commission asked if other hotels have applied for the park and fly program and specifically designated certain parking spaces for this program? CP noted that the other hotels indicated the spaces on a site plan to be used for the program, but did not post signage for security reasons. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Edward Barrack, applicant, 280 Brentwood Road, Hillsborough, representing Bay Landing Hotel, was available to answer questions. He noted that there is a concern with vandalism if the parking spaces for the park and fly program are posted with signage, they are proposing to use a color coded sticker to monitor vehicles in the program. Commission asked the applicant to verify that only five or six vehicles are currently associated with the park and fly program? Yes, but the hotel has been operating for only one year now, hotel occupancy is low now, now this program generates one to two vehicles per week, would like to see more people use the program in the future; not aware that DoubleTree Hotel's request for the park and fly program was 15% of their total parking spaces when submitted the application, cannot compare this independently operated hotel to a larger hotel chain like the DoubleTree Hotel, intent is not to sell long term airport parking, main business is to sell hotel rooms, requesting a maximum of 40 spaces for the program but can operate with 20, program is mainly marketed to package tours and airline maintenance crews, this hotel is really not suitable for airline crews since 24-hour room service is not available. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that a maximum of 20 vehicles is adequate to start the park and fly program at this hotel and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the park and fly program shall be allowed to operate at this hotel with a maximum of 20 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the hotel parking lot, and shall be monitored by the hotel using their PMS system as described in the application materials submitted to the Planning Department and as shown on the plans date stamped June 23, 2005; no vehicles associated with the park and fly program shall be parked on any part of the adjacent public or private parking lots or on the street; 2) that the hotel operation shall provide along with the quarterly transient occupancy tax report to the Burlingame Finance Department, the number of rooms rented with the park and fly package and the number of days each car was parked on the hotel site; only one car shall be parked on the site for each hotel room rented as a part of a park and fly promotion/package; 3) that any increase of the maximum 20 vehicles parked on site at one time because of the park and fly program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that the park and fly program shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in three years (March, 2008); if at that time the applicant would like to continue to offer the park & fly program from this hotel, an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required, if an extension is not required the park and fly program shall cease 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s August 10, 2000 memo and the Fire Marshal’s December 29, 1999 and July 24, 2000 memos shall be met; 6) that the project applicant shall obtain necessary permits and meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and C/CAG Congestion Management Plan land use component; 7) that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 11 project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time of project approval and any additional seismic requirements of the State Architect’s office; 8) Seismic-resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigations; 9) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 10) that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas devegetated due to construction prior to the wet season; 11) that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the building shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation to + 10 feet MSL as flood protection; 12) that water, sewer and utility lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections, as required by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department; 13) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for Surface Water Runoff and Storm Drain Maintenance; 14) that all on-site drainage inlets shall be equipped with a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the site; 15) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the adjacent bay will be minimal; 16) that the elevation of the first floor of the new hotel building shall have a minimum floor elevation of 10 feet above MSL, or one foot above possible flood level if a levee should break, whichever is greater; 17) that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided and maintained; backflow prevention for storm drainage to the Bay shall be provided; tidal gates shall be provided to prevent storm waves from flooding this site during a storm at high tide; 18) that a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan shall be provided together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 19) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times; 20) that no building materials or heavy equipment shall be stored on site in areas within 100 feet of the water or wildlife sanctuary; 21) that notification of asbestos handling to the BAAQMD shall be required before demolition; 22) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 23) that before construction begins the applicant shall require contractors to use construction equipment in compliance with the BAAQMD standards; 24) that the recommended improvement for the Bayshore Highway/Hinckley Road intersection is to add a second lane to the eastbound approach by removing on-street parking and restriping the east leg to include one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. The lane addition would provide sufficient room to allow vehicles to turn right while vehicles turning left or going through are present. PM peak-hour operations of the eastbound approach would improve to LOS D, an acceptable level, with the recommended lane configuration. The project applicant shall design and construct necessary intersection improvements to mitigate this impact; 25) that left-turns shall be restricted via posted signs (i.e., no right-turns) and a painted median island in the southern driveway installed by the developer. The developer shall be required to install a raised median island at a later date if the signs and painted median do not prevent the restricted turning movement; 26) that the applicant shall provide airport shuttle service for hotel guests. This shuttle service shall be made available to hotel employees to connect to Caltrain, BART and bus service at shift changes; 27) that the applicant shall be required to contribute their proportional share towards operation of the city’s freebee shuttle service which provides regular transportation service for employers and guests between this area, the city’s commercial centers and the transportation corridor on the west side of the freeway; 28) that no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to the removal of any trees or buildings, grading, or other construction activities (including pile driving) on the project site during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (February 1 to August 31), the applicant shall have a field survey conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests are present in the construction zone or within 150 feet of the construction zone. If the construction is proposed during the breeding and nesting City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 12 season, such surveys will be conducted at bi-weekly intervals during the months of April, May, and June. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be disturbed, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction within 150 feet shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged (typically 3-4 weeks for most small passerines), as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Nests located near existing haul roads shall not require a 150-foot buffer zone; 29) that if tree, building removal, or construction is conducted outside the breeding season, which would be from September 1 to January 31, no action is necessary. It is not necessary to replace potential nesting habitat of common birds occurring onsite because they are well adapted to nesting in developed areas; 30) that before demolishing the building, the project applicant shall undertake a survey for asbestos or other hazardous materials that could be present in the building. Any asbestos or other hazardous materials discovered shall be managed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and appropriate standards; 31) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction as stated in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035); 32) that notwithstanding the Burlingame Municipal Code requirements, no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 33) that the hotel shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms shall not exceed 45 dBA. The building noise insulation performance shall be as specified by Title 24,Part 2 of the California Code or Regulations (the California Building Code); 34) that the project applicant shall be required to perform flow monitoring of the sanitary sewer during wet weather season in consultation with the City Engineer. The results of the study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, if feasible (i.e., if the wet weather season falls before the applicant submits the application for building permit), prior to the issuance of building permit but no later than the occupancy permit. If the results show that the sanitary sewer does not have sufficient capacity to handle wet weather flows, the project applicant shall contribute their fair share towards the upgrade of the sanitary sewer pipeline; 35) that should any cultural, archeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated, and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented; all removal or restoration work shall be required to be supervised by qualified professionals approved by the City Planner; 36) that the City of Burlingame and BCDC shall approve public access improvement plans; the developer shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of all public access improvements for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the public for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard; and 37) that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: encourage applicant to request an amendment to the conditional use permit amendment if more than 20 spaces are needed; was struck to find that at this hotel 34% of guests arrive in their own vehicles and 55% arrive by shuttle from the airport. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 7. 1515, 1609 & 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 – APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1515-1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 5 (APN: 025-123-030 AND 025-123-120), MILLS ESTATE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION AND 1.24 AC MOL ON CORNER OF TROUSDALE DRIVE AND EL CAMINO REAL, ACREAGE (APN: 025-123-041) (21 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Asst Dir DPW/CE Syed Murtuza presented the staff report, explaining that this was the first of several maps required for the hospital project. The purpose of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 13 this map is to realign properties to create the new entrance at Magnolia and Trousdale. The action will be final with the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked: understand that the hospital project will be done in phases, would like to see the Mitigation Monitoring Panel, required in condition 118 put in place now so that people will be informed as issues related to the mitigations come to the Planning Commission in the future; would like to see the Mitigation Monitoring Panel in place before the next map relating to the merger of properties along El Camino Real comes before the Planning Commission. Not interested in delaying the project, neighbors need Mitigation Monitoring Panel before begin digging. CA noted letter from Steve Dambrosio asking the Commission to rehear the item on condition 119, and hold a hearing on July 25, to give neighbors an opportunity to respond. Commissioner felt that there was a lot of give and take in that program, hospital now needs to meet with each individual. CA noted that the hospital has not discussed this program with the individuals yet, Dambrosio notes some problems with the wording so that elements could be adjusted. There were no more questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt, project manager, represented the hospital project. Noted that this is a complex project to build, they are working their way through the mitigations, 118 is clear, they are working on Phase 1 now, Phase 2 is in two parts; 2A the water line relocation, don't know if city and San Francisco permits or just San Francisco; 2B is the garage, need to have 118 done by issuance of the permit for the garage in Phase 2B. Noted he would answer questions on the map. Commissioners asked: lot line map straight forward, regarding individual mitigation program assumed that you had broached the program with the neighbors, sense that if the money is not sufficient for, say dust impacts on these properties in the future, have ability to go back to hospital for remedy, not want to reopen that decision, is there a way to revisit if individuals need more money? When put numbers in the program, tried to be unbiased and budget neutral, can take money or have hospital do the work, same money if take it or not. Some items are known costs, fences for example, but some like dust there is no way to know, is dust remediation separate? Applicant noted included $500 for each of 19 properties for dust remediation over and above what required to do on construction site, dust was the hardest to estimate. Lack of input by neighbors is a problem, want to make sure neighbors in loop in the future. Applicant noted that they are in the process of trying to establish the Mitigation Monitoring Panel, will do as soon as possible. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment at 1515-1811 Trousdale Drive, Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 5, Mills Estate No. 3 Subdivision and 1.24 ac mol on the corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. Motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment at 1515 - 1811 Trousdale Drive. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent) voice vote. Commissioners comment: need to address public notice; hospital will be before the commission a number of times, how will dust control be addressed. CE noted that construction will have to abide by the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality District and NPDES. Commissioners disturbed that hospital did not discuss mitigation funding with neighbors before bringing it to Commission. Reviewed closely the numbers in the individual mitigation program given to the Commission, felt that they were reasonable, if not expect that the hospital will be cooperative and Commission can review the program. It was noted that Commissioners had not had time to read the letter from Dambrosio this evening, they understood that after reviewing it they could call the Chair and request that the mitigation funding program could be placed on the Commission's agenda in the future. CA noted that staff would report back to the Commission about the applicant's progress on the mitigation monitoring panel, the city should not be responsible by default which City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 14 is what appears to be happening at present. Commissioner noted that Commission agendas and minutes are posted on the city's list service which anyone with a computer can access, those without can contact the Planning Department for ways to arrange regular notice; in addition all future actions will also be noticed as legally required. Chair Auran gave the appeal procedures. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 8. 215 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 215 CHAPIN LANE, PM 05-01 (49 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Asst. Dir PW/CE Murtuza presented the report, for the merger of the two portions of this lot, into one lot. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot combination map merging portions of lots 4 and 5, block 10, Burlingame Park No. 2 Subdivision. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: The applicant is the Civil Engineer, his presence is not required since this is a technical matter required as a part of the Planning commission's earlier action on a project at this location. This process is different from the lot line adjustment before and must go to the City Council for final action. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the lot combination map at 215 Chapin Lane. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent) voice vote. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. 9. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN: 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE, PM 04-04 (42 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG C. Brownrigg noted he would abstain for personal reasons. He left the chambers. Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Asst. Dir. PW/CE Murtuza presented the report noting that this request is for a lot split. Commissioner commented: generally have a problem with lot splits because maintaining the diversity of lot size is important to the fabric of Burlingame, but each of these lots has street frontage, is very large, and will continue to contribute to the diversity of the city. Should be clear that approval of a lot split does not guarantee future approval of a variance. CE noted that future development of these lots could require substantial grading, so there are other issues as well. CA noted that there is no entitlement to develop on the sites given the areas shown on the map either. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Ward, represented the applicant. Noted two points this is a minor subdivision and the second phase of site planning and architectural design would need to return to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 15 commission. Noted that three neighbors on Vista Lane are in support, submitted petitions, will work with all neighbors. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. C. Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 818 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE GARRETT, PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Michael and Teresa Garrett, property owners and Matt Mefford, TRG Architects, architect, were available to answer questions. Architect noted that the project includes adding a master bedroom and bathroom above the existing attached garage at the rear of the house, no additional site coverage is proposed, in fact lot coverage will be reduced by 293 SF with the removal of the covered porch at the rear; and project has designed to be sensitive to the neighbor's privacy regarding the placement of the addition and windows. Commission asked if the applicant spoke to the adjacent neighbor about the proposed project? Yes, reviewed the plans with the adjacent neighbor to left which is closest to the addition, they have no objection to the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the architect has done a nice job with the design and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no further changes. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no further changes. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 11. 1312 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NANCY SCHEINHOLTZ, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SUZANNE ROGERS, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Nancy Scheinholtz, architect, 1024 Black Mountain Road, Hillsborough, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the proposed two-story bay window at the rear of the house could be made more interesting; there are a lot of windows proposed at the rear of the house, could additional landscaping be added at the rear of the lot to provide screening? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 16 Architect noted that there is an easement and existing mature landscaping at the rear of this property, cannot see the neighbor's house from this location. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the proposed design is well done, blends in well with the existing house, the bay window as proposed is acceptable and the parking variance is appropriate since the posts which limit the spaces in the garage are existing, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no further changes. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: would like to see a condition added that the parking variance applies only to this building envelope. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no changes. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 12. 21 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL AND RACHEL ZYGAREWICZ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID G. POLLARD, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Michael Zygarewicz, property owner, and David Pollard, designer, 847 Rose Avenue #1, Pleasanton, were available to answer questions. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Reduce height of the second floor plate to 8'-4" to match existing plate height on first floor; • Facade on the North Elevation is flat, needs more articulation, could add a bay window or other feature to break up this façade; • Provide detailed information regarding the window trim, window type, eaves and overall trim package; trim package and window style should be consistent throughout the house; suggest using traditional stucco mold around windows to match existing; • New windows should be true or simulated true, three-dimensional divided light wood windows to match existing; windows need to have the mullions on the interior and exterior of the window to provide depth; • Strongly encourage applicant to consider keeping the curved mullion element on the existing first and second floor windows at the front of the house; it would be a shame to lose this unique element; • Verify that all windows comply with egress requirements and correct plans, some window openings appear to be too small; • Concerned with the appearance of the extended chimney, may not be possible, extension may not be required if using a gas insert, verify with the building department. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that there are several items to be addressed on the plans and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 17 Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. 13. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YOUNG AND BORLIK, ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the proposed project will make the existing house look better and that they understand the difficulty with improving this house in its current condition. Commission expressed a concern about the comment submitted by a neighbor regarding employees of the applicants' construction business being dispersed from this site; CA noted that a condition can be added for the action meeting to prohibit dispersing of employees from this site and to prohibit construction material staging for other construction projects at this site. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the size of the chimneys, they are too large, reduce size of chimneys and incorporate them better into the design of the house, cantilevered chimneys look odd; if a gas insert is proposed chimneys do not need to be this large; • Show details of proposed window trim and window style, should be consistent throughout house; • Window treatment on the south elevation lacks coordination, for example there is a large horizontal rectangular window proposed and all others are more vertical; • Window trim on front elevation appears to be thicker than window trim on the side and rear elevations, window trim and window style needs to be consistent throughout the house; • Clarify mullions on first floor window located on the front elevation at the right side of the house, what do the white lines represent, this may be an error on the plans, not consistent with other windows; • Greenhouse window in kitchen needs to be integrated better into the design, do not want to see a metal pre-fab greenhouse window tacked on to the side of the house; • Balcony, pedestrian gate and driveway gate proposed to be iron, there is too much iron proposed at the front of the house, consider reducing the amount of iron work proposed at the front, possible eliminate the front gate; considered a different treatment for the second floor deck at the front of the house; • Concerned with placement of gate on stairs, please verify compliance with the building code, location of gates varies on plans, please clarify locations on site plan; • Concerned with the wall sconces proposed on the second floor on the front elevation, light should be directed downward, do not want to see wall or facade floodlit; • Staircase at the rear of the house requires pickets along railing, please show on plans; • Consider incorporating a solid railing design for the proposed second floor deck at the rear of the house, this deck is located at the interior of the lot off the family room, but the solid railing would help to block the view of the deck by the neighbors; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 18 • Would like to see large scale, evergreen plant materials/trees at the rear of the lot; also would like to see landscaping to the north of the deck at the rear to provide screening for the neighbors at 1143 Bernal Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that several changes were suggested which will require a fair amount of coordination throughout the design and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on motion: feel that most of the comments can be addressed by the architect, not asking them to make significant design changes, neighbors would like to see this project completed quickly, feel that changes can be made without a design review consultant. Concensus was that going to a design reviewer should not take much longer than the applicant making revisions and corrections with staff. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. 14. 1556 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JONATHAN SUE, SUE ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHEUNG TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Chair Auran noted that he received a call from Mr. Richard Wang, brother of Ms. Diana Wang, homeowner at 1549 Alturas Drive, objecting to the project noting that privacy in his sisters bathroom will be affected by the proposed addition; also stated that he would sue the City if the project is approved. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jonathan and Ed Sue, Sue Associates, 500 E. 8th Street, Oakland, architects, Mee and Richard Cheung, property owners, were available to answer questions, architect provided a cross-section showing the house below the project and the house above, feel there will be no loss of privacy for the neighbor below, reduced the slope of the roof at the addition to keep the roof ridge height the same as existing, reduced the plate height to match existing; pointed out that there were two fences, one on each side, located along the easement at the rear of the property, neighbor to the rear (below) removed the fencing on her side to incorporate the easement into her property, existing fence had acted as a privacy screen. Commission asked if the existing chimney will remain, it is not shown on the plans. Architect noted that the existing chimney will be removed and converted to a gas-burning fireplace. Commission asked if the proposed gable end at the rear of the house will match the height of the existing roof; yes, will be no higher than the existing roof ridge. Commission asked the architect to verify that the existing deck at the rear is proposed to be reduced by four feet and that the house is proposed to be extended by eight feet; yes. Commission asked if some of the proposed skylights can be relocated or removed to address the neighbors concern about light and glare. After consulting with the property owner, the applicant agreed to eliminate all of the skylights. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Plans indicate a 9' plate height on the second floor, appears to be drawn with an 8' plate height, please clarify plate height dimension on plans; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 19 • There appears to be an error on the plans on the rear elevation, the gable end at the rear of the house is drawn incorrectly, there appears to be lines missing; • Eliminate all skylights from the plans as agreed to by the property owner; • Add story poles to show outline of proposed addition, story poles must be in place before the packet is distributed; story pole location must be verified by a licensed surveyor; • Provide names and phone numbers of neighbors who expressed concerns about the project so commissioners can see story poles from their houses. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: feel that if the neighbor to the rear on Alturas Drive adds the fencing back along the easement at her rear property line, she will gain her privacy back. C. Vistica noted that the design is well done and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the comments have been addressed and plan checked, when the story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor, and Commission has had an opportunity to see them. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and story poles have been installed and surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of July 5, 2005, noting that new regulations for food establishments in the Broadway commercial area, new regulations for the Inner Bayshore area, and a new zoning district boundary map for the Bayshore area were adopted. A committee to assist the CP in developing a scope of work for the economic study of the downtown area was appointed. Councilman Coffey resigned and a two year position will be placed on the November 8, 2005, election to be filled. CA Anderson discussed the new state laws regulating council resignations and timing for replacement at regular elections to avoid the expense of holding special elections. FYI: Consent item where no changes as directed This item was discussed at the last meeting. The CP reviewed briefly how the new process was working. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.07.11.05.doc