Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082205PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 22, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the August 22, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 8, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GEORGE R. COREY, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the subject property; he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: can emergency fire exit be provided only up and down stairs; not separate exit over rail? What is regulation in Burlingame concerning required restrooms? Can applicant create open air seating by pulling wall back along street? This was a missed opportunity to include open air seating in design review as part of the CUP process for all store fronts and architecture along Broadway. Will the restaurant be open during lunch hours? Findings for variance include that there is adequate parking on site and in all of the public lots during the evening hours, that the existing building was constructed without additional parking spaces and those people who would be negatively affected by the lack of parking in the area were in favor and supported expanding the number of food establishments along Broadway. This item was set for the consent calendar when all questions have been answered. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 2 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. 2A. 1320 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD TERRONES, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2B. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 210, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY) (FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE, APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (90 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2C. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CONNIE MORRIS, BROADWAY GRILL, INC., APPLICANT; ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS, TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2D. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY), MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (327 NOTICED). a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-123-100) AND 1.328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-123-040) (PROJECT ENGINEER, DOUG BELL) b. CONDITIONAL REZONING OF 1791 EL CAMINO AND 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C- 1 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APNS 025-123-100 & 025-123-140) AND 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APN 025-123-120) NOT TO OCCUR UNTIL FINAL MERGER OF ALL FOUR PARCELS AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ENTIRE SITE TO PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT. (PROJECT PLANNER, MAUREEN BROOKS) C. Keighran noted that she’d received campaign contributions from the applicants at both 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 1400 Broadway so she would recuse herself from those votes. C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1400 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote. 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. Chair Auran called for a motion to approve the consent calendar. C. Osterling moved to approve the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 3 Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on the consent calendar, noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1320 Carmelita Avenue passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining; C. Vistica absent) voice vote. The project at 1440 Chapin Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. The project at 1400 Broadway passed on a 4-0-2-1 (C. Keighran and C. Deal abstaining; C. Vistica absent) voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GILL AND JANE YEE, TRS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the applicant and that he must abstain from voting on this project; he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Reference staff report dated August 22, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions asked of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive, represented the project; Abraham Zavala, represented David Valle, 2715 Martinez; Henry Sommer, 2709 Arguello Drive; Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive; Linda Wong, representing parents at 2716 Martinez Drive; Randy Whitney, JD and Associates; Leo Redman, 2711 Martinez Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. On August 16, 2005, letters were submitted discussing the view blockage and support for the project and he submitted additional information discussing a comparison to 2711 Martinez Drive. Commission asked if the owner had seen the photos taken from David Valle’s house at 2715 Martinez. Property owner replied yes. Feel view from 2715 Martinez Drive will be blocked because of the overall height of the building. Opposes project; years ago neighbor did addition that blocked light onto his property; feels that addition has affected the quality of life on this neighborhood. Commission asked is this a general point about expanding a house? Yes, expansion of homes affects the neighbors. Had two commissioners visit house to look at view; feels addition is at expense of her view; would be ok with a 12”-18” increase in height, but not a second story; issue is that the view should not be obstructed at all, not that applicant should do what others have done. Parents do not have problems with remodeling or upgrading home, but do have problems with view blockage; if applicant can do addition with out adding height they would have no problem. Submitted a paper signed by Leo Redman that states where the addition would go in relation to his own home. Did agree to support project if view would not be blocked; feels story poles are 2-dimensional and do not give a full representation of the addition; wants to support the project, but can’t tell if design meets criteria he agreed to. People are now recognizing that roof lines and views are changing in Burlingame; wants Commission to keep roof lines where they are supposed to be without variances; people are unaware of the effect of buildings until it’s built. Property owner noted everyone of adjacent properties have added on since he moved in 21 years ago; feels only fair that permit be allowed for him to add on just as it was allowed for his neighbor; feels his addition blocks less view then his neighbors did when they were constructed in 2000. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 4 Commission commented: visited adjacent residences, spoke to applicant, spoke to adjacent neighbors, visited subject property, looked at story poles and walked perimeter of the site. Applicant is on the down slope; how can an addition work in this area? There is clear view blockage from 2715 and 2716 Martinez; people buy in this area because of the views; because of view blockage, cannot approve project as proposed, even with the slope on the property. Is it a correct interpretation to say that the airport is a distance view? CP responded that yes, the airport would be considered a distant view in the hillside area. This is a cut and dry case of view blockage and can not be supported; would be in favor of a variance for lot coverage or setbacks for a single story addition in replacement of a second story addition; view blockage is substantial and a second story addition does not work in this area. C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining; C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 4. 2509 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSHUA AND KIMBERLY GRATCH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier 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. Daniel Biermann, applicant and designer, spoke in favor of the project. Commission asked if any thought was given to pulling the second story back in from the first floor on the sides instead of fitting it right on top of the first floor? Applicant responded that no consideration was given to set the addition inward because of the large setbacks on both sides of the house. Commission asked why are there two different finishes on the chimney? Applicant responded that they are now and decided not to change. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 4, 2005 sheets A1 through A8, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, and landscape plan (on site plan); 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 the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal’s memos dated February 28, 2005 shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 7) that the applicant shall comply with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 5 Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) 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 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on motion: the design review process helped to accomplish what was asked for of this project; this design is a definite improvement and is now consistent with the residential design guidelines. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (BOB KOTMEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Bob Kotmel, applicant and property owner, represented the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented: This is a benign project; it would be unreasonable to ask the applicant to move the garage to the rear 30% of this unusual 160’ deep lot. C. Deal, because of the depth of the lot, moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 18, 2005, sheets G.0 thru G.3, and that the detached garage shall not exceed 399 SF in area, shall not exceed an overall height of 12'-8" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-1" measure from adjacent grade; 2) that there shall be no water or sewer service extended to the accessory structure without an amendment to this permit; 3) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 18, 2005 memo, and the City Engineer’s, Recycling Specialist’s and NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2005, memos shall be met; 5) 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 6) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 6. AMEND ZONING FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR, ZONED C-1 WITH BROADWAY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 6 OVERLAY REGULATIONS – CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (150 NOTICED) Reference staff report August 22, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the proposed change to the regulations adding real estate uses on the first and second floor with performance criteria. Commissioners asked if real estate uses would be a conditional use. CP noted that as proposed real estate uses would be a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. Commission had discussed limiting the number of real estate uses, why is that not included in this draft? CP noted that in the case of food establishments we had begun by limiting the number in an area and allowing them to move around, it did not work. CA noted that in limiting food establishments to a fixed number we had a base number we could defend, in the case of real estate uses, the definition is broad, and we do not have a fixed number we can justify; the conditional use permit process can be used to determine if the impact of a given real estate use is appropriate. CP noted that the performance criteria use will have the effect of limiting the size and thus the impacts caused by various real estate offices, and with a conditional use permit the Commission can place additional appropriate restrictions on a given real estate business to insure that their operation is consistent with the character of the Broadway area. How were the performance criteria determined? CP noted that the criteria are based on the questions that the Commission asked at the study meeting and on current experience with this use on Broadway. The responses to the study questions are in the staff report. The action includes removing the sunset clause for financial institutions and allowing them as a conditional use permanently. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway merchants association; Amin Assadi, 1202 Broadway; Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive; Eric Wrinkler, 1345 Howard Avenue; Tom Coros, 2225 Summit Drive; Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino Avenue; Valerie Teil, 1235 Broadway and 1448 Alvarado Drive; John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue; Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway; David Hinckel, 1616 Sanchez Avenue. In the last 18 months Broadway lost 50% of its real estate uses, some real estate is good for the mix of businesses on Broadway. Commissioner asked which was the real estate use on the first floor which was not nonconforming. Ross Bruce commented that this real estate use is no longer operating on Broadway. Am a merchant on Broadway and feel that allowing real estate uses is a good idea, support this ordinance. Know how important real estate is to everyday life, should be as accessible as possible, first floor is good for access, support. Support this, may cause real estate uses to move away from Howard and Primrose area. Support because more likely to have owner occupancy on Broadway, this kind of business is good for Burlingame because owners care about the street and city, need that to bring Broadway back to the "village". Support bringing real estate uses back because it will support the diversity of Broadway, John Kervanian from Nuts for Candy also wanted it noted that he supports this ordinance. Need the diversity in function to get a pedestrian friendly street, real estate businesses work on Ocean Avenue in Carmel. Daughter lives in Danville, there good mix of real estate and businesses on the main street. Few months ago stood here and asked the Planning Commission to vote for 5 more restaurants on Broadway; now ask for real estate offices, the Broadway BID and merchants support a total of four, now there is only one; ask Commission to support, it is only fair, only ask 1,500 SF for a family business in his building on Broadway. Have been a renter and a property owner on Broadway, the street lost a good real estate establishment, it was not replaced, would like to have at least two. Commission asked Ross Bruce: Eighteen months ago Commission spent a long time looking at new uses on Broadway, including real estate, felt then that some uses including real estate would limit the pedestrian orientation of the street, and the vision expressed at that time was the merchants wanted people to walk, given this request would we be better off without any limitations on uses on Broadway? Not asking to remove all limits, would like adjustments and an evolution, tweaking to improve the mix, think the limits established by zoning are good but may need adjusting every 15 years or so. Seems more like "policy by increment", ask for change when a property owner wants something, ask Commission action in response, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 7 would it be better to take all limits off so the property owner is not hand-cuffed, the incremental approach is time consuming for the Commission and city. This is a small adjustment; appreciate the time given by the city and commission. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: CA noted that on April 6, 2006, the provision allowing financial institutions on Broadway would expire, he noted that this ordinance includes removing the sunset clause and allowing financial institutions as an allowed use permanently; Commission should address this in their action. C. Keighran noted that she support real estate use in the Broadway area, understand issue but do not want to take all regulation off Broadway, feel it would open Pandora's Box; the restaurant change, adding 5, was an incremental change which was good especially since all the merchants worked together to figure out a 'vision' for Broadway which is a local service street different from Burlingame Avenue where the properties and businesses are bigger; on Broadway a lot of sites are owner occupied which makes a close connection with the community, it is good to support benefits to the community; for these reasons move to recommend the changes to the Broadway commercial area zoning to add real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria to the City Council for approval. . The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: When the commission approved the Walgreen's application required that the design include interesting windows for pedestrian interest, in Carmel there are a lot of real estate offices but they have a lot of photographs in the windows, they care about the pedestrian; can we require that in this ordinance? In the past in discussing Broadway the Commission has talked about not allowing curtains on the windows on Broadway so people can see into the businesses. CP noted that such requirements about window displays and window covering, where appropriate, could be a part of the action on each conditional use permit for a real estate business. Further comment on the motion: An individual applicant asked that he get his real estate office, want to be clear that vote is on generally expanding the real estate use opportunities on Broadway not approval of an individual site, need to watch the change and see if it works. CA noted that a commissioner who lives near Broadway may vote on a change to the regulations for the entire area, however, he may not vote on an individual application within those regulations if he lives within 500 feet of the applicant's site. Note also that would like to amend the motion to remove the 'sunset' for financial institutions on Broadway. Maker and second to the motion agreed to add removal of the time limitation for financial institutions on Broadway. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they approve the ordinance amendments to allow real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria in the Broadway commercial area and that the time limit on financial institutions be removed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). This item is not appealable and will be referred to the City Council for public hearing and action. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 7. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 215 NOTICED) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 8 Reference staff report August 22, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report and discussed how the proposed zoning for the Trousdale West district implements the adopted North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Trousdale North and Hospital Block subareas, noting that the zoning for this district was expanded to include both sides of Marco Polo between Trousdale Drive and Clarice Way. She also noted that this zoning represents a significant change in the way development is regulated in the city, creating both minimum as well as maximum height limits, and requiring certain portions of building facades to be built at the minimum front setback line. Commissioners commented that the revision of the telecommunications provision to include all buildings of 35 feet or more was good, noting that line of sight for communications is key; the fact that the plan does not allow any office use in the Marco Polo overlay area suggests that financial institutions also should not be allowed, wondered why clubs, associations, religious institutions are not allowed outside of the Marco Polo area where a religious institution owns a large parcel in this area. How was the requirement that 60% of the building is built at the front property line determined? This was taken from the design criteria shown on the maps in the adopted plan; the objective was to establish "street walls" to add character to the various streets and areas within the planning area. Like extended stay hotels being included to support the hospital. Important to note that this zoning is a departure, a different way of zoning, which requires the buildings to come up to the street, the density will be increased in an attractive way which will establish streetscape. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Hickey, 1840 Ogden Drive; Dan Zemanek, Sunrisde Senior Living. Appreciate that the inclusionary zoning incentives were included with this district; like to clarify a couple of points: if public safety equipment is required to be placed on the roof of a building will it be included in the height measurement for that building. Staff noted it would not. Do the minimum lot size requirements apply only to dividing an existing lot? Staff noted yes. Pleased to see that the city is encouraging interesting design elements and is open to creative attempts to make the sides of buildings interesting even if it would require a variance. Am comfortable with the regulations as proposed. Refer to page 13 which refers to Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly, there is no maximum floor area ratio set out but there is a maximum density of 60 beds to the acre. Have an assisted living project on the agenda later this evening which will accommodate 95 beds to the acre. There is a big difference between the density and intensity of use of a convalescent home and an assisted living facility. CA noted that since the maximum density for multiple family residential uses in this area is 40 to 50 dwellings to the acre, 60 beds sounded reasonable for the plan. Commissioner noted that this was not etched in stone now, but could be, would consider increasing the density for assisted living projects or shifting to an FAR. Applicant noted that the traffic impacts of an assisted living facility are less than a convalescent or skilled nursing facility. Can convalescent facilities and group residential facilities be separated out? CP noted that they could. CA noted that regulation should not be based on state licensing because the state regulations were changing too fast. CP noted that elsewhere in the code parking is used to determine the number of beds (density) in a Group Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, so this item could be separated out and parking could be used to determine the density as it is in the rest of the city. Have been looking at such facilities and noted that the better ones are bigger because they provide more interaction among the residents; agree that the number for group residential facilities should be more than 60. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: It is a good point that this zoning should be kept moving however, would like to look at this as a complete district, so should consider continuing until the Group Residential facility issues can be resolved; not see a problem to carve out that piece and move the rest on; what about the other issues City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 9 think parish houses and convents OK but no financial institutions in the Marco Polo overlay area; CA noted that a parish house or convent was like an apartment house. C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that staff could bring back the issue of the separation of convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. The motion died for want of a second. Comment on the motion: endorse sending this forward, think solution is simple, assisted living provides different kinds of services with a different impact on parking. C. Brownrigg made a motion to move the TW district regulations forward without CS 25.40.050 (4) group residential facilities and convalescent facilities and with the recommendation that financial institutions be deleted from the Marco Polo overlay and that parish houses and convents be allowed in the district. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for adoption with the amendments proposed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. This item will be taken forward to the City Council. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH DISTRICTS – CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 40 NOTICED) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT) Reference staff report August 22, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that this public hearing was noticed for three zoning districts Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South. Attached to the packet is a request to continue the hearing on Anza Point North district. The Commission may decide to continue the hearing on the Anza Point North district, any testimony on that district this evening will be carried over to the continued hearing. CP noted that an Errata for the Bayfront zones was placed at the Commissioner's desks tonight. The errata includes minor edits to make language in the six new zoning districts in the Bayfront consistent. These edits should be considered at the public hearing on the zoning districts tonight. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Nikki Zito, 615 Airport Blvd; spoke. Last April when the plan was approved it was determined that there would be no residential uses in the Bayfront area, do not recall extended stay hotels being allowed, concerned that given their design, if one of these hotels should close it could easily be converted to some kind of residential use; the plan states on pages 4-5 that hotel density was increased for extended stay hotels; in TW district extended stay hotels are allowed because they are compatible with the residential district, should consider dropping the idea of extended stay hotels in these proposed zoning districts. What is an "apartment hotel"? CP noted that this term has been dropped from the code; she referred to the errata sheet of corrections. CA noted that extended stay and time share condominiums were discussed during the planning process. Council determined that extended stay hotels were appropriate in part because they are a hotel product meeting a special customer need not currently provided in the city’s hotel market. Time share condominiums, even if built as hotels, were determined at that time by City Council to be residential uses and excluded from the Bayfront area. Commissioners discussed the 29 day limitation on occupancy caused by the Transient Occupancy Tax, and how that would be affected by extended stay hotels. CP noted that at the time the plan was being approved City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 10 the hotel industry provided information which documented that not many of the hotel stays in an extended stay hotel exceeded 29 days. Would like to know how the revised zoning will affect the future uses of properties in the Anza Area. CP suggested that she sit down with Mrs. Zito and review the provisions of the new zoning district along with her particular property interests. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: how would a limitation on rooms affect an extended stay hotel? CA noted probably not much since the characteristic of an extended stay hotel is the configuration of the room; how is an extended stay hotel differentiated from an apartment building? CA noted given the density of the hotel, the cost of land would prohibit the hotel from becoming an apartment complex. Could extended stay hotels be made a conditional use so that appropriate limitations could be placed on them to keep them from becoming residential uses? Suggest that extended stay hotels be shifted to only a conditional use in the Anza Area and Anza Point North districts. C. Keighran moved to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the amendment of the errata sheet corrections and that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use only in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts. The motion was seconded by Ralph Osterling. Chair Auran noted that the public hearing on the Anza Point North district is continued to the Commission meeting of September 12, 2005, including the direction that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use in the Anza Point North district. Tonight's action will not include the Anza Point North district. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the errata sheet corrections and making extended stay hotels a conditional use in the Anza Area district. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. There is no appeal this item will be set for City Council action. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 379 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRISTOPHER MAFFEI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HERMANN DIEDERICH, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Hermann Diederich, architect and Christopher Maffei, property owner and applicant, represented the project. They stated they wanted to stay within the lines of the existing roof; wanted to stay within design of existing neighborhood; set back front addition; changed siding to shingle cedar siding so that house has uniformity to it. Commission stated: front porch post is small in scale, trellis in rear has small scale posts, and living room lacks window area. Applicant responded that post in front could be made larger and more decorative, trellis posts also could be made larger and more decorative and that windows could be added to the living room area. Commission asked what will the second floor plate height be? The applicant responded that it will be a standard 8’-0” plate height. Gary Haslam, 373 Lexington Way, moved from 213 Bayswater Avenue; wanted to make sure that privacy issue on the side is addressed; wants to see if addition on top will affect their property; wants to be accommodated; wants to hear what Commission thinks about addition; discussed project with applicant and felt he made changes to accommodate them. Commission responded that this addition is not going to be a towering second floor; is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 11 not different from other projects in the city; will not make much of an impact; maintaining backyard area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission identified the following revisions: • Enlarge post in front • Enlarge rear trellis posts • Add windows to the living room area • Provide a landscape plan that shows additional screening C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on motion: the architect has done a nice job with the project; do not see an impact on the neighbors. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed, plan checked and there is space on the Commission’s agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 10. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER, AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, and Gary Partee, applicant, represented the project. They stated that they had the opportunity to provide copies of the plans to all the neighbors prior to the meeting; going back to craftsman style with the project; large covered porch area of 232 SF takes considerable amount of FAR. There were no other comments from the floor. Commission made no suggested changes. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 11. 1818 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 W/ R-4 OVERLAY – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT, AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A FOUR-STORY, 79-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (BILL LINDSTROM, SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC. APPLICANT, TROUSDALE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER, AND MICHAEL KUTSIN, MUTHIN PARTNERS, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 12 ARCHITECT) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission commented: this is a good project; the Commission should look at the number of dwelling units/beds allowed per acre; meets design guidelines well; does project need to go to a consultant to look at design? Staff responded not unless directed by the Commission, will go to consultant to look at traffic impacts because of concern with pick up and drop off from the site and consistency with visual fit, these issues are identified in general in the staff report. Commission expressed concern with hospital emergency entrance and not wanting congestion in this area; if employees are dispersed in shifts, what is the parking demand at the peak hour? Want to look at the facility in San Mateo and the parking situation there during shift changes; where will employees park? Minor concern with low garden walls with stucco columns and rot iron railings that are 3’ high, some places wall, some places railing; feel railing does not provide enough privacy for people using the patio area. Commission is looking at lead project for style and quality in the area and feels this project sets a good pace; is there a parking issue with regard to number of visits that take place on a daily basis. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dan Zemanek and Bill Lindstrom, Sunrise Development, Inc., Michael Kutsin and Jerry McDevit, Muthin Partners; David Gates, landscape architect, and Steve Nakeshimi represented the project. Dan Zemanek gave PowerPoint presentation of proposed facility and its relationship to the general area which discussed: this assisted living facility provides a phased assistance program, first phase (first and second floors) are for assisted living with 37 units and 43 potential residents, phase two (third floor) is for seniors with beginning Alzheimer’s with 22 units and 30 potential residents, phase three (fourth floor) is for seniors with early cognitive impairment with 20 units and 22 potential residents. The project covers approximately 40% of the site; cars will come in and out on Ogden Dr; 70% of residents will come out of immediate area; average age of residents is typically 83-84 years old. Commission commented: this is a good design; was the example shown in studio city 60’ high? Applicant responded yes. Approximately how many visitors will there be per day? Applicant responded approx. 15 visitors that will stay for an average of 10-30 minutes at a time. Will physical therapists and therapists be coming to the site? Applicant responded that they have in-house therapy and other programs. Why is project not close to the build-to-lines on both street frontages, does pulling the building off the street provide additional security for the residents? Jerry McDevit, architect, responded project is set back 22’-25’ from the streets and trellis’s and columns were set to build-to lines; series of small patios built off units along Ogden Dr; trying to bridge the two codes, develop a residential sense and bring buildings up to build to lines while maintaining a fair setback from the street of landscaping and private space for the residents; provides screening for residents; constructing a residential building to the build to lines vs. a commercial building is completely different; allows residents to be close to the street, but set back enough so they are not right on top of it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comment on project: not many issues; ask that staff include some of the rational behind build-to-lines in the future packet to the Commissioners. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - FYI: REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE. Commission approved these changes as proposed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 13 - FYI: REVIEW OF REQUESTED CHANGES OF AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1624 CORONADO WAY Commission approved these revisions with the additional provisions that all Italian Cyprus be removed and replaced with Dezera or some other tree from the city's street tree list; and that the stucco mold as shown on all the other windows be put on the windows in the dormers. - CA discussed briefly when commissioners are disqualified from voting on an item because they live within 500 feet. This provision does not apply to changes in existing zoning regulations. However, it does apply if the zoning regulation change could be harmful to the properties within 500’ and to any specific projects within the rezoned area. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.08.22.05.doc