Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2005.10.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 24, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the October 24, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 11, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the January 24, 2005 meeting were amended as follows, item 4, 1453 Balboa, second paragraph last sentence to read: "Obscure glass will be used in bathroom and by the stairwell." CP Monroe noted that she had listened to the tapes and the correction reflects what was said by the applicant at the meeting regarding which windows would have obscure glass. Commission voted 7-0 on a voice vote to amend the January 24, 2005 minutes with the correction. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, continue to hear from the Planning Commission that they cannot treat spec developers differently from homeowners; suggest that whenever there is a major remodel or replacement of an existing single family house that the city prohibit the sale of any such house for three years, this would be consistent with the maximum time you could extend a building permit; this requirement would not affect the homeowner who is going to live in the house anyway and would slow up, and discourage the spec developer and give the neighborhood time to evaluate and work out the issues with proposed new houses; also would reduce demands on staff; enforcement could be for the city to institute a penalty of up to 25% of the difference between the purchase and sale price of the house. Would like the Planning Commission to have staff research this idea and have a study session; don't know if its permissible. CP Monroe noted that there were a number of letters at the Commissioners' desks regarding 144 Costa Rica, some of which arrived today. These letters relate to the home occupation permit and staff will follow up through the code enforcement process. There are review criteria in the code provisions. Commission asked that if a letter is sent to the occupant at 144 Costa Rica, a copy be sent to each of the people who sent in letters expressing concern. It was noted that one letter was anonymous, feel that such communication is not helpful since cannot follow up. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -2- VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1511 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A DRIVING SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING TRADE UNION BUILDING (VICTORIA & MOHAMMAD AZARSHAHY, APPLICANT AND LOCAL 1781 BUILDING CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Clarify the training provided, how does it work between the classroom and behind the wheel, what are the number of hours for each type of training? • Application notes that they will be open from Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., is that only for scheduling appointments, will there be training sessions/classes held during that time, what other activities, please clarify. • Of the 111 on-site parking spaces for the trade union use, what percentage of these spaces are now occupied; how many will be used by this business and how often for each use (on-site employees, cars of training drivers, storage of training cars, etc)? • There appears to be a number of existing businesses which operate from this building, please provide a list of all tenants, the number of employees, the square footage leased and the on-site parking commitment to each business. • Previously, there was an issue with recreational vehicles parked at the rear of the property and there appears to be RV's parked there now, what is the status of these RV's? • The application notes that if there is overflow, the union members will use parking spaces on the adjoining site, when does overflows occur, how frequently, is it on weekend or on weekdays? • Need more documentation regarding what happens with the vehicles used for teaching. • This business is moving from another location, provide information of how the business operates at that location, number of employees, number of cars parked on site, number of cars stored on site, impact on required parking, how the students arrive and depart, etc. • Staff should check to see if there have been any complaints about the operation of the existing business at 1300 Bayshore Highway. C. Osterling made a motion to put this item on the consent calendar when all the questions had been answered to the satisfaction of staff. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg, who withdrew his second. The second was then made by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: concerned about putting this on consent, there are a lot of questions whose answers could impact approval; think the questions are straightforward, factual, if impact is unacceptable can put over to action calendar and have a public hearing; consent can be interpreted as a "shoe-in", that is not the case here; given the comments on the motion, the second revoked his second on the motion, noting the problem in resolving issues could be with the building owner as well as with the tenant; C. Vistica agreed to second the motion, because this appears to be a minor parking issue and would like to see this use here; it was noted that this is a 600 SF use on a site with 111 on-site parking spaces. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to set this item on the consent calendar. This item was set when all the questions have been answered and staff has reviewed them. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Brownrigg, Deal and Keighran dissenting) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -3- 2. 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE (ALICIA PARNELL, APPLICANT; CATHERINE NILMEYER, ARCHITECT; AND ANNE & DAVID HINCKLE, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • not sure if this use is a food service as envisioned for the Broadway Commercial area, this appears to be more of a catering business appropriate to the light industrial areas not a retail operation, there are better places to site food preparation; • explain how this is a restaurant type business and not a catering operation, the customer base seems low for a restaurant; • there is no seating proposed, so don't see how this is an intensification of use, what if the applicant were to add a couple small tables and chairs, so that it might operate more like a traditional restaurant; • suggest that the applicant look into getting an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for outside seating if there is enough space on the sidewalk; • is there a history of this business in another location, how much of the business is retail customers, please provide a description of what they expect to sell, how a transaction will occur, etc.; Commission comment: CP noted that this use is similar to a take out business with no seating, these uses behave like food establishments, so when the code was revised, take-out food businesses are now considered food establishments; has the potential to have an impact with large turnover of customers. C. Keighran made a motion that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when these questions have been answered and staff has reviewed them. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:30 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. 3A. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO- STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC., ARCHITECT) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. CP Monroe noted that there was a letter at the Commissioner's desks from an engineer confirming the height of the story poles at 1718 Escalante Way. Commissioner asked a question about where the stone veneer is on the front of the house, the plans are unclear. The project at 1718 Escalante Way was put over to the regular action calendar for a public hearing. C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar, 214-216 Lorton Avenue, based on the facts in the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -4- staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3B. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII, PAUL NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 11, 2005) Reference staff report of October 24, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. David Lung, property owner, represented the project. He noted that the stone would be carried throughout the front in the areas shown on the plans by dark horizontal lines. Commissioner asked if the stone would be river stone, because the symbol on the plans looks like wood siding? No the stone will be horizontal flag stone. Commissioner asked if it was correct that the highest ridge of the roof would be extended 20 feet from where it is now and is that shown with the story poles? Yes the existing highest ridge is continued north 20 feet at the rear of the house, and that extension was not included in the story poles, thought you wanted to see the highest point over the garage at the front, did poles myself, did them incorrectly , fixed the poles and had a professional survey of the highest point over the garage, don’t know who's view would be blocked by the extension of the highest roof ridge at the rear. Commissioner noted that the point is that the highest part of the new roof is not represented by the current story poles. He also noted that the octagonal window over the front door should be centered. Applicant noted that it could be centered. Commissioner noted that moving the window to the center could affect the location of the interior walls on the second floor, although it was noted that the affected wall was new and could be moved a few inches to fit the window so the outside would not be affected; because the extension of the highest ridge of the roof was not shown by the story poles do not know if the neighbors have a view issue or not, the code does not address how much view blockage is affected, to install story poles, it says to put up story poles and determine; applicant noted that if Commission explained what they want him to do he would do it. Commission noted that they need accurate drawings for the project, the size of the lumber used for the story poles is not a concern, the accurate outline of all that is new is a concern, should include the new 20 foot ridgeline, yes; first floor addition as well? yes, the entire outline of the new structure as was called for in the minutes of the last meeting where the story poles were discussed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: story poles are a serious issue, neighbors do not know if there is a potential view blockage without them accurately documenting what will happen with the new structure, especially in this case where have not heard from neighbors; agree especially given the kind of out cry Commission receives when a view is blocked, lesson from this is to be clear in future motions if part of the outline is to be exempt from story poles; Commission asked for story poles because there may or may not be a view blockage, they need to be accurate so neighbors know if view will be impacted or not; this item should be set for a date certain; concerned that this not set a precedent that what is on the site should match what is on the drawings; could continue this item to the November 14th meeting for installation of the poles outlining all additions City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -5- and notice it so sure that the neighbors are aware. C. Vistica made a motion to have the applicant install story poles to outline the entire roof of the second floor, do not feel that the ground floor portion of the addition is an issue, center the octagonal window on the second floor over the front door with the plans amended to show change, including floor plans and note clearly on the plans, in all places where it is used, that the stone cladding on the exterior of the house will be horizontal flag stone. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Commissioner comment on the motion: OK if the octagonal window changes shape or some in size to fit in, it is key that it is centered over the front door. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the November 14, 2005 meeting with public notice providing story poles are installed which outline all of the second story portions of this addition, including the 20 feet at the rear and are properly surveyed, that the window on the second floor over the front door be centered on the front door allowing for a change to shape or size to make it work with proper documentation on the plans; that the plans be amended to document that all the stone work on the outside of the structure will be horizontal flag stone; and that the story poles be installed and their height documented with proper submittals to staff and the revised plans be submitted in time for staff review and scheduling for the meeting of November 14, 2005. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GRADING AND PLACEMENT OF FILL (RICK JEFFERY, R & B EQUIPMENT, INC., APPLICANT; JAMES MADDEN, PROJECT MANAGER, 309 ASSOCIATES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND BOHLEY CONSULTING, CIVIL ENGINEER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report October 24, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report on the history of the fill and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reviewed required criteria for action. There are 12 mitigations required for the fill project and they will be included with the grading permit. Commissioners asked about the need for wind barriers for dust control; how will the watering be monitored; what will happen if it rains? Staff noted that the site would be watered regularly to control dust as required by the NPDES standards, the city would inspect to insure that these standards were being met and the site was not becoming over wet. Concerned about condition J and the replanting of the stripped area. Staff noted that once the site is regraded it will be planted to hold the soil in place, could require that the hydromulch be done within 30 days. Concerned that soil will not be friendly to hydromulch and will need attention to get grasses started. Staff noted that maintenance until the plants are established can be required. When will this grading be done, this is the lower wind season? Staff noted the grading to fill in the low spots using dirt already on the site will commence as soon as the environmental document is approved and the grading permit issued. What happened to the surface paving and how will the site drain? Staff noted that storm drain lines will be placed in the fill and the water pumped to Sanchez Channel as it is now; this fill does not extend into the portion of the site within BCDC jurisdiction on the north side next to Sanchez Channel and that is where the pump is located. Will there be a grading permit required? Staff noted yes and it will include all the requirements for drainage, compaction, seeding, etc. There were no further comments from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Rick Jeffery, R and B Equipment, representing the applicant was present to answer questions. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa also spoke. Commission asked why the site was filled? Site is low, the owner agreed to allow him to fill the site to within one foot of the existing street City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -6- level, in the area outside of BCDC jurisdiction along Sanchez Creek; he is a demolition, excavation contractor and will bring in the remaining fill from elsewhere. How long will you be bringing dirt to this site? Because entering the rainy season may take 9 to 12 months to finish fill. CP noted that he was not going to fill the entire site, the area along Sanchez Channel would require a BCDC permit and a reconstruction of the channel wall; the toe of the slope of this proposed fill would end at the BCDC jurisdiction line. How much more fill to you estimate to complete this part? He moves about 500,000 cubic yards of dirt a year, but it will only take about 70,000 cubic yards to complete the work here, about 30,000 will come from 101 Ellsworth. CP noted that in the future no fill would be placed on this site which had not been tested and approved by the San Mateo County Health Department. No objection to fill, want a clarification that there will never be any housing on this site; appears that given the location and fill, liquefaction of soils may affect development in the future; specific plan for this area does not allow health services, except clinics for employees, would it allow veterinarian hospitals, this would be a better place than Rollins Road; can it be zoned for veterinary hospitals and not health services? There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg noted that this is a straight forward report and would move its approval by resolution and with the mitigations included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be attached to the grading permit with the following clarifications to the mitigation measures: 1) Construction staging areas shall be kept clear of all trash and other debris, etc; construction staging areas shall be located away from Airport Boulevard and adjacent businesses so they are not visible from public view; 2) During construction, an opaque security fence approved by the City of Burlingame, shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project parcel and removed immediately following construction work; 3) Prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval by the Burlingame Public Works Department and the City's NPDES inspector. The project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; elements of the program shall include the following: a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily as determined necessary to control dust and meet NPDES requirements; b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer); c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as determined necessary and required to meet NPDES requirements; d) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; e) If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept (preferably with water sweepers); e) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); f) Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); g) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; h) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible and within 30 days of completing grading and provide necessary maintenance of replanted area as determined by the City until the plant material is established ; and; j) Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary; 4) The project applicant shall be required to provide the San Mateo Health Service Agency (CHS) and City of Burlingame with information describing the origin of future fill to be imported to the project site. This documentation shall consist of letter(s) certifying the location (site address and/or Assessor’s Parcel Number) from which soil was excavated for re-use at the project site and soil laboratory analytical data. One sample shall be collected from every 15 yards of soil to be imported to the project site. Soil samples shall be sent to a California-certified laboratory for analysis of lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), pesticides, California Code of Regulations Title 22 metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Laboratory analytical reports shall be attached to the letter provided to CHS and the City of Burlingame. Soil sampling results shall demonstrate that the tested constituents do not City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -7- exceed established Residential and Commercial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). In addition, the project applicant shall provide a written affidavit that no asbestos-containing materials are present at the site from which fill is being imported, or that asbestos-containing materials at the site have been appropriately disposed and document that disposed. One letter containing soil sampling data and an asbestos affidavit shall be provided for each site from which fill will be imported; 5) All site discharge materials created during and after construction must be in compliance with the City Municipal Code, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Chapter 15.14 and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to control pollutants from entering the storm drain system. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be required for review and approval by the Public Works Department. Examples of stormwater pollution prevention controls could include using hay bales at drains, covering and containing construction site materials, dry sweeping paved surfaces, cleaning up leaks and spills immediately, and filtering pumped runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Because of the proximity of this construction site to existing and ongoing active pedestrian activity, best management practices for dust and mud control will be required to reduce the impact on an ongoing recreation and businesses in the immediate area; 6) Survey markers shall be established by a licensed engineer and checked in the field regularly; 7) To reduce construction noise effects, the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (i.e., Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays); 8) The applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 9) Applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; 10) To the extent possible, the contractor will schedule truck trips outside of peak commute hours (i.e., outside of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.); 11) Haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways will be used to the extent possible; 12) Prior to construction activity, the project sponsor shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the City’s Department of Public Works. This plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following items: a) Identification of routes for the movements of construction vehicles that would minimize the effects on vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the area; and b) Provision of traffic control personnel and/or signage near the proposed construction ingress/egress to direct construction vehicles and alert the general public of construction traffic. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the filling of the site located at 301 Airport Boulevard. The motion passed on a 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT REGULATIONS (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 24, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report along with the letters of comment which had been sent to the Planning Commission's attention regarding the regulations for the Southern Gateway subarea, whether veterinarian hospitals and/or animal boarding should be allowed in the Rollins Road planning area, and whether the storage containers to provide self-storage should be allowed in the drainage area under the PG and E lines in the Rollins Road area. Sixteen or so letters, most received after the packet was delivered in opposition to the proposed zoning change allowing for "doggie day care" in the Rollins Road corridor were placed at the commissioners' desks, the majority were from property owners in the Rollins Road area. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -8- Commissioners asked: is it correct that the city cannot zone a use out by prohibiting it in all zoning districts? CA responded that is the tendency of the courts, but would extend to uses "reasonable" for this community to have such as a veterinarian hospital not a nuclear waste plant. Can boarding in a hospital sense be distinguished from a animal boarding facility? CA noted that it could be. On page 4 item m 3 there is an error, it says "no sale or service of alcoholic beverages", but that would preclude a wholesaler from giving tastings or a reception for clients, should it be revised to prohibit only the sale of alcoholic beverages? CP noted Commission may make that change if they wish. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Ward, representing two property owners, 1206-1220 Rollins Road and 1616 Rollins Road, in the Rollins Road area; David Moutoux, 1400 Rollins Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Herman Christensen, 1429 Rollins Road; Henry Kuechler, 40-50 Edwards Court; Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins and Marsten Roads; Art Michael, Prime Time, Rollins Road, spoke. Represent property owner in Southern Gateway area, 1206/1220 Rollins Road, three points in letter, understood in June 2004, when reviewed the draft plan and adjusted FAR to allow additional 1.0 FAR as an incentive in the Southern Gateway area, that it would be hard to combine parcels and for the incentive to be effective should either combine parcels or include a gateway feature; regarding land uses want industrial as well as retail and office in the gateway area to provide more options for redevelopment not make it more difficult; concerned about the kinds of retail allowed, want the full range pedestrian and auto oriented; should do this to fulfill objectives and goals of plan adopted in 2004. Concerned about section 25.44.030 (p) which allows "doggie day care" e.g. the boarding of animals in the RR zone, based on the assumption that this use is similar to a veterinary hospital and on a determination made by the Planning Commission May 9, in fact there are no veterinary hospitals in the M-1 zone, there are two in the R-3 and C-3 zones but neither allows animals to stay overnight or board; feel commission's determination was not well considered before so should not be a justification for the proposed zoning, should re-examine the proposal since a majority of the business owners in the area are opposed. Commissioner asked if there is a distinction between veterinary hospital and boarding of animals? Feel its OK to keep them over night if it is necessary for their health, all right for sick for a night or two, not boarding. Boarding of animals is OK but opposed to breeding animals in the RR area; SPCA has a relationship with the county to provide animal control, not good on Rollins Road should be on Airport Blvd. on property nearer the existing facility, if they need more money for land could ask the County to help them, SPCA has to go someplace, don't see Burlingame saying no even if it is temporary, spend a lot of time at Coyote Point, cannot hear or smell the animals at the SPCA facility there, SPCA is not the same as boarding animals in Burlingame. Oppose an animal boarding function in Burlingame, it is a use that is incompatible with the area and its development potential and will not generate revenue for the City, Coyote Point is a great place for this use not our potential auto row. Tonight is a different issue from the SPCA, current language in zoning says no breed or boarding, determination cited as reason to broaden and allow boarding but not breeding, not comfortable with the determination being use in that way; concerned with the city's ability to enforce a conditional use permit, have business with one across the street and violates conditions all the time; concerned about sewage generated by SPCA and boarding use, the volume will over load the sewer system, if you allow SPCA to board animals how will you stop others, city is giving up revenue on $5.2 million for the property taxes and bearing the burden of higher sewer costs; unclear with boarding how long a dog would stay, this could become long term. Worked in a sewer treatment plant and sewage is a spurious issue, rate paid would be based on volume generated, if collection system not sufficient SPCA will have to pay to have it upgraded. Public comment continued: Represent an owner of about 4 acres in the drainage easement under the PG&E lines, got a permit to use site for long term airport parking for a local hotel, market went away, now paved with all required permits, would like zoning to be modified to allow self storage in shipping containers City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -9- elevated above ground 3 feet so the water would circulate under them, would be willing to hold the city harmless and assume all liability caused by flooding; currently RV storage is allowed in this area and storage if it is related to immediately adjacent uses, are asking for conceptual acceptance for self storage by change in zoning so can come forward with specific plan. Commissioners asked: was the auto storage approved under the PG and E lines, is self storage allowed in the zone? CP noted that it was allowed in the zone, but this request is for self storage in a drainage easement which needs to act seasonally as a holding basin. If storage were on pallets would it be allowed? CP noted any storage in any easement requires an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works as well as zoning compliance. CA noted that the uses permitted in the proposed zoning in the drainage area are those which can be moved quickly so that they are not damaged and do not impede the flow of water in the drain. Maybe trailers could be there if on wheels? CP noted when did the original Bayfront Plan set aside capacity in the Broadway/Rollins intersection for development in the Rollins Road industrial area but figured that there would be no use of the drain; uses allowed in the drain were those which did not increase the intensity of land uses outside of the drainage area; if the drain is now developed by uses which generate traffic themselves it will have a big impact on the Rollins/Broadway intersection. Seems that a storage use could come under the proposed zoning as a "similar to use", with a conditional use permit so access could be limited by timing on gate, etc. Applicant noted that would have to design for water to flow in drain, don't know now what that would be. CA noted that there is a $500,000 bill the city just settled regarding water in the drain, Commission could refer this issue back to staff and the subcommittee. Am an artist and property owner in the area, and think that the storage facility in South San Francisco where the container are stacked looks terrible, some property owners in the area have put a lot of money into making their buildings attractive, such storage would be a deterrent; remember in the past that drain being underwater when it rains and there are high tides. Own 4-5 acres in the drainage area, not now in the auto row overlay, only use is auto storage because of the PG and E lines, maybe the auto row overlay should be extended to include the drain. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the storage use in the drainage easement should be referred to Public Works and come back to the commission; this ordinance includes commercial design review, this is an important regulatory improvement and will affect how any storage would be done in the drainage easement so review would include both Public Works and aesthetics; there has been a lot of testimony and discussion, should send back to subcommittee to look at; would like to hear from commissioners what they think; no problem with storage idea, have difficult design review standards they must meet, use may not be visible, need to work on a definition of "boarding of animals" see different between SPCA keeping for adoption to benefit public and private facility for boarding, opposed to private boarding facility, think FAR bonus at gateway should be and/or, don't feel that the gateway is the place for pedestrian retail, retail OK if associated with another type of use. Retail could be in multistory, mixed use building. One vision includes the change to the 101 interchange, this more possible with the end of the Broadway train station, then the north side of Broadway could become an extension of the Broadway Commercial Area. Agree with mixed use for retail; not like to see a precedent set for animal boarding facilities in the Rollins Road area, this is not the right location for kennels; storage facility OK as a conceptual idea, but problems could be hidden. Storage in the drain should be sent back to Public Works, concerned about veterinary hospitals and SPCA which boards animals until they are adopted, not want animals walked in area, with veterinary hospital animals are kept inside and the noise is addressed; the number of animals boarded needs to be regulated; if animals in the veterinary hospital need to be kept overnight it would fit, if SPCA with larger services and traffic associated are incompatible, is this where we want it? Storage is possible depending on Department of Public Works and history of flooding; property may not be available for consolidation of lots so for FAR bonus should be "or" gateway feature, mixed use would work well in this area, has the potential of being pedestrian friendly if the interchange includes pedestrian access, but we don't know how soon that will happen; definition of boarding needs to be clear, has a different impact if it is day care of animals or the SPCA proposed use. To City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -10- determine the SPCA suitability need more information on noise and odor impacts from the environmental study; density at the gateway should depend upon the amenities provided like the idea of a threshold site size, so required to combine for FAR bonus if smaller than required site size; storage use in the drain is OK if the environmental concerns can be addressed. Discussion continue: would argue that commission make a decision tonight, consensus is good, the bright line is on boarding of animals and veterinary hospitals, need information from Public Works regarding the drain, at the southern gateway need to arrive at a minimum parcel size, like to see commission recommend ordinance to City Council for action with those exceptions; concerned about the veterinary hospital use, size should be limited; could replace the proposed veterinary hospital/ boarding provision with the current requirements for veterinary hospital in the M-1 which preclude boarding and breeding on site. CA suggested that Southern Gateway and drain regulations could be kept as proposed, and revisions brought back after staff and subcommittee review, auto row revisions to allow conditional use permit exceptions to performance criteria should be included in what is recommended. Commissioners noted SPCA project problem is the other things going on there the community education programs and the adoption and care facility; on page 3 talk about retail building/garden center, how does the 100,000 SF size regulation work? CP noted that site size constraints would require specific designs/format for such uses in Burlingame. CA noted that this use is being built at this size in other communities in the Bay Area. What about adding the area in the drain to the auto row overlay? CA noted could be addressed in the response regarding the use of the drain. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the ordinance as submitted with: • the change to make exceptions to the performance criteria for auto row subject to a conditional use not a variance; • the change to the requirements for retail sales and display areas (Page 4, item m (3)) to allow the service of alcoholic beverages but prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages; • Leave in current proposal for the drainage area, have the city staff, including the Public Works department review issues regarding allowing self storage uses in the drainage area under the PG and E lines in Rollins Road; • Leave in current proposed FAR wording in the Southern Gateway zoning provision but have the staff and subcommittee study what an appropriate minimum lot size might be to exempt a developer from having to both consolidate properties and provide a gateway feature in order to qualify for the 1.0 FAR density bonus; • Leave in the current proposal and have staff and subcommittee review and make a recommendation back to the Commission regarding what are appropriate retail uses, including mixed retail and other uses, for the Southern Gateway area, and whether industrial uses should be allowed on the Southern Gateway properties as well as retail and office uses; and • Leave in current M-1 provision for veterinary hospitals and refer this issue to the subcommittee for further study and to make a recommendation back to the Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations as amended and revised to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CP Monroe noted that this ordinance would probably go forward to the City Council at their first meeting in December 2005. CA noted that the issues identified would go back to the subcommittee along with the other zoning they are discussing for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Planning area. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -11- Chair Auran called for a break so the council chambers could be cleared. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2518 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TINA & KEVIN VILLEGIANTE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant and left the dais and chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Whitney, JD & Associates presented the project and was available for questions. Commissioner comment: notice garage is one foot from rear and side property lines, leaving only one foot for maintenance is tight, could that be increased to two feet, yes; in the back corner, a Mayten tree is called out, this is an invasive species, should consider another type; the roof as proposed is too steep on Spanish Colonial style with tile, usually see a much gentler slope, when driving down the hill, you will see a lot of roof; the chimney is the only place where brick veneer is used, could it be carried through to another element at the front such as at the entryway to provide some linkage; for a corner house it is well articulated, softening the roof line will help; this is virtually a new house, am comfortable with extending the existing setback along the side, but it is important that real true divided light windows not simulated are used since this wall will be so close to the street, although the cost is high should build a house that will look good fifty years from now, is an important feature for a Spanish Colonial house. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. • Change the pitch on the roof from 6/12 to 4/12 or similar, roof is too steep for the Spanish Colonial style; • Add a brick veneer feature either along the base of the house or at the front entry to coordinate with the brick veneer used on the chimney; • Increase setback of garage from property line from 1'-0" to 2'-0" so there is enough room for future maintenance; • Use a different species of tree selected from the City tree list rather than a Mayten tree at rear corner; • Encourage owners to consider a one-car garage rather than a two-car garage to preserve more yard space; and • Since this is virtually a new house, true divided light windows should be used throughout. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat on the dais. 7. 21 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -12- SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND TODD FRIEDMAN & MICHELE DOYLE FREEDMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Scott Kuehne, project architect and Todd Friedman, property owner, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke. Applicant noted that the owners have had conversations with owners on the either side and across the street and they are in support of the project, this project is well under the allowable floor area, noted change that the windows will be wood clad rather than vinyl clad, all the windows in the house will be replaced. Commissioners asked if the pediment above the front door will be replaced? Yes, it is not in best of shape, new one will have same level of detail and be more in scale with the front elevation. A large second floor deck is proposed close to the property line, even though we can't control privacy, will look down on neighbors, particularly since it is off the second floor living area which will have more activity; plans show a privacy screen what material is proposed? The applicant noted that lattice will be used to provide screening and allow natural light on both sides, took into account where the deck is placed in relation to neighbors living spaces. Wisteria offers a very nice screen that give light in winter because it is deciduous and shade in summer when deck will be used, it will give a nice visual screen. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments: • plans show both casement and double hung windows, choose one style and use throughout taking into account the possible need to modify windows to meet egress requirements; • there is a certain look at the front of the building, that is lost on the side elevations, need to carry through design elements and details that tie the front of the house to the rest; • need to better integrate the new with the old so it does not look like an addition; • roof lines on right hand portion of left elevation need work, the roof comes up and stops, it will look odd when it is built; • the addition of the window on the front façade helps a lot, gives it a more traditional look; • concern with the appearance of the deck scupper and drain for the deck along the side elevation, could it be integrated better into the design; • consider bringing front porch feature closer to the front property line to add depth and enlarge the entry, make it more pronounced; • concerned with deck, need to add more vegetation on left side of deck for screening, as well as on the right side adjacent to the uncovered parking space; area is narrow, look at the Planning Department tree list for an appropriate species for the narrow space; • would like to see screen wall on deck to be fairly solid, tightly woven for privacy; • provide pictures showing how existing deck in this location addresses privacy of adjacent properties; • Mayten tree should not be used, it is not a good species for the yard. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 8. 1213 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR DETACHED GARAGE (GARAGE SIZE, PLATE HEIGHT, HEIGHT, WINDOWS GREATER THAT TEN FEET ABOVE GRADE, PLUMBING CONNECTIONS AND A City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -13- TOILET, AND TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES) AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR THE GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GRANT & KELLY MOHR, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran recused herself from this item because the applicant is on her campaign committee and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Grant Mohr, 1213 Mills Avenue, applicant and designer, was available for questions. He noted that a two-story garage is proposed because the rear and side of the site is surrounded by two-story walls from adjacent development which tower over the existing garage, the house was made smaller to allow for the larger garage. Commissioners asked what type of windows are proposed? The applicant noted that he proposes that vinyl clad windows be used. Design of main house is very nice, but think vinyl windows will take away from it, wood window with true divided lights will make it stand out. Commissioners noted that generally don't like to see the possibility designed in so that a recreation room in an accessory structure can turn into a rental, did you give consideration to an alternative location for the recreation room, such as a basement room, feel this is hard to justify with so many exceptions; can't support the two-story garage, although there is a bad situation with the tall house to the right, that house will be removed someday, to build a tall garage to compensate is not justified; the accessory structure regulations allow a 15-foot roof ridge which will help screen the house to the back, having a recreation room on the second floor right at the property line is inappropriate; concerned with secondary structure, it is too massive, in commentary applicant notes that the garage structure will be built first to accommodate workers, that is troubling, it will be used as a second unit, needs to be decreased in size and moved off the property line; resounding "no" on the accessory structure, if issue is screening from adjacent structures, should start by using landscaping and making that a design element, in order to accommodate the pool table, the garage could be redesigned on the ground level by building a one-car garage, with some remaining room to be used for the pool table. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. • Change window type from vinyl clad to real true divided light wood windows; • make sure the bedroom windows meet the emergency egress requirements; • the staircase as designed doesn't have enough risers, will take up more room on floor plan than is shown, need to address in plan revision; • knee braces are either too little or too few, either make them bigger or add more, could use 6x6 for knee braces and 3x6 for strut, address in plan revision; • the saddle bag roofs on the side are a little flat, should have a pitch closer to the main roof, address in plan revision; • concern with detail for column and beam as shown on side elevation, not sure how will work out, show the detail in the plans; • show detail on fascia board, maybe a shadow reveal with a piece of trim; • provide a detailed landscape plan which incorporates screening for the adjacent tall buildings; • redesign garage to eliminate the second floor recreation room; • need to decrease size of accessory structure; • increase setback on garage structure from 6" to 2' to allow for maintenance, show on plans; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2005 -14- • consider redesigning the ground level of the garage to accommodate the pool table, could be one-car garage, show changes on plans; The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: Commissioners noted that , this is a beautiful design for the main house, the changes requested to the house are moderate, no need to go to a design review consultant, applicant made a bold attempt on the garage that didn't pass muster, the garage needs to be redesigned and screening of the yard achieved by a good landscape plan. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dais and took her seat. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of October 17, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 17, 2005, noting that the Council adopted the amendments to the TW zoning district for group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent care facilities and clarifying the boundaries of the Marco Polo residential area. CP Monroe noted that the correspondence for the Commission tonight included a letter from Mills Peninsula Health Services. The Mitigation Panel along with several other issues which conditions require the Commission to review will be placed on the November 14, 2005, agenda. Commissioner noted that the neighbors who wrote about 144 Costa Rica should receive a copy of any correspondence sent. Commissioner asked about whether it would be a good idea to develop a list of well designed houses which have been through the design review process for interested people to look at as examples. It was noted that this could be used as a recognition program. Concern was also expressed that such a list might result in all new houses looking alike. Staff noted that it would be up to the Commission to decide criteria and which houses would be on any such list. There were no further comments. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.10.24.05.doc