Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111405PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 14, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the November 14, 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 (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES CP Monroe noted that Commissioners had a desk item from David Moutoux related to the minutes for the October 24th meeting, and noted that he requested two changes. The minutes of the October 24, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following two amendments: 1) page 8, paragraph 1: Sixteen or so letters, most received after the packet was delivered commenting on animal boarding in opposition to the proposed zoning change allowing for "doggie day care" in the Rollins Road corridor, were placed at the commissioner's desks, ...2) Page 10, paragraph 3, add a bullet point which states: 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. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1801 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (ROGER HAGMAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT AND PEDERSEN AND PEDERSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked staff to clarify ownership of the slip road in front of this property along El Camino Real; CP Monroe noted that the frontage road is in the City's right-of-way and will be landscaped in the future as noted in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Commissioners asked: ƒ Application notes number of customers will increase from 40 to 50-55 per day; please clarify number of existing customers. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 2 2. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 5, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR REAL ESTATE AND TRAVEL OFFICE (GARBIS BEZDJIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property and left the dais and chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked staff how much floor area of the tenant space would have to be reduced to eliminate the need for the additional parking space? Staff noted that given the parking ratio for office (1:300 SF) compared to retail (1:400 SF) any increment of intensification would require an additional parking space. Commissioners asked: ƒ Applicant to explain how the real estate and travel office will work together at this site; and ƒ Provide information on occupancy (percentage of available spaces) of public parking Lot Y behind this site, if available from Public Works. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais and took his seat. 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. 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 & 24, 2005) 3B. 2518 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JD ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TINA & KEVIN VILLEGIANTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 3C. 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 AZARSHOLAY, APPLICANT AND LOCAL 1781 BUILDING CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 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. C. Deal noted he has a business relationship with the applicant of the project at 2518 Hillside Drive so he would recuse himself from that vote. Commission asked if staff received any comments from neighbors regarding the story poles at 1718 Escalante Way; CP Monroe noted that no comments were received. C. Brownrigg noted that he did not want to call anything off the calendar but wanted to make the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 3 following comments: 1718 Escalante Way, feel that the story poles now represent the proposed addition; 1511 Rollins Road, application for driving school is appropriate at this location, however property owner failed to respond to question if other parts of the office space will be leased out to other businesses; and 2518 Hillside Drive, appreciate that the applicant carefully noted simulated true divided light windows for the project. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the consent calendar, noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The projects at 1718 Escalante Way and 1511 Rollins Road passed on a voice vote 7-0. The project at 2518 Hillside Drive passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, ZONED C-1, C-3 & UNCLASSIFIED – 1) ACTION ON PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING PANEL (CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 118); 2) REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONS NO. 5, 35, 90 & 103 WITH RESPECT TO REFINED LANDSCAPE PLANS, BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND STREET LIGHT DESIGN; AND 3) REVIEW OF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIC SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW WATER LINE, INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING GARAGE (MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT, ANSHEN & ALLEN, ARCHITECT; AND PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT AND MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (201 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report November 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the items to be considered by the Commission in response to the conditions of approval for the project. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt, Mills Peninsula Health Services Project Manager, gave an overview of the proposed mitigation monitoring panel, noting that a lot of effort had gone in to broadening the membership of the group, as it is now composed there is one Davis Drive resident on the panel, hope to have one more, there is a representative from the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, the Hospital District and a City staff member; residents have expressed concern with the long commitment, the intent is to let the panel determine its evolution, and determine meeting times and frequency. Neighbors proximate to the hospital that share a property line were invited to represent the neighborhood, wanted to have two or three members from the neighborhood, so far one has volunteered; think that the panel as it is now composed has a reasonable core, hope it can grow. Commissioners asked: has the panel met yet? No, want to get the concept approved by the Commission as required, then will set up schedule. Concerned that there is only one resident, would like to see opportunity for another. The major function of the group is to monitor that the hospital meets its obligations, at first would expect a need to meet more frequently than monthly, then could adjust schedule as issues are resolved; would like to see a meeting schedule set up so residents know that issues will be addressed in a reasonable time frame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 4 Oren Reinbolt introduced Todd Tierney, project architect and Antonia Bava, project landscape architect, to present the changes to the garage design, the landscaping at the corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale, and the landscaping along the property line adjacent to Davis Drive residences; it was noted that the only change to the garage structure is the location and orientation of the security building at the garage's south side facing the hospital entrance and changes to the surrounding landscaped areas to accommodate that change; noted that the parking on the top deck was reconfigured and a row of trees in planters was added. It was noted that the initial phase of landscaping would be to complete the 15-foot wide swath of landscaping adjacent to the south property line, abutting the Davis Drive residences; this area will be planted with a combination of 24" and 36" box trees, with both deciduous and evergreen varieties. The trees will be planted as far from the existing power lines as possible, which will allow the use of taller species; neighbors have been meeting with the fencing contractor, looks like agreement is being reached on a common fence design on the property line, which would continue across the end of Albemarle; the trees to be planted at the end of Albemarle on hospital property will be a mix of evergreen and deciduous, proposing a high/low mix, using Birch, Chinese Maple, and some Redwoods; two trees are proposed within the Albemarle public right- of-way placed so they will not interfere with residence's driveways, in this location have to use a species from the list of City trees which can be planted under power lines, a flowering pear tree is proposed, open to other choices the City would approve. Commissioners asked: The visual representation for the Trousdale/El Camino Real frontage provides a nice progression on the landscaping, what growth projection was assumed for the trees in this picture? The trees represented depict a 10-year growth. How do you accomplish planting trees on top of the garage structure? The trees will be in large planter boxes placed over a structural grid to bear the weight, will use multi-trunk trees so that the view through the garage from the hospital will be of foliage, will use 3-foot by 3-foot planters, and will plant 24" box trees, expect that they will attain a height of about 15 feet. The applicant continued discussion of the landscape and sidewalk concept on El Camino Real. Commissioners noted that street trees were originally proposed along El Camino Real between the street and the sidewalk, that is the planting pattern shown in the street cross section for the North Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan, why are the trees now shown on the inner side of the sidewalk? The applicant noted that it was discovered that there is a 54" diameter water main within the public right-of-way in the location where the street trees were to be planted. The water main is too close to the surface for trees to be planted in that area. In addition, Caltrans has required a deceleration lane at the bus stop, which widens the roadway at the intersection of El Camino Real and Trousdale; it is now proposed that waist high shrubs be planted between the sidewalk and the roadway for pedestrian separation from the street, but there are no shrubs proposed next to the deceleration lane for the bus stop; trees would be planted on the inboard side of the sidewalk, there is a 7-foot wide area between the Caltrans right-of-way and the new water easement where trees can be planted. If the sidewalk were moved inboard to the property on the SF water easement, the trees could not be closer to the street because of the location of the utilities within the Caltrans right-of-way; Cypress tree is proposed, it is in the same family as the Elm, will replicate the historically planted Elms along the rest of El Camino Real, this is one of the two species called out in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for El Camino Real. Commissioner comment: There appears to be plenty of room between the hospital and the street along El Camino Real to provide a nice, meandering walkway, similar to what is proposed on Trousdale, would like a meandering walkway added to get the pedestrians away from the street, would like to see a sketch option with a meandering path. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 5 Commissioners asked: What is the timing for the planting proposed adjacent to the Davis Drive properties? Work will start on the neighborhood buffer zone by January 2006, and it should be completed by the beginning of March 2006. Will the proposed public artwork be accommodated in the planting at the corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale? Yes. Terry Huebner, Davis Drive, Steve D'Ambrosio, 1504 Davis Drive, Kevin Nelson, Albemarle Resident, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, and Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive, spoke regarding the hospital project and the conditions of approval; concerned with Condition No. 118, the mitigation monitoring panel, would like to see a resident from the western section of Davis Drive on the panel, concerned with meetings only being held once a month, would like more immediate response to concerns, how will the City hear about the concerns, neighbors on west end of Davis Drive have valid reasons why they cannot serve, should have an outside representative similar to what was used during BART construction, would like to know how often the panel will meet, there are problems which need to be addressed; also need representation from adjacent apartments and the Plaza Shopping Center; think it is important that the landscaping is completed as soon as possible, and that the landscaping installed be as mature as possible, need to decide what that means, what size trees will be planted; would like to see the proposed wood fence continue across the end of Albemarle along the property line; concerned with the path/fire access proposed behind Davis Drive homes, shown as a 20-foot wide asphalt path, will not be visually pleasing, would like to see an alternative; sent photographs showing the view from Albemarle with trees removed, now there is construction noise, dust, visual impacts, wind, trucks backing up, dirt being hauled and trucks not covered, would like to see the personal mitigation items go forward; with Condition No. 119, there wasn't enough money to go around, but impacts are still there; understand things have to go on, but hoping that through the panel neighbors will get protection from impacts; appreciate the landscaping proposed at the end of Albemarle. Public Comment continued: Would like to remind Commission that if deciduous trees are considered, will only provide view protection during parts of the year, wind will go through the deciduous trees, should be more evergreen along fence line; will berm be built north of the access path so that the trees will appear taller, suggest a mix of evergreen and deciduous, suggest bay trees, they make a nice canopy and leave very little debris; want to reiterate concern with asphalt pathway, would be directly behind my house, and back yard will look directly onto the path, earlier renditions showed something that looked like a trail, now is a 20' wide asphalt path. The applicant responded to the public comments, noting that the path along the south property line is asphalt primarily for fire access, needs to serve that purpose, may be able to come up with another surface option, will need to work with the City to come up with an acceptable solution; will also be working with the City on what is allowable within the Albemarle right-of-way for landscaping. Commissioners asked: what is the timeline for planting on the north (hospital) side of the water pipeline? The schedule for this planting is constrained because there will be a lot of work occurring in that area, the foundation for the hospital structure will be under construction, so will have to wait until that is complete, the construction fence and landscaping within the 15-foot wide buffer zone is expected to be completed by March 2006. Will the planting behind the residences be on a berm? No, there will be a drainage swale adjacent to the property line, and the tree planting will be a slight rise on the other side of the swale. Neighbors commented that the trucks hauling dirt are not covered properly, please respond. The applicant noted that the Highway Patrol requirement is that they either are covered or that dirt be kept 6 inches below the top; contractor has chosen that option rather than covering the dirt. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 6 Commissioner comment: Regarding the mitigation panel, right now membership on the panel is light, would like to see option of adding more residents if someone is willing to serve, note that Carole Groom is the designated point of contact from the hospital, also note that there is a representative from the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, this is an opportunity for neighbors to get involved, need to take accountability, note that there is an email address available where residents can send their concerns; recommend that the panel meet more frequently than monthly to address concerns now, may taper off as issues are resolved; CP noted when concerns are brought up, City staff has contacted the applicant, they then follow up and notify City, then get back to the concerned party; would like to see an open board seat for one more resident, is there a way that other residents can be notified of panel meetings so that they can attend if they want to? CA Anderson noted that it will be up to the panel to decide how the public will be notified; CP Monroe noted that it was the intention that the neighbors will know who the panel members are and can talk to them directly about any concerns; hospital has been sending notices/bulletins to a list which is larger than our standard noticing radius; the panel will need to discuss its noticing policy. C. Brownrigg made a motion to approve the monitoring panel and find that it meets the requirements spelled out in Condition No. 118, with the provision made that there be an open panel seat for an additional resident member. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the monitoring panel. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner comment on landscaping and garage structure design: would like to note that on the landscape plan, Sheet L1.3 notes 24" and 36" box trees to be planted, could put in larger, but the larger ones sit for a year or two and don't show growth, in about a year the 24" and 36" box will show growth and will attain the same size as a larger planting and grow with more vigor, the trees chosen are fast growing and will do well; would like to see different ideas for the materials used for the emergency access pathway; would like to see different options for street light standards, provide several options and show examples of where they can be seen in other cities, not sure the selection of light poles works with the vocabulary of the hospital project, great opportunity to discuss a consistent theme to use throughout the area; would also like to see different options for pedestrian walkway along El Camino Real, there appears to be a consensus that the buffer landscaping adjacent to Davis Drive properties is as good as it can be given the site constraints; note that the end of Albemarle is something which is not solely in the hospital's control, hospital will need to work with City to determine what can be done; that the public should be aware that the mitigation panel provides them with a way to make comments about the project and construction impacts as the project proceeds. Commission directed the applicant to bring back the following three items for further clarification: ƒ That different options for streetlights be brought back, bring several selections from which to choose; ƒ Would like to see different ideas for the material used for the emergency access pathway that would satisfy the fire lane requirements; and ƒ Bring back options for a meandering sidewalk pathway along El Camino Real frontage, with an eye towards keeping pedestrians away from the street. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 5. 904 AZALEA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN AND DEBRA SULLIVAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND RICHARD CAMPONUEVO, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 7 ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report November 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kevin Sullivan, property owner, was available to answer questions. There were no comments or questions and 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 November 1, 2005, sheets 1 to 8 and 9A, with vinyl frame double-glass insulated windows without grids throughout, and with a 3'-0" arched landing made of stamped concrete and decorative 2-inch Spanish tiles; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that at no time shall this residence be used as anything other than a single- family home and at no time shall there be a second kitchen or a second unit on site; 3) that the Building Department shall inspect and confirm that plywood has been glued and nailed to the living space side of habitable attic areas to prevent future attempts to expand the second floor habitable areas; 4) 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; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 10, 2005 memo, the Fire Marshal's, NPDES Coordinator's, and the Recycling Specialist's August 15, 2005 memos, and the City Engineer's August 17, 2005, memo, shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: appreciate the applicant's revisions to the plans to eliminate the floor area ratio variance and clarify the details of this project. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 6. 1388 HILLSIDE CIRCLE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND MAY INCLUDE AT LEAST POSSIBLE VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND A POSSIBLE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAN MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY CHAPMAN, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 8 Reference staff report November 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Because of the incomplete nature of the plans submitted for the project which made it difficult to determine whether the project complied or not with the zoning code, there were no conditions of approval suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the plans contain a lot of handwritten notes and asked what they refer to; CP Monroe noted that the notes and their references are unclear, could ask applicant to explain. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the plans are difficult to read, have no idea what is being proposed, Commission and staff cannot make plans, there are numerous errors, design is terrible, and therefore moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:16 p.m. 7. 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) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he clarified with the City Attorney that he lives more than 500 feet from the subject property and therefore does not have to recuse himself from this item. Reference staff report November 14, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, architect, and Alicia Parnell, applicant, were available to answer questions, noted that there is little architecture involved with this application, front door will be changed to comply with ADA requirements, mostly interior improvements will be made to comply with the Health Department, exterior appearance of the building will not be changed, this will be the only vegetarian food establishment with take-out on the peninsula, there is no cooking involved, this is a perfect location, space is small enough, food will be picked up, may have seating on the sidewalk if the City allows, will talk to Public Works about obtaining an encroachment permit, originally thought that adding seating would require the restrooms to comply with ADA requirements, since found that based on the valuation the upgrade is not needed; would like to offer a healthy food alternative especially for people without time or inclination to prepare healthy food, healthy food enhances your diet, have several hundred customers within the community, there are seven similar restaurants in San Francisco, would like to offer this type of food on the Peninsula so people don't have to drive to San Francisco, location is perfect between Earthbeam and Café Capuchino – two healthy choices, have supporters in the audience tonight. Commission noted that the applicant's response letter indicates that classes will be offered at this site and asked how often classes would occur; applicant noted that classes would be offered once a month with a maximum of 5-10 people. Commission noted that there was a misconception at the study meeting that this business would operate mainly as a wholesale and catering business, applicant has done a good job to clarify how this business will operate, now comfortable that it is a specialty shop food establishment, however think the space may not be big enough for the applicant's needs. Commission asked if classes can be included as part of this application; CA Anderson noted that a condition of approval can be added regarding the classes. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 9 Commission asked the applicant to clarify the frequency of the classes. Applicant noted that she will probably have her hands full with the retail end of the business so feel classes will occur once a month, will most likely be two hour classes in the afternoons on weekends and in the evening on weekdays. Kerry Bitner, 2517 Poppy Drive; Maureen Kilo, San Mateo; Kourami Davenport; Beverly Yates; and Symantha Vietz, 256 San Luis Avenue, San Bruno, spoke in support of the application; CP Monroe read into the record written comments in support from Maggie Smith, 1199 Howard Avenue #1103; Gregg Jackson, 414 Ulloa Street, San Francisco; Leslie Anderson, 22333 Big Oak Drive; am a Burlingame resident, have been a customer for three years, business provides a valuable service, food is healthy and delicious, operator is ethical, many devoted customers come, go to the San Mateo store two to three times a week, this market is growing, demand exceeds supply, this is an attractive alternative for lunch offering salads and soups to go and take back to work, support local businesses and those with a lower impact on the environment, food used is organic, no cooking involved, operator is dedicated to sharing her knowledge with the community; am a customer and the administrator for The San Francisco Professional Food Society, there are many wonderful examples of this type of growing food establishments in the Bay Area, this will be the only raw food establishment in the south bay, food scene is cutting edge; am a six-year cancer survivor, one of two people alive with this type of bone cancer, did not fully recover until began eating raw food, now am a 175 pound martial arts teacher, now help people to turn to this type of food, have to drive to San Francisco to eat at a raw food establishment, excited to be spending time in Burlingame; made a commitment to eat raw food, come to shop in Burlingame once a week; have been a vegetarian for 16 years, love raw food offered by applicant, difficult to find this type of food at restaurants, Burlingame is a unique and quaint city, has an upscale feel and is on the cutting edge, this would be a perfect addition to Broadway. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to include classes offered at the site: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 26, 2005, sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that this business location shall be occupied by a specialty shop food establishment (396 SF) with no on-site seating area, which may change its food establishment classification to a different type of food establishment upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3) that classes shall occur at a maximum frequency of once a week, in the afternoon hours on weekends and on weekdays from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., with a maximum number of students not to exceed the occupancy allowed by the Fire Department; any changes to the number or frequency of classes offered, duration or class times shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4) that this specialty shop food establishment may be replaced by another specialty shop food establishment at the same location within the same or less square footage; if this specialty shop is changed to any other classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use; 5) that on-site seating shall be added to the specialty shop food establishment only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6) that the parking variance shall only apply to this 396 SF tenant space and the food establishment use with no on-site seating area and the parking variance shall become void if the tenant space or food establishment use is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or if the building is replaced or remodeled to qualify as new construction; 7) that the specialty shop food establishment may be open for business Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a maximum of 6 employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 8) that this food establishment shall provide a trash receptacle located on the sidewalk at the front as approved by the city; the trash container shall be consistent with the streetscape improvements and that this business shall maintain all trash receptacle(s) on the sidewalk at the front and at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 9) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 10 business, including the parking lot to the rear of the site; all trash/garbage shall be removed on a schedule established with the Health Department; 10) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise which requires more than one trip a day or a designated delivery vehicle other than the owners personal car; 11) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 12) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 13) that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 14) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Recycling Specialist’s and NPDES Coordinator’s October 3, 2005, memos, and the City Engineer's October 11, 2005, memo, shall be met including any special waste treatment requirements resulting from food preparation on this site; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: with regard to the parking variance it should be noted that the City Council approved ordinance to allow for five additional food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area, knowing many properties in the area do not have on-site parking, this site has an advantage because it contains eight on-site parking spaces behind the building; this is clearly a retail food establishment and not a catering business, parking should not be a problem. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the application with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1532 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVE AND DENISE MAURO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran recused themselves from this item because they live within 500 feet of the subject property and left the dais and chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, noted that this is a typical Spanish style house and Spanish details will be carried to the addition at the rear of the house. Commission complimented the architect for providing the existing and proposed building elevations on the same sheet, it makes it very easy to review the proposed changes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Deal noted that the addition is consistent with existing Spanish design, the project has all of the attributes to comply with the design guidelines and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no recommended changes to the project. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no recommended changes to the project. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 11 abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran returned to the dais and took their seats. 9. 1125 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SATISH AND MEENU DUTT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK SANO, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Satish Dutt, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the massing and proportions are handled well, but that the details need to be worked out to make the project better. Commission asked the applicant to clarify the existing and proposed plate heights; the applicant noted that 8'-1" is existing on the first floor; and 8'-6" is proposed on the second floor. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments: ƒ Provide first and second floor plate height dimensions on building elevations; as proposed second floor plate height (8'-6") is taller than first floor plate height (8'-1"), consider reducing the second floor plate height to 8'-1" to make it more proportional, would also help to reduce the overall height of the building; ƒ provide dimension from the top of the first floor plate to the second floor finished floor; ƒ provide proposed tree species on landscape plan, trees to be retained and new trees; ƒ clarify on plans if fireplace in living room is gas or wood burning; if gas burning, how is it going to vent; if wood burning does it need a chimney; ƒ verify if furnace will fit into the enclosure shown on the plans, actual furnace may be larger than area shown; ƒ change vinyl windows to wooden simulated true-divided light windows; ƒ clarify on plans the type of window trim proposed, should use a traditional stucco mold; ƒ porch seems diminished in stature and should continue for the width of the recess, the porch area should encompass the living room windows; ƒ the pitch of the roof on the porch could be less than the other roof pitches so it will not ride too high up on the upper windows; ƒ consider placing the crawl space vents closer to the ground on all building elevations so they are not so dominant and can be covered by vegetation; ƒ show gutters and downspouts on all building elevations; ƒ consider using wider shutters on the front elevation, 18 inch width may look better for this design; ƒ windows may be shown too close to the roof line and may not allow for flashing, should verify and revise now so that changes won't have to be made later; ƒ new rear sliding doors are not compatible with the design, grids should be omitted or have the windows consistent with the grid pattern in the doors; ƒ the corbels on the rear elevation are spaced approximately 7 feet on center, suggest adding corbels between each 7 foot spacing on 3'-6" spacing, will look better; ƒ label all egress windows on plans, verify that the size and opening comply with egress requirements; ƒ horizontal band on the rear elevation should be wood not stucco, will work better with this design; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 12 ƒ mixture of sliding and double hung windows does not work well, use one consistent window style throughout; ƒ all skylights should be tinted, add note on plans; This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: this is a big improvement to the existing house, not sure if sending this project to a design review consultant is appropriate, a detailed list has been provided to the designer, feel the requested changes can be made since there is no concern with the massing; concerned with the side setback variance request and the impact on the neighbor; feel side setback variance is appropriate, most houses in this neighborhood were built with nonconforming side setbacks, if no second floor and design review were not required the request to extend building with a 3'-0" side setback would be eligible to be a minor modification; parking variance is also appropriate, does not make sense to demolish the house to gain four inches in the garage; sending the project to a design review consultant may speed the project up by providing appropriate guidance and reducing chance that Commission might refer revised plans to design reviewer because all issues were not addressed. 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 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 10. 1529 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ARKADY ZLOBINSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK BRAND ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Brand, architect, noted that he discussed the project with the adjacent neighbor at 1533 Meadow Lane, sent a letter to the adjacent neighbor at 1525 Meadow Lane but that neighbor did not respond. Commission noted that this is a difficult-shaped lot and this project has been designed without variances. Commission asked the architect to clarify construction of the sunshades; architect noted that they would be a wooden lattice design. Jean Ann Carroll, 1525 Meadow Lane; Chris Palmer, 1533 Meadow Lane; Steve and Lisa Alms, 1534 Meadow Lane; Martha and Katie Mccormack, 1530 Meadow Lane; and Samuel Bandrapalli, 1524 Meadow Lane, expressed concerns with the project. They live adjacent to side where addition is proposed, spoke with the architect when they were on the site and they took notes on concerns, did not respond to letter since had already talked to them; reviewed the plans submitted and noted that her concerns were not taken into account, decided it would be best to bring concerns to the Commission, proposed addition adds 27 feet to the existing 38 foot long wall; wall of the new addition is massive and will take away the existing view, submitted a photograph of the existing view and what the addition would look like from backyard, greenery and sunlight, spend a lot of time in the back yard, will feel invaded, feel that an addition can be designed without impacting neighboring properties, there are a lot of existing trees, now have a shade garden but don't want the entire garden to be shaded, this is an odd-shaped lot, now have almost total privacy along addition side, new addition will take away privacy, neighborhood children come to play in her garden; present owner currently does not live in the house and does not intend to live there, heard that he want to finish the project and put it on the market by April of next year, continually picking up trash and mailings to keep the neighborhood looking clean, house is used to store lumber, person comes to house to drop off and pick up City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 13 construction materials; have parking problems on this cul-de-sac, there is no space for parking at this house, no one on cul-de-sac uses their garage for parking, cul-de-sac shape makes it difficult for street parking and for cars to turn around, cars park at an angle and frequently extend into driveway aprons; larger four- bedroom house is too big and will only make the parking problem worse, this is a cohesive neighborhood, owners park in front of their own houses; service vehicles, street cleaner and garbage trucks constantly have problems maneuvering on this street, proposed project will add to the congestion; Burlingame Village feels like a village, this project is out of scope with the neighborhood, will have a problem if this is the first of many projects to come on this street. Further comment: reviewed the proposed plans, feel terrible for the impact to the house at 1525 Meadow Lane, will block out the sun to her property, concerned with the massive wall; live next door at 1533 Meadow Lane, bought the house 11 years ago mainly for its backyard privacy, concerned with loss of privacy from the new dining room window, could be mitigated by adding vegetative screening, the existing large Redwood tree will likely block the view into backyard form their second story windows; disconcerting to see the limited concern regarding the massive wall facing 1525 Meadow, massing along the left side needs to be reduced, project is doubling the length of the façade, this is a serious concern and it needs to be addressed, project could be redesigned to be a split level house, it would be attractive and in keeping with what the improvements to other houses in the neighborhood in the next 20-30 years. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments: ƒ Concerned with the east elevation, this side is already massive and is getting longer with no windows, east elevation needs more articulation, it is hard on the adjacent property, this side is very visible from the street; ƒ stucco portion at the rear of the house is too vertical, need to visually reduce the height; ƒ like the use of wood siding; ƒ concerned with the flu for the gas fireplace, would look better if a chimney stack were used instead; ƒ like the shutters on the front elevation, style of the house is defined on the front elevation, concerned that the design is not being carried on the side and rear elevations; ƒ there should be a consistent style throughout the house, now looks like an addition to the house, should look like one house; ƒ should have some sense that the design on the front of the building evolves around the corner to the side and rear elevations; ƒ concerned with the wide stairs at the rear elevation, handrails on the walls don't look like they belong, would look better if the size of the stairs and railing was reduced; ƒ there are too many different types of windows, need to choose a consistent style; ƒ concerned with the location of the deck, feel that it will not be used and will be very dark; and ƒ trees should be added to help screen the addition from the adjacent neighbor. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission comment: knew wall along east side was massive, but was not aware of the impact to the neighbor's space until now, there are many options to the reduce the impacts, feel a radical redesign is required here, confident that the architect can redesign the project to minimize the impact on the neighbor; as proposed the deck will be really shady, would rather like to see this area incorporated as part of the interior space of the house; the existing house can accommodate a second floor addition over the center of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 14 the house away from the side property lines, family room can be added in place of the deck, this project needs a complete rework. CA Anderson noted that the project can either reapply as a redesigned project or it can be referred to a design review consultant after the project has been redesigned based on the comments given. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Commission noted that the project must be redesigned prior to being reviewed by the design reviewer. This motion was seconded by C Keighran. Comment on the motion: would like to point out that other issues may arise with the redesign of the project, house may appear larger from the front and may impact other neighbors, cannot solve the parking problem with this project, project complies with the on-site parking requirement; existing house is 22'-0" tall, proposed addition is similar in height at 20'-1" tall, new house design could be taller, would like to see a shadow study provided to see impacts on the neighboring properties; proposed design does not fit in with this charming neighborhood, would like to see a charming design compatible with the neighborhood; it's clear that the problems are with the design since the house is within all other zoning code requirements. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction that the project be completely redesigned to reduce the impacts on the neighbors before seen by the design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 11. 2620 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KEVIN WEINMANN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LORNA BECCARIA, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Kevin Weinmann, architect, and Lorna Beccaria, property owner, were available to answer questions, noted that this is a small addition at the rear of the house, clarified that the house has four bedrooms now, with this project the number of bedrooms will be reduced to three, tried to design the addition to be compatible with the house, this is a wonderful house, would like to increase the function of the house, architect has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the proposed design, would like to have both decks proposed at the rear of the house off the bedrooms. Commission asked what is the existing and proposed ceiling height; architect noted 8'-1" for existing and new. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. ƒ Plans are difficult to read, it may be because of the CAD program used, materials proposed do not show up correctly on the plans, plans do not show gutters, would like to see plans cleared up to better show details; ƒ on the rear elevation, second floor on left side, roof should be carried up to a ridge as done over the garage, would add character; and ƒ concerned with how the two decks on the rear elevation are integrated, upper deck overlaps the lower deck, does not work well and it looks awkward; area at overlap on lower deck is not useable, could incorporate a sloped tile roof and deck instead; the two decks need to be better integrated. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2005 15 C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when plans have been revised and all information is shown clearly and correctly based on the direction given and have been plan checked by staff. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: not opposed to having two decks at the rear of the house, they just need to be integrated better. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 7, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council study and regular meetings of November 7, 2005. - FYI: Review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 1808 Davis Drive. Commission reviewed and accepted changes proposed in the FYI report. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.11.14.05.doc