Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121205PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 12, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the December 12, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, 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 November 28, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item 2, 2412 Hale Drive has been continued until complete plans have been submitted and plan checked. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items on the agenda 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. 1B. 2010 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES AND MARA FERRARO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 1C. 1418 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DUTCH HOSMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Chair Auran called Item 1A, 1021 Cortez Avenue, off the consent calendar because he was not satisfied with the response regarding the front porch. C. Deal noted concern about the bay window. C. Deal also noted that he would have to abstain on Item 1B, 2010 Broadway, because he has a business relationship with the applicant. C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 2 resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran noted that C. Deal would abstain from 2010 Broadway, and called for a voice vote on the motion and 2010 Broadway passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote; and 1418 Castillo Avenue passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1A. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT; SAMUEL KWONG, ARCHITECT; KWANG PAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (49 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 MEETING) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report December 12, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Sam Kwong, architect, represented the project. Believe they addressed all the issues raised, provided a porch on the front elevation part of which is 5 feet deep, think this project has been through enough design review. Commissioner noted that he called the item up because part of the porch as designed is too narrow (2') and not functional, this is new construction so should be designed properly; fatal flaw, has no purpose since it has no function; the mix of wide and narrow porch is awkward, can see the part not useable from the street, narrow portion needs to be treated differently than the deeper part or move the wall out in that area and get the relief to the front façade in a different way; if we had seen this arrangement on the original plans Commission would have flagged it as an error. Architect noted did not want to move the front wall back, made the porch continuous across the front; other buildings on the street have a narrow front setback, feel that the proposed design addresses the concerns. Commission asked for a number of items to be added or clarified on the drawings and in the conditions: • are windows casement or double hung, important for Commission to know, should be noted; • the greenhouse window should be wood construction and should be noted on the plans; • there should be a note that the fire places are gas appliances so Commission can properly look at design of chimneys; • it should be noted on the plans that the windows will be true divided light, wood windows as requested by the design reviewer; • the knee braces have been made larger but their number should have been reduced to make it work visually and be proportional to the mass of the roof (ones on the west elevation should be reduced by 2; number on the east elevation should have a total of five). • size of the posts/columns on the porch should be more decorative, their style should be changed to solidify the craftsman style of the house; • there needs to be room for the beam in gable at the front door to accent the entry; and • the chimney needs to be made to be proportional with the rest of the house. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: there are a number of choices for redesign of the front porch, should be left to the applicant. C. Osterling moved to continue this item until the applicant has addressed the issues raised by the commission in the design and the staff has had an opportunity to check them. The motion was seconded by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 3 C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: the redesign should address the number of knee braces, the columns at the front, the porch, the notes on the plans for windows and fire place apparatus, the green house window material; and the proportion of the chimney to the house; when all the issues raised have been addressed and the plans checked this could be returned on the consent calendar. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for additional work on the plans as noted by the commissioners in the public hearing and in their discussion. The plans should be placed on a consent calendar after the corrections have been made and the plans checked by the staff. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. There is no appeal. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 2. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT This item was continued until a complete set of plans for the proposal have been submitted and checked by staff. The item will be renoticed when it is placed on a future agenda. 3. 1529 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ARKADY ZLOBINSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK BRAND, ARCHITECT (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 12, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Brand, architect, 425 Second Street, San Francisco, represented the project. He noted that after the last meeting his client scaled back the project, and is now adding only one bedroom and the majority of the addition is now one story, the existing second floor wall will be extended only 5 feet. Public comment: Jean Ann Carroll, 1525 Meadow Lane, Steve Alms, 1534 Meadow Lane; Chris Palmer, 1533 Meadow Lane; Katie McCormick, 1530 Meadow Lane; Lisa Alms, 1534 Meadow Lane; spoke. After the November meeting and the items identified by the Planning Commission thought that the project would be better, disappointed that it was not, submitted a letter dated December 12, 2005, outlining the flaws in the project and points made by the commission before that were not addressed. Reduced the scale of the project for quick approval but did not address the Commission's comments, did not improve, all the addition is at the edge with a dark hole in the center, will impact all the surrounding property owners which is unnecessary, when done it will not look as if it was original, it will look like a trailer was added to the site. Commissioner asked if prefer massing on the second floor at the middle. Support adding a second story at the center, would be a nice addition, his view would be most impacted and mostly from the street. Neighbor to the west, concerns have been addressed, unfortunate that something of value is being removed, the sun in his neighbor's garden, wrong for speculating builders come into the neighborhood and build at Jean's expense. Commissioner noted that if second story was in the middle it would have the greatest impact on this neighbor. Concerned about privacy in my back yard, OK if there were only a few windows on his side City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 4 of the house. Commissioner noted that this redesign is a substantially different project than the Commission reviewed earlier; some of the comments made then no longer apply. Was impressed by the Commission's comments at the last meeting, heard serious concerns, these concerns still remain, hope listen and consider neighbors' concerns. Recognize that this is a significant change from the first, but they just flipped the plan, they should do a smaller project at the center and go up, not want to see another big box from her lot as happened behind her because she did not realize what would happen. Architect noted disappointed neighbors did not like the change, did try to add at the center, not much square footage, second story would be big and bulky, unattractive; did not do the shadow study requested because this is now a one story addition, the side setback variance is requested is based on the width of the lot, which at the front would not be required because it is narrower; feel that the neighbors' are over estimating the impact. Commissioner asked the plate height of the single story addition, it was established to be 8 feet. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: applicant did respond to the commission concerns about bulk, went a different direction to a single story addition with one small addition on the second story, added 5 feet to the upper bedroom; commission is allowed to grant a variance when the property owner shows all the findings are met, feel they have been met for a 5 foot side setback instead of 7 feet for a portion of this addition, this lot is not a rectangle, so setback is measured from the midpoint of the side property lines, property owner is being penalized because this is an unusual lot which is a valid reason for a variance; would ask the architect to prepare a solar study for the proposed project, would go a long way to resolving the neighbors concerns; it is irrelevant that the project is being done by a developer, he has the right to purchase and improve a property. Impact of this proposal is much less than a two story addition, even one at the center of the house; shadows would be much deeper with a two story addition, can't do much less than proposing; could the roof at the end of the second floor be hipped, would preserve all the sun to the neighbor's yard, may not be the best architecture but would reduce the impact on light next door; support since this addition minimizes the mass and bulk impact, second story addition at the center would have a greater impact; big improvement. This is a better solution than what was discussed at study, reduces mass more. Personally privacy and light impacted in rear yard by neighbor's addition, neighbors and owners have a right to ask for modification within reason, this change appears to be a win-win, a balance for both. Not convinced that the side setback is warranted; more work should be done, roof should be hipped, reorient part of downstairs with a lower pitch; less impact on the neighbor to the west because the ridge slopes away; still not think there is a justification for the variance; bedroom opens on to a common area, is this the best the project could be? Lot of structure on the side could be pushed other way, need to do work to mitigate the impact along with the gable end; with 7 foot side setback would add 18'-8", with the peak of the roof 16 feet from the property line given a 4:12 pitch, will not block much sun. Regarding the variance, lot is almost 6,000 SF, if it were a rectangle would require 4 foot side setback, will lose 540 SF of available lot because it is not a rectangle, shape forces addition to one side, will not vote against a variance, impact is to reduce 30 SF, being overly restrictive. Small addition, easy to comply, right side is already out of compliance, but there is no compelling reason for a variance and there is a solution. There should be a condition requiring that the tool shed be removed. Not convinced a trellis is sufficient to break up the large blank wall, needs windows or articulation, it was noted that the neighbor did not want windows. C. Brownrigg moved to continue this item based on the discussion which the Commission has had, feel that the architect is competent and the direction clear, there is no consensus to approve the project as its stands, when it returns this project should be set on the action calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: want to be clear what the concerns are and that they include addressing an alternative to the trellis for breaking up the expanse of the wall and that more detail on the landscaping for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 5 that area is provided; a solar study is also essential and should be prepared to address the light issue/impacts of the different proposals and the impact of the variance on the light availability. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. This action is not appealable. The item will be renoticed when it is returned to the Commission. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 4. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITES 100 AND 200, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND A REAL ESTATE USE (APR REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT, CORTINA INVESTMENTS, LTD., PROPERTY OWNER, AND S.J. SUNG AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (92 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Cauchi recused himself from this action because he works for the applicant, and stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report December 12, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for clarification of the group meeting day and noted that the conditions needed to be made consistent with the recent request for Monday. Staff noted that the request was for Monday and the condition should be corrected. Commissioner asked if there is any revenue for the city from real estate businesses. CA noted that the city benefits from the increase in property tax which results from sales and from a portion of the property transfer fees. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, represented the project. This is a nice building, whenever he is there it seems to have plenty of parking on-site, in addition on-street parking and public lots appear to have spaces; Chapin Avenue is the place professional offices have congregated downtown, this is the third application for space in this building by Alain Pinel Realty, they are successful and this building is working well for them; use has a unique parking demand, successful realtor is not in the office, s/he's out working as a sales person; clients only come to the office to pick things up or sign papers; would like to keep agent group meeting on Monday as it is now; there have not been any complaints about parking impacts. Commissioner asked if APR anticipates more expansion in this building. Currently no more space, expand only if someone else moves out; agents in other offices have transferred here because they like Burlingame. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with condition 6 amended to have the group meetings on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and the following conditions as included in the staff report: 1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 10,862 SF in Suites 100 and 200 at 1440 Chapin Avenue (8,465 SF in Suite 200 and 2,397 SF in Suite 100), as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 1, 2005 (Suite 100) (8½" x 11" sheet); 2) that the real estate business shall not expand into the remainder of the tenant space in Suite 200 (5,530 SF) or into any other tenant space in the building without an amendment to this permit; and that the subleased area shall not be occupied by any other business which has an employee to office density exceeding one person to 300 SF; 3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week; weekly agent meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., with a maximum of 68 persons on site during the meeting which includes agents, full-time employees, and managers; 4) that the real estate business shall have a maximum employees/managers of 93 part-time agents City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 6 and 5 full-time employees/managers (with a maximum of 14 persons on-site at any one time except on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for group meetings); the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents, employees and managers for a real estate use in 10,862 of Suite 100 and 200 and the maximum of 14 persons on site except for one and one-half hours on Tuesday, shall not be increased (from 98) without an amendment to this permit; 5) that the owner of the property shall file a report with the City Planner by July 1 of each year declaring how many managers, employees, agents, and independent contractors have been working at the site over the previous calendar year, and the date and maximum number of employees, agents and independent contractors who have been on-site at any one time and the report shall include the usage (business and employee count) of the 5,530 SF sublet space; 6) that due to the impact of weekly agent meetings on parking in this area, the owner agrees to schedule the weekly group meetings or client conferences so that the parking impact is minimized and will consult with the City Planner on an annual basis regarding any difficult times or days of the week and shall make adjustments that may be applicable; 7) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 8) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's November 28, 2005, memo shall be met; 9) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in two years from the date of approval (December, 2007) or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with conditions as noted. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1404 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY DECK ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CONSTANTIA PETROU AND STEFANOS ZENIOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND PATRICK PEREZ, ARCHITECT) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Patrick Perez, architect, 4211 Shafter Avenue, Oakland, was available to answer questions, noted that this is a small addition to make better use of the lower level, garage is shifted forward to gain usable area at the lower level; the roof of the new garage is next to the dining room and office, propose to use the roof as an exterior deck. Commissioner comments: This is a nice Spanish style house, the wood and steel guard rail proposed for the deck is not in keeping with the style of the house; should check on whether the existing stairs will be required to meet current code because of the extent of work being proposed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. • Design of deck is inappropriate, the components are completely incompatible with the architecture of the house; want to see something that matches the style of the house; could use stucco wall with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 7 ornamental guard rail; this is a critical design element prominent to the neighbor and the street, it is critical to get it right, now it looks like a solid wood fence; need to see the details on the deck screen, it is not in keeping with the style of the house; • Check with Chief Building Official that the existing stairwell to second floor which does not meet current code will be acceptable; if it will have to meet current code, might affect footprint, show the revisions on the plans; • Having a hard time understanding the rationale for the east elevation, windows are kept high in the wall (clerestory), assume for privacy with neighbors, yet a second story deck is proposed which will have a major impact on neighbors; would like to see more windows placed lower in the wall to break up the long wall and add more light to this space; • Want to see input from neighbors at 2020 Hillside that they are okay with the deck above the garage; • On the site plan, show the orientation of the adjacent house to the right; • Provide a landscape plan, there is a lot of blank space, need to show small shrubs and trees to enhance, show the types of vines proposed; 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 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 6. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID & KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. George Skinner, project architect, and David Tillman, applicant, were available for questions. Noted that the project takes the existing building and improves the roofs, opened up the house to the back, addition is a classical craftsman style in keeping with the neighborhood, have spoken to neighbors and no concerns were raised. Commissioners noted that this is a charming proposal, but it does require a hillside area construction permit, so story poles are needed to be installed to show the addition and the new roof line; done a nice job matching the style, even though it does not match the neighborhood, it matches the existing house, and glass wall will give nice view. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. • Need to install story poles that accurately reflect the perimeter of the proposed addition and the changes to the roof line; story poles shall be surveyed to determine accuracy; • On the plans, provide existing elevations along with the proposed elevations; • There is a lot of information on these plans that we don't need for design review, should be simplified; • Would like to see a landscape plan, there is a huge yard, landscaping in the front should be enhanced to augment the style of the house. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 8 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. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property, he stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the tree removal permit, how many trees are proposed to be removed? SP Brooks noted that there were two trees at the front of the house, a Fir tree and a Pepper tree, which are to be removed with a permit because they are diseased. There were no questions of staff. Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and Chris Kennon, 1255 Bernal Avenue, were available for questions. The applicant noted that the plans have been reviewed with the neighbors, and there is no opposition, it is a straightforward application with no exceptions requested. Commissioners commented on the proposed design, noting that it is very massive and there are some inconsistencies in the style, needs a little work before it comes back for review. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica 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. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. • Look at a different type of street trees than Crepe Myrtle, look at the street tree list, there are other species that are larger in scale and will do better in this location; • Consider a different species than Maple adjacent to the patio along the right side in the rear yard, something taller and evergreen, and consider some small trees or larger shrubs to provide greater privacy; • The massing of the gable end on the right front elevation does not look right, similar element on the right side rear elevation looks better; • Left hand portion of front elevation needs a little more work; • Style is not consistent throughout, the heavy timbers at the entry portico with open truss does not go with the solid stucco around it, it is too big and massive; • Double knee braces seem out of proportion with the weight of the gutters that are being supported, should be supporting the roof structure; • Concern with the impact of the mass and bulk on the neighborhood, 4000 SF house is bigger than what we usually see, the execution of this particular design does not do much to reduce the mass; • Not necessarily too big, but if it is to remain this large, the mass and bulk will have to be handled sensitively, now has a second story plate line that is the same all around, some portions could be lowered; and • Having double pillars on the porch element increases the sense of mass. Vice-Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 9 plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat. 8. 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NECTAR WINE LOUNGE, LLC, APPLICANT, TRI TERRA REALTY, PROPERTY OWNER, AND WINGES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the history of the food establishment regulations, why the limit on number in Subarea A, what are the concerns with intensification? CP Monroe noted that the food establishment regulations were originally put into place to limit the number in order to preserve the pedestrian retail activity. At one time, the regulations allowed the food establishments to change location, but the fixed locations were established in the 1990's so that the rights for a food establishment did not become a commodity. The current regulations allow a food establishment to relocate within a parcel, this application is proposing to do that. Another issue that the regulations were trying to resolve was the proliferation of fast food restaurants in the area; it was felt that full service restaurants would have less of an impact on pedestrian activity and the commercial area. Commissioners noted that the concern is not with the type of restaurant, but that the restaurants are getting larger and as in this case taking over retail spaces. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard Avenue, project architect, noted that this is an upscale, full service, sophisticated operation, the applicants now have a similar establishment in San Francisco in the Marina District which has been open for two years, would like to expand the concept to the Peninsula, it is different than what we now have in the area, it is a wine lounge concept, with food and wine pairings; the size of the existing mezzanine is being reduced and there is no parking required for this application, there will be a small meeting room in back for luncheons; the brick façade is being preserved, are replacing the old leaking windows, but preserving the proportions, and the look and feel; this site is part of a larger parcel, the entire block is undergoing renovation, there were two retail spaces before, now there will be three, feel this project is a great fit for Burlingame. Commissioners asked: noticed in the application form that they are considering valet parking, how is that proposed to operate? CP Monroe noted that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission reviews proposals for valet parking, the applicant would have to submit a proposal for review if that is proposed. Will the kitchen be operating until closing? No, food service would be until 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. The plans note a Number 17 Pilkington window system, but don't provide details, could you describe? The architect noted that the structure is made up of a series of curved vertical glass panels that are connected with silicone, would be used at the corner and would be semi-transparent. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent action calendar at a time when the following information is provided and revised plans have been plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 10 • Provide more detail on the plans regarding the window system proposed; provide colors and samples of the materials; and • Determine the need for valet parking; contact the City Traffic Engineer if valet parking is proposed. Comment on motion: Commissioners noted that the bigger issue of intensification and size of food establishments needs to be addressed in the context of the downtown study. CA Anderson noted that if the applicant proposes to provide valet service, that it needs to be discussed with the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission soon because it is a long and difficult process. 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. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 5, 2005. CP Monroe presented a review of the Council meeting of December 5, 2005. - FYI – review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 1229 Paloma Avenue. C. Deal recused himself since he lives across the street. Commission reviewed the changes to the project at 1229 Paloma Avenue and acknowledged that they would have no affect on the design. - FYI – review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 1506 Alturas Drive. Commission reviewed the revisions made to this project following their earlier comments, they noted that the addition looks odd, particularly the window in the lower part of the chimney, would be better to have no windows in the chimney area; it was noted that this change was done to enlarge the master bedroom, so C. Deal moved this to return on the regular action calendar for a public hearing and design review amendment. Commission consensus was that this item be put over to the action calendar. - Discussion of subcommittee openings. CP Monroe noted that since C. Keighran was elected to the City Council there were some openings on some of the Planning Commission Subcommittees. The following committee assignments were confirmed by the Chair: Bayfront Zoning Implementation, Cers. Cauchi, Deal, Vistica; North Burlingame/Rollins Road, Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Vistica; Sign Code Revision, Cauchi, Brownrigg, Osterling; Neighborhood Consistency, Auran, Deal, Osterling. A new subcommittee was formed to work with the historic architect and applicant for the proposed project at 1427 Chapin Avenue for implementation of the Historic Registry guidelines as this project develops. Cers. Auran and Vistica were assigned to this Subcommittee. - Discussion of design review application processing including use of consent calendar and FYI. Two procedural questions were raised with the Commissioners. The best way in the staff report to notify the Commissioners if plans are submitted for the consent calendar which are not responsive to any of the direction given by the Commission. Group felt current format, item by item analysis, works fine. Second question addressed how to process FAR increases which do not affect the exterior of an approved design and are within the allocated FAR for the site. Commissioners felt that any FAR change that affected the exterior of a previously approved building should be brought forward for a public hearing and an amendment to the design review and recorded with the property. If the change inside an approved design was less than 100 SF and within the FAR allowed on the property, it would be appropriate to bring the change forward as an FYI. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 11 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.12.12.05.doc