Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.23.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, May 23, 2011— 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the May 23, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Auran, Cauchi and Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue and Charlie Nordlinger, 1144 Cambridge Road; spoke: ■ Commented on the proposed zoning code amendments to implement the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. ■ Concerned that the "big picture" can be lost; commented on the Eucalyptus trees located on the El Camino Real corridor running north from the south side of Howard Avenue to the north side of Chapin Avenue; this area has no setbacks that will protect the trees. ■ Residents and leaders have worked for decades to preserve the Eucalyptus trees in this corridor. ■ CalTrans is mandated to replace these trees as old trees become unsound with Accolade Elms. ■ In April tree replacements (Accolade Elms) were provided to fill gaps. ■ By limiting the width and depth that the trees can grow out, this will inhibit the trees' growth. ■ We should do the best to retain the trees for future generations. ■ Expressed concern regarding motorcycle noise in the City, particularly impacting those residing in nursing homes. ■ Also expressed concern regarding the loud music played in stores, bars, etc; excessive decibel levels impact hearing and is a public health problem. ■ Provided materials to the Planning Commission. ■ Encouraged making Burlingame quiet. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE (BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25) — HOUSING ELEMENT AND DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION. STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 23, 2011. Commission comments: ■ With respect to the maximum average dwelling unit size of 1,250 square feet; could we use a median unit size rather than an average in order to ensure that the inclusionary units are not used as a means of skewing the number resulting in units that are larger than intended. (Brooks/Meeker — will look into this and try to develop a formula for making such a calculation.) ■ Asked for clarification regarding the minimum dwelling unit sizes in multi -family zones. ■ Noted that the average dwelling unit size is to achieve a variety of housing sizes and levels of value; not in an attempt to provide "affordable" units (i.e. per inclusionary requirements). ■ Referenced the restriction on subdivions of not less than 10,000 square feet for properties annexed after May, 1960; this seems arbitrary. (Brooks — noted that this is a standard that has been in the R-1 zoning code for many years; there are no changes proposed relative to this provision.) ■ With respect to secondary housing units; where does the quantifiable standard come from? (Brooks — reviewed other communities' standards and used them as a template for what is contained in the proposed regulations.) ■ Could variances or special permits be requested for secondary dwelling units? (Brooks — generally, yes, you can request variances from any development standard.) Believes that such deviations from the development standards should not be granted. ■ Perhaps could consider windows where they may normally be prohibited for secondary units. ■ Need to vet the standards for secondary units to ensure that they are stringent enough. ■ Commented on the parking requirement for secondary units; how is the parking calculated and situated? (Brooks — the amendments require an uncovered parking space for the secondary unit.) ■ Regarding "corner -store retail"; should be explicit regarding alcohol sales; allowed or disallowed? (Brooks — can be discussed.) ■ Questioned whether this type of use would thrive? ■ This type of use is a function of density within the area. ■ The proximity to Downtown and Safeway could affect the viability of such a use. ■ Be mindful of other stores and institutions and not impacting the ability of other businesses to thrive. (Brooks - are intended as a convenience to the neighborhood in which they are situated.) ■ Discrepency in the Anita Road residential; there appears to be a conflict in the Myrtle Road Mixed - Use (MMU); should likely be a conditional use permit requirement beyond 35-feet in height. ■ With respect to the reduced commercial parking space standard; would that apply to the entire City? (Brooks — yes.) ■ Asked if the public parking lots would be re -striped? (Brooks — could occur over time.) ■ Clarified that design review would be applied City-wide. ■ Asked if parking for a residential garage would remain the same? (Brooks — yes, the standard will not change.) ■ Asked if the amendments can address non -conforming residential parking space sizes that are pre- existing? ■ Concerned about the lack of residential uses in the Chapin and Donnelly Avenue Commercial Districts and hotel uses? (Meeker — noted that the Plan intentionally does not allow new residential 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 uses in the area; the effort was to drive the development of mixed -uses to the Howard Avenue corridor, hotels are allowed in the Chapin Avenue area.) Noted Jennifer Pfaff's comments regarding ECR setbacks and impacts upon the Eucalyptus grove. (Brooks — noted that this was not specifically discussed previously, but could certainly be reviewed as part of the amendment package.) Asked for a summary of tonight's comments as well as any other comments noted by the public. Staff was directed to forward the amendments to the appropriate subcommittees (Housing and Downtown Specific Plan) and schedule meetings with the Subcommittees to review the proposed changes. The package of amendments will be scheduled for public hearings in the future, following consultation with the Subcommittees. This item concluded at 7:49 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CHERYL PUTNAM, APPLICANT; HUGH HYNES, PROTO ARCHITECTURE, LLP, ARCHITECT; 100-198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. VIIl. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Vistica noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion since he resides within 500- feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 3. 611 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DJ PROPERTIES LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOANN GANN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROMMAY9, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann, 244 Fulton Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Appreciates the changes that have been made. Asked if the gate on the driveway is automatic? (Gann — hasn't been determined yet.) Encouraged an automatic gate. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke: Asked if the gas line had been moved? (Gann — yes.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 28, 2011, sheets 1-8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 21, February 14 and February 2, 2011 memos, the Parks Supervisor's March 23, February 18 and January 12, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's September January 13, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 10, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 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; 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1. (Commissioner Vistica recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. 4. 235 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA NEW FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZA MY HEART) (MICHAEL GEORGE, APPLICANT; JEFFREY FINSAND, ARCHITECT; PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Asked about the potential to relocate the gas meter room? (Strohmeier—the location is determined by Safeway.) Commented regarding bathroom facilities and the potential for each tenant space to require restroom facilities. (Strohmeier— have proceeded based upon the current request.) If there was an opportunity to provide a shared restroom elsewhere on the property, it would enhance visibility into the tenant space from Primrose Road. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Michael George, 16222 Shannon Road, Los Gatos; represented the applicant. Noted that the vinyl window covering is needed more to cover the "back of the house". None of the seating area is being blocked by the vinyl; this is the most exposed restaurant they have built. (Commissioner — how could they get Safeway to provide restrooms for the building to allow the space to be reorganized?) Out of the scope of the project; have signed a lease for the specific tenant location. Proposed the business logo as a means of obscuring view into the kitchen area. (Commissioner — could the floor plan be flipped to have Primrose Road as the primary entrance; want to have the tenant space be pedestrian centered.) The proposed seating will be on the Primrose Road side; the ADA parking is in the parking lot at the rear. Commission comments: ■ The perception is that restrooms are usually in the rear of the facility. ■ Tenants appear to be assuming that the parking lot is the front of the tenant spaces because the parking is located there; could be worth considering a change to the restroom location. (George — there are many more seats available on the Primrose Road side.) ■ If there is seating outside, not on the City right-of-way, there could be outdoor seating provided. (George — will provide seating; and will seek an encroachment permit if needed.) ■ The Commission cannot be concerned about other stores that the business has opened; must only consider this location. Are attempting to encourage walkability along Primrose Road. Is not hearing any sort of recognition of that desire. Can still have an ADA accessible entrance from the parking lot. ■ Can't approve the layout as designed; though sidewalk seating is a good step, but not enough. Would want both the outdoor seating, and the front of the business to be on Primrose Road. ■ Has difficulty closing off half of the Primrose Road fagade for this space is not acceptable. ■ Noted that in many instances downtown, you can enter a business from a parking lot, with the primary entry on the main frontage. ■ Want to be able to see into the tenant space. ■ Noted that the Commission went to great lengths to ensure that Walgreens had open window designs that permit viewing into the space; this is similar. ■ Doesn't want tenant spaces on this property to be focused on the parking lot, but on Primrose Road; wants to see the floor plan flipped. ■ Ensure that there is activity that is visible from Primrose Road. ■ Should also show the proposed seating on the outside shown on the plans. ■ Have worked for years on the Safeway project; want to be certain that the end product reflects the efforts of the Commission and Council. ■ Could be worth speaking to Safeway regarding the creation of a communal restroom location. Public comments: W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Fred Ponce, Safeway Tenant Improvement Coordinator; spoke: Have done studies to determine the ability to create a communal restroom; but the problem is that a corridor would be formed that would become a security issue; the new corner building results in a much shorter corridor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Commissioner Yie moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion: The restrooms are not the critical issue; there is nothing to prevent the floor plan from being flipped. Would like the applicant to come back with a revised plan; wants the business to be in the City. Just can't accept the current design. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. 5. 211 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT (SPORTCLIPS, APPLICANT; PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-three (33) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Juan Gala, Valdivia Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Have attempted to balance the desires of Burlingame with the needs of the business model. ■ Are in a predicament due to the configuration of the space. ■ Still have a security issue with an entry at the back of the house. ■ The franchisor has limitations on the width of the tenant space. ■ Noted that the cleaners will be to the right of this tenant space. Commission comments: 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 ■ Are looking for walkable business entities within the downtown area; would be a nice addition, but at the same time, have an obligation to consider all of the issues that went into the design of the Safeway project. ■ There appears to be somewhat of a disconnect between the tenanting of the spaces, versus the uses that are being leased and being divided in a manner that is not consistent with the way the project was initially approved. ■ Are still looking at the back of the store and a locked door. ■ With the parking lot orientation; people will feel that you should drive to the location to use its services. ■ Can't approve the configuration as presented. (Gala — signed his letter of interest a year ago; tried to make the most out of what he has available. What else can go into this location? Could conceivably be another food establishment in the small tenant space. Is the best that he can come up with.) ■ Could make it work for the use by having the waiting area behind the brick wall while using Primrose Road as the primary entry. ■ Encouraged to look at Howard Avenue locations. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Pedestrian orientation is the issue. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. 6. 824-826 COWAN ROAD, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE CRITERIA FOR OPERATING AN INCIDENTAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (HOURS OF OPERATION) (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARC. M. WORRALL TR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Marc Worrall, 170 Mitchell Avenue, South San Francisco; represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Commission comments: Asked where the additional parking is to be located. (Meeker — noted that the parking is non- conforming, no additional parking is required.) Are the businesses in the area open on the week -end? Will there be the need for additional parking? (Worrall — should be sufficient; other businesses are not necessarily open on the week- ends. The cafe is primarily set up for take-out.) Asked if there will be retail at the location? (Worrall — yes.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12, 2011, sheet All; 2. that the incidental food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week and that any change to the hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours of operation of an incidental food establishment shall apply only to the incidental food establishment and shall become void if it replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 21, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 2, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's April 25, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's April 26, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 21, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. 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 7. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1800 MONTECITO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ERIC KENG, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PAUL MAK, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Asked if the office and workroom count as bedrooms? (Strohmeier — yes.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Eric Keng, 616 Ramona Street, Palo Alto; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Has the applicant spoken with the neighbors? (Keng — hasn't been involved in communication with the neighbors. The addition doesn't block views.) ■ Commented on the new shed roof next to the family room; why is the volume of the roof so great? (Keng — had to push the construction back five -feet for the second floor setback; the best design solution was a flat roof.) ■ There is a five-foot section of the roof that is a 12:9 roof pitch that results in a tall volume facing the neighbor; why is this so tall? (Keng — the owner wanted to create storage space.) ■ Concerned with the massing; are trying to add elements that are not consistent with the original design of the home. ■ The design is being contrived to make the house something that it is not. (Keng — would not be difficult to change.) ■ One of the prime considerations is view blockage; typically require story poles before the matter comes back, but would want to see design changes before the story poles are erected. ■ Likely have plenty of storage with the size of the house. ■ The home is an Eichler; is now an icon of American architecture. Have a large lot with views; need to explore designs that are consistent with the original style. ■ The windows facing the bay are small; should have floor to ceiling glass to take advantage of views. ■ The wrought -iron railing doesn't relate to the design. ■ Questioned the existing heating system; how will it be air conditioned; how is the water supplied; are all important considerations when revising an Eichler -style home. Need to show these elements. ■ Neighbors may still be concerned about the additions. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to refer the application to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones Discussion: Have the design resolved first, then look at it again prior to installation of story poles. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to refer the application to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 8. 2208 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KINSON WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Flannan Lum for Kinson Wong, 2208 Hillside Drive; represented the applicant. Noted that the property will be owner -occupied. Commission comments: ■ Are at the maximum FAR; it might behoove the applicant to back down from the maximum to ensure that the FAR is not exceeded during construction. Could be a requirement for a certification of the FAR during construction. ■ With respect to the roof on the garage; it looks like the rear is chopped off; out of balance from the side elevations. (Applicant — will address this with the architect.) ■ With respect to the stucco wall at the front; does it impact the setbacks? (Strohmeier—fences up to five -feet tall are permitted in the front yard.) ■ Could use a gable end in the front of the garage, rather than a hip roof to ensure consistency in the design for the roof. ■ Clarified that the only area in the crawlspace that will have an eight -foot height is the laundry room; noted the availability of the basement exemption. Encouraged having the laundry room on the main floor. ■ Massing and design are handled well. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 ■ The window sills call for pre -cast limestone or equivalent; need to ensure that this doesn't get changed to stucco -covered foam during construction. ■ With respect to landscaping; are providing a lot of hardscape; consider reducing the amount of hardscape. Perhaps enlarge the planter bed at the base of the deck. The home next door had a similar amount of hardscape and the Commission required some of it to be removed. ■ Noted that the existing roof tiles are recyclable; encouraged recycling them. ■ Enclose the sump pump to ensure that it is not a noise impact upon the neighbors; show it on the plans. ■ The proposed skylight is shown on the valley of the roof; look at this as it could be problematic. ■ Suggested a skylight in the rear bathroom. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:26 p.m. 9. 1433 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FERNANDO AND UMA VELAYOS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Robert Medan, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Want to make certain that the elevations are resolved; there is a graphic revision needed as on the right side the ridgelines do not appear to work their way to the rear. (Medan — the ridgeline will ultimately be lowered somewhat and extended to the rear.) 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Likes the design; on the rear, and possibly on the right side; it appears as a big box; is there some means of dressing this area up? (Medan — could add "Pueblo -style" elements at this location.) Nice job. Public comments: Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez Avenue; spoke: ■ Believes it is a lovely design that is in keeping with the style of the home. ■ Glad to have the property owners as neighbors. ■ In looking at the handout; references a seven day per week construction schedule. (Meeker — no construction on Sundays is allowed.) ■ Referenced handout provided to the Commission; the problem is actually created by the placement of her home on the property; the houses are placed close to one another. ■ The home was built at a 30-inch setback as opposed to a 48-inch setback; the proposal will bring the homes to within 6-feet, 9-inches of her residence. Though this meets the spirit of the law, but not certain it meets the intent of the law. Objecting to bringing the addition to the existing setback. ■ Her family room and the windows look out to the addition. ■ Have discussed with the neighbors, but feel that more discussion may occur. ■ Are willing to work to try to mitigate this to some degree. ■ Also concerned regarding the ability of firefighters to effectively access the home from that side if required to do so. ■ May not be able to get a ladder up to the roofline. (Commissioner — noted that there is typically a fence between properties; would need to place the ladder on the adjacent property.) ■ Request that the Fire Inspector review the design and her concern. (Stroh meier—noted that it had been reviewed and will be sprinklered and include a 1-hour fire wall. Commissioner— feels that the concerns are irrelevant. Suspects that fire personnel do not have any expectation of accessing the side -yards; there are typically many items installed within side yards.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Happy the house is being remodeled and not demolished. Have met all code standards. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Believes that the applicant has met the setback requirements; can't compel a greater setback. It is a rebuttable assumption that the intent of the setbacks is to distinctly provide for Fire Department access. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:49 p.m. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 10. 198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (PUTNAM CHEVROLET CADILLAC, INC., APPLICANT; PROTO ARCHITECTURE, LLP, ARCHITECT; 100-198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 23, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Hugh Hines, 118A Tiffany Avenue, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the support for the solar canopy encroaches upon the drive aisle. (Hines — the drive aisle will be shifted.) ■ Concerned about the condition of the existing stucco; would like to see some attention paid to the finish of these areas, particularly as they are viewed in relation to the composite panels. Smooth out the finish of the stucco in addition to painting. ■ Could extend the landscaping to conceal the emergency generator. ■ Likes the idea of the charging station; could also install additional solar panels on other flat roofs. ■ Commended Mr. Putnam for upgrading all of the buildings. Public comments: None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 23, 2011 Commission Communications: Planning Commission Subcommittee Appointments: Chair Yie reappointed members of the various Planning Commission Subcommittees as follows Neighborhood Consistency: Commissioners Auran, Yie and Terrones Downtown Specific Plan: Commissioners Vistica and Terrones Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Commissioner Cauchi Peninsula Hospital: Commissioners Vistica and Gaul Housing: Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom Historic Preservation: Commissioners Terrones, Cauchi and Yie Sustainability: Commissioners Vistica, Yie and Gaul Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Certification for Sinale-Familv Proiects: Direction was provided to staff to inform applicants that a survey verifying compliance with floor area ratio (FAR) limits will be required for single-family projects that are to be built within 5% or less than the maximum FAR allowed by the zoning ordinance; the survey shall be required at the framing stage of the project. Staff indicated that it would confer with the City Attorney to confirm that this may be done, and suggested that a condition to this effect be included in the standard conditions for project that meet this threshold. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 16, 2011: Noted that the City Council adopted an amendment to the Municipal Code imposing a ban on the use of Polystyrene food containers by food vendors that will become effective January 1, 2010 and will be enforced by the County of San Mateo Environmental Health Department. FYI: 1113 Cortez Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Scheduled for a public hearing. 1401 Grove Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 15