Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.10.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, October 24, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the October 24, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Yie, Gaul, Terrones and Lindstrom Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 2; Item 3; third bullet under "Commission Comments"' replace "complemented" with "complimented". Page 8; Item 7, third bullet under "Commission Comments". replace "to" with "in". Page 11; Item 8; under "Commission Comments'; add a bullet as follows: "Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single -story and take advantage of the topography of the lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot. " Motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker suggested that Agenda Item 1 (904 Bayswater Avenue) be handled as a "design review study" item since the project must comply with the residential design guidelines within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, and public hearing notices were mailed to property owners in the vicinity implying that the public could provide comment regarding the project design as part of the Commission's study session for the item. The Commission concurred with the suggestion. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Noted that the former Mills -Peninsula Hospital will soon be demolished — the demolition process will be discussed by the Mitigation Monitoring Panel at its next meeting. Need to maintain the complaint log during the demolition process - neighbors are anticipating impacts from the demolition. The Mitigation Monitoring Panel should be maintained during this phase as well. Asked when the public art for the new hospital will be installed? CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 VI. STUDY ITEMS The discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (904 Bayswater Avenue) was moved to the end of the agenda at the request of the applicant. 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. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had listened to the recording for Item 2a (2744 Summit Drive) and felt he could vote on the matter. 2a. 2744 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (TRELLIS) AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN L. AND SUSAN Z. SAVVA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 2b. 1390 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION WITH RETAIL SALES (DAN GIFFIN, STUDIO GREEN ARCHITECTURE LLP, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AU ENERGY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:05 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (704 Concord Way) since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 3. 704 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFF SCHUBINER AND ADRIENNE LEIGH. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Noted that the collector boxes have been removed from the downspouts on all but the front elevation — they were a nice feature. (Grange — were removed as a cost item.) Why was the roofing material changed? (Grange — due to cost.) Public comments: Nancy Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue; spoke: ■ Thought that the requests were only for variances, not complete demolition of the home. (Commissioner — noted that this request does not approve any requests for variances, none were considered before. Everything that is proposed is allowed per the zoning regulations. The additional floor area still falls below the maximum permitted.) ■ Doesn't feel that more floor area should be approved for the project — this is the only house that has been completely demolished. ■ Hopes the people will actually live in the home. ■ The project takes a lot away from the neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Additional applicant comments: The additional square footage is at the rear where it will not be visible. Attempted to work with the original structure, but would have had to remove more than 70% of the original structure. Likes the lowered height and the minimal square footage addition. Commissioner Lindstrom 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 September 26, 201, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; date stamped September 1, 2011, landscape plan; and date stamped June 17, 2011, greenpoint checklist, roof plan, garage plans and elevations, and irrigation plan; 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 basement, 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 April 18, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's April 28, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 18, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's April 19, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 19, 2011 memo shall be met; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 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 for 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 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. 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 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. 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 E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. 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 16. 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused, Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 4 (2004 Easton Drive) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 4. 2004 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES (PAUL NELSON, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated October 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Clarified that the property would not qualify for second unit conversion. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Paul Nelson, 2004 Easton Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked about the property owner's history with the property — noted that he apparently acquired it in 2003. Response letter indicates that the room is used as a family room and an additional shower. How many showers exist within the residence? (Nelson — there is one full bath and one half bath in the residence. The shower in the family room will be supplemental.) Asked if the applicant is requesting that the property not be considered a second -unit request since it does not qualify for second -unit conversion. (Nelson — all he wants to do is replace the existing structure.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 Noted that recent revisions to the zoning ordinance require second unit requests to meet certain criteria. Struggling with the logic of allowing the rebuilding of the structure. The request is intended to make the property more useable for the applicant. Feels that the structure is a second unit — has a problem with the full bath that is within the structure. (Nelson — there is no kitchen facility included in the structure. Meeker — noted that a kitchen is not included in the structure.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Doesn't have a problem with the request — doesn't lend itself to a second -unit conversion. Commissioner Gaul 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 and date stamped August 10, 2011, sheet A-1 and October 7, 2011, sheet A-2; 2. that the accessory structure shall only be used for accessory living quarters (family room); 3. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen with a permanent cooking fixture, as this would change the use of the accessory structure to a second dwelling unit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; 4. that if the accessory structure is demolished, the envelope changed at a later date, or should the use in the structure change, the conditional use permit may require an amendment or may become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 12, 2011, memo, the NPDES Coordinator's June 30, 2011, memo, the City Engineer's July 11, 2011, memo, and the City Arborists, July 6, 2001 memo shall be met; 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 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 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 Discussion of motion: Noted the "twisted logic" that the structure doesn't qualify as a second unit. Comfortable that the structure is not intended to be a second unit. Need to be cognizant of the regulations that are in place for second units. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Auran recused, Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 5. 1526 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 24, 2011, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ How many bedrooms are needed to require more than two covered parking spaces? (Hurin — for five or more bedrooms two covered spaces are required.) ■ Asked if decisions regarding view impacts are based upon future considerations, orjust the facts or objections presented currently. (Guinan — can make a determination based upon compliance with the hillside ordinance and the facts presented today.) ■ If it is possible to determine if a view is impacted from an adjacent property, but the property owner is not objecting, can comments be provided in that regard? (Guinan — based upon facts developed and observed in a site visit, and the facts presented in the staff report and public testimony; can make a determination based upon the hillside ordinance.) ■ Requested clarification of the parameters for determining view impacts — cited the reference in the zoning regulations (Section 25.61) — the review criteria are simple. Is that the only area within the ordinance where view impacts are addressed? (Guinan — verified that those are the parameters.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Noted that the garage roofline, as redesigned, is now an impact on views — could the roof be designed with a hip roof on the front and rear to minimize view impacts? (Chu — shouldn't be a problem. Hurin — from a Planning standpoint, must be hipped on all sides to keep the height away from the side property line.) Referenced 1535 Los Montes Craftsman -style flat -roofed home — fits in the neighborhood and doesn't impact the neighborhood with its height. This is the type of design that should be done at this location — would help to address the neighbors' concerns. The high-pitched roof is a mistake. Beautiful design, but not the right location. Agreed that the 1535 Los Montes property is more consistent with the neighborhood. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 ■ What is being protected in terms of a view — neighbors are concerned about light, views of the sky and trees? What is the Commission obligated to protect? ■ Feels that the home will stick out since it is also situated at the top of a hill. (Chu — could the height be reduced to 28-feet or so and be acceptable, or must a flat -roof be proposed?) Even with a flat roof, there would still be a two-story wall adjacent to the neighbor— is the applicant being requested to minimize this impact? ■ Noted that the view protection criteria are not an absolute preservation of sky views, but are intended to minimize neighbor impacts. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The project is designed at the maximum height and is of a design where applicants are typically requested to address plate heights. ■ Struggling since the request is only dealing with the hillside area construction permit and design review, but no other requests. Can take into account the neighborhood impacts, though. ■ Would like to see more of the lot covered in an effort to reduce the height of the structure at the street. ■ The location on the street makes the structure appear taller — is a typical design. Is an advocate of flat roofs — there are other options for the design including roof types, plate heights, etc. Would like to see the design revised with a lower pitched roof and/or lower plate heights. ■ Have placed particular emphasis upon preserving views from habitable areas within dwellings, but should conceivably also take into account other areas. ■ Didn't observe view obstructions from the Mink and Tsai homes. There is no obstruction. ■ Likes the design, but feels it is not appropriate for the area. ■ Is appropriate to ask the applicant to design something similar to that on the Los Montes site referenced. ■ Disappointed in the Minks — biggest problems are encountered by trees planted that block neighbors' views. ■ Feels the roofline is inappropriate for the area. ■ Asked if the neighbors had complained after installation of the story poles. (Commissioners — are present but chose not to speak.) Commissioner Yie moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as stated in the discussion, including consideration of an alternative architectural style with a lower roof line. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Supports the motion, but wants to be clear that the proposed design is not appropriate from a design review standpoint — potential view impacts are not adequately demonstrated and are not the reason for the suggested redesign. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7: 57 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (1360 Vancouver Avenue), as he is the project applicant. Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of the project as he resides within 500-feet of the property. Both Commissioners left the City Council Chambers. 6. 1360 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; JEFF LINDSTROM, APPLICANT; JOHN GHERINI AND ANNA BRADY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 24, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Commissioner Terrones noted that he had listened to the recording from the study session regarding this item. There is no intensification of the use with the proposal, plus there is a reduction in the lot coverage. Exceptional circumstances exist — the attached garage cannot be increased in size to comply with the City's parking standards, and this is an existing condition. 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 September 22, 2011, sheets A1.0 through A3.3 and Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 2. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 3. 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; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Floor Area Ratio Variance and Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. 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; 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 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 8. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Likes the design. Encouraged to open up the downstairs room even more. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Auran recused, Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. Commissioners Lindstrom and Auran returned to the dais. VI. STUDY ITEMS (delayed from earlier on the agenda) 1. 904 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND LOT MERGER FORA NEW THREE-STORY, SIX -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (BO THORENFELDT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAIME RAPADAS, A/R DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated October 24, 2011. Questions of staff: Asked if the parking works per the parking template. (Hurin — since a 24-foot back up area is provided, the template is not used.) Could tandem parking be provided? (Hurin — only as a variance or as additional parking.) Asked how the handicapped access is provided? (Hurin — noted that the Chief Building Official has spoken to the applicant regarding accessibility — either an elevator, or extension of one of the units to the ground floor will be required. Commissioner — noted that access needs to be to the main living area of a unit.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Jaime Rapadas, 801 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Glad that another unit is being added. ■ Did the applicant review the design guidelines in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan? (Rapadas — yes.) ■ Referenced the guidelines' encouragement of multiple unit entrances at the street — would prefer to see separate street level entrances at the units to engage the units to the street. (Rapadas — would be a major design change.) ■ The design does not lend itself to much architectural interest, though the design is efficient and maximizes the square footage. Could create more interesting units if they are not all the same. ■ The use of the three different exterior materials doesn't work. ■ Referenced the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan design guidelines and encouragement of entry porches and stoops, and primary entries to the units from the street. Could sink the parking one-half level down and provide stoop entries to the units. ■ Parking should not be allowed to dominate the project. There is only one narrow entry to the project; the remainder of the fagade consists of camouflaged parking areas. ■ Haven't even considered handicapped access. ■ Need seven gas meters — a "house" meter will be required. ■ Limiting who can buy the units by not providing an elevator. (Rapadas — are considering installing an elevator.) ■ Would be nice to have a community garden rather than areas of hard-scaping. Could use raised planters at the rear as an active common garden area. ■ May wish to screen the project from the property to the rear. Public comments: Laurie Simonson, 908 Bayswater Avenue; Julie Baird, 908 Bayswater Avenue; Jeff Londer, 216 Bancroft Road; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The design in general has raised some of the same comments that were made from the prior design. Needs more detail, is boxy in appearance, and basically needs to be a quality project. II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 ■ Not a design that was contemplated by the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan — knows the applicant can construct very nice buildings. ■ Appreciates the landscaping that is intended to improve the appearance of the property. The current tenants have had problems with having the landlord maintain landscaping. ■ Began painting around two years ago, but was never finished — concerned with the ability for the project to be maintained in the future. ■ Referenced that one of the units in the new project is intended to be affordable — concerned about the displacement of the existing tenants. ■ Noted that there are six rentals (persons) living in the units currently. ■ Traffic is a concern — the parking contemplates two vehicles per unit. Will increase traffic at the Anita Road and Bayswater Avenue intersection. Doubling the amount of traffic at the intersection. ■ Was under the impression that this would not be a public hearing — would have encouraged more people to come to the meeting. Hoping there will be additional opportunity to comment. ■ Immediate concerns are with impacts upon light, air and noise. ■ Is appreciative of the comments made by the Commission — particularly the focus on the guidelines in the Downtown Specific Plan. ■ Agrees with prior comments. ■ Be certain that the project is consistent with the charm and livability of Burlingame. ■ This is the wrong building for the area — it needs to be designed consistent with the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan's design guidelines. ■ Referenced appropriate townhouse -style developments in San Mateo and San Francisco. ■ With respect to the disabled -accessible matter— has seen examples where lifts have been installed in the units to provide access within different levels in the units. ■ Needs to be sent back for a total redesign. ■ Consider opportunities for bicycle parking in the project — consider visitor parking. Referenced the City of San Mateo's new requirements for interior, safe, protected bicycle space. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Could benefit from a referral to a design reviewer. (Meeker — the project could be referred.) Commissioner Cauchi moved to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Believes there could be ways to revise the project to make it work with the design guidelines without major reconfiguration. ■ Encouraged the applicant to continue to try to intensify the site development. ■ How many parking spaces are required for a two -bedroom house? (Commissioners— two spaces. Must also provide guest parking and a delivery space.) ■ The property is close to transit, could consider different parking standards under the circumstances. ■ Noted that sections of the downtown plan encourage designing for transit. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:39 p.m. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 24, 2011 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review projects for review. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chair Yie noted that Commissioners Gaul and Terrones have volunteered to participate as representatives to the Wireless Telecommunications Working Group. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of October 17, 2011: ■ The wireless telecommunications moratorium was extended until January 16, 2012. FYI: 483 Marin Drive - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1220 Mills Avenue - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. Miscellaneous: ■ Supported a continuation of the complaint log for the Mills -Peninsula Hospital project. ■ Requested clarification on the status of changes to the smoke stacks on the south side of the hospital and the installation the public art. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 13