Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.08.10 APPROVEDC CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 8, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the March 8, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Terrones, Cauchi, Gaul and Yie Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 7, Item 3 (1117 Balboa Avenue), tenth bullet, replace first "texture" with "material". Motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Gaul abstained, Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 398 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STANLEY LO. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 8, 2010. Commission comments: Could this have been placed on the regular action calendar, rather than as a study item? (Meeker — yes, since there is no change in use, the application is only required since the prior use has been out of existence for greater than six months.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:06 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 Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. A member of the public requested that Item 2a (1430 Palm Drive) be pulled for discussion; Chair Terrones pulled Item 2b (1761 Adrian Road) for discussion. There were no other Consent Calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Cauchi noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Item 2a (1430 Palm Drive), since he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the Council Chambers. 2a. 1430 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1/R-3 — APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR NEW WALL - MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING (T-MOBILE, APPLICANT; FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER; AND ZON ARCHITECTS. INC.. ARCHITECT) (123 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Greg Guerazzi, Glen Ellen; represented the applicant (T-Mobile): ■ Have internalized the entire conduit. ■ Have also worked to screen the utility meters, and added a gate so that the utilities will not be seen from across Fairfield Road. ■ Adding the site to improve coverage; is the only site available that could provide coverage for the area. ■ Provided a sample of the antennae for viewing; details regarding the antennae dimensions have been included on the plans. ■ The installation will operate about 99 times below the maximum radio frequency emissions level allowed by the federal government. Commission comments: Asked where the cables will attach to the antennae? (Guerazzi — will be attached at the bottom with a small "jumper" cable. Could the attachment be provided at the top so that it is not as visible? (Guerazzi — yes) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 Public comments: Julianna Fuerbringer, 824 Fairfield Road; Neil Murphy, 824 Fairfield Road; Theresa Thomas (Director of Stepping Stone Pre -School), 1421 Palm Drive; and Diva Coulter, 844 Fairfield Road spoke: ■ Provided petition signed by area residents in the immediate neighborhood; appreciated that the Commission is listening to the neighbors. Response from the neighbors to the petition was unanimous. ■ Why do the antennae need to be installed on the fagade of a church; they will be highly visible. ■ Spoke to the church pastor regarding the installation; he empathized with the neighbors' concerns, but a contract with T-Mobile had already been executed. ■ Realize that the FCC does have standards; but concerned that thorough studies have not been done to analyze potential effects. ■ Noted a Hillsborough discussion regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions; noted that fire fighters were opposed to a similar installation on a fire station in that community until such time that further study was done to confirm that there is no potential damage to humans from RF emissions. ■ Concerned regarding exposure to children at the pre-school across the street to RF emissions. ■ Noted that there are ten (10) neighbors present. Additional applicant comments: Have attempted to address all aesthetic concerns. Facility complies with all requirements. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Neighbors can reasonably expect church activities, but the proposal is a commercial activity within a residential neighborhood; not appropriate for the neighborhood. Commissioner Auran moved to deny the application. Discussion of motion: ■ The aesthetic issues have not been addressed; the installation will still be very utilitarian and will not be compatible with the architecture of the church structure. The church is a fairly stately and dignified edifice; need to be sensitive to the character of the building; the manner of installation of the equipment for the cellular facility is insensitive to the design of the building, and incompatible with the building's architecture. ■ The proposed use being added to the church property is akin to using the property, which lies in a residential zone, for commercial purposes. ■ Doesn't seem that the management of the church comes from within the neighborhood; need to be sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. ■ Asked if any of the neighbors are actual members of the church? (Terrones —had heard that many of the members were from outside the area.) ■ City Attorney Guinan clarified that the Commission's regulatory authority for the installation of cellular facilities is limited to aesthetic considerations; the Federal Telecommunications Act regulates the RF emissions from all such facilities, and precludes local governments from denying such installations unless evidence is submitted to show that FCC standards are not met by the 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 installation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Cauchi recused, Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. 2b. 1761 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (23 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Scott Mommer, 4694 Jacquelyn Avenue, Fresno; represented the applicant: Commission comments: ■ Asked why the applicant made no changes to the proposed plans following the Commission's discussion on February 22nd. (Mommer — interpreted that the suggestions were not required.) ■ Asked if anyone ever uses the parking lot adjacent to the small parking lot? (Mommer— no, there is no access to the building from that location.) ■ Asked how high the roof is that is being screened by the parapet? (Mommer — the roof dome is roughly eight feet in height; the parapet height is required to screen the roofline.) ■ Looking at the front elevation along Adrian Road; the peak of the roof arch is still visible from a distance. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Can understand why the applicant understood the Commission's comments as only recommendations, not requirements. Noted that with the facade change, the cellular facility on the building will be blocked from view. Commissioner Cauchi 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 February 16, 2010, sheets 1 through 8; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. 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); 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's February 10, 2010 memos, the Park Supervisor's February 6, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's February 15, 2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's February 11, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. 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; 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; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. 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 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 11. 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 12. 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. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Discussion of motion: March 8, 2010 ■ Felt that there was a split amongst the Commissioners during study session discussion. ■ The aesthetic of the fagade design is still too "big box" in appearance. ■ The parapets are appropriate; they will likely be used for signage and freeway visibility. ■ The street trees mitigate the height of the structure. ■ The design balances the building. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2 (Commissioner Terrones dissenting, Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 1849 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR NEW MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOFTOP SCREENING ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JULIA HASHEMIEH, APPLICANT; STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; JAVAD ZOLFAGHARI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Tim Ronda, 762 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo; represented the applicant. ■ The new equipment will not impact neighboring properties any more than the existing equipment. ■ The installation is consistent with similar installations on other buildings in the area. ■ Clarified that the screen wasn't extended toward Bayshore Highway since the equipment could not be viewed from that location; and that it would likely be a greater visual impact. ■ Provided an explanation of why the request is made after the installation has occurred. ■ Project has been stalled since September 2009 when discrepancies were identified between work being completed at the site and approved building permit plans. ■ Client is facing an extreme financial hardship due to the delays. ■ Have worked closely to ensure that all information has been submitted to satisfy the Planning Division staff. Commission comments: The plans call out an elevator penthouse that does not exist on the current plan; appears that there is wood framework that can be seen from the street. (Ronda — is the location of the elevator penthouse; this was constructed prior to the current architect's involvement; will be reduced in height if the current proposal moves forward.) With respect to the height of the screen; is there some flexibility in the height of the screen; could it be made higher? Some of the equipment will be visible from the Marriott. (Ronda — felt if it was made too high it could be perceived as another story.) Noted that only the housing of the taller mechanical units will be visible. Public comments: None. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The City needs to work on the standards for this area to ensure that we simplify the procedures for installing rooftop equipment. Supportive of the request. 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 February 16, 2010, sheets G1.0, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1 and A4.0; 2. that any changes to roof mechanical equipment or roof screen, including height, enclosed area or material shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 17, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's March 1, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 22, 2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's February 18, 2010 memo shall be met; 4. 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; 5. 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 6. 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FLORIAN SPEIER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOLANDA AND GARY BREAZEALE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Florian Speier, 166 Capricorn Avenue, Oakland and Jolanda Breazeale, 117 Costa Rica Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Took the design concerns quite seriously after the prior meeting with the Commission; understood that the Commission didn't feel the design was appropriate. ■ Changed the design of the house to be "Spanish Revival", a style that is present within the neighborhood. ■ Provided photographs showing similar designs within one block of the site. ■ The architectural style works well with the floor plan. ■ One concern raised was the non -visibility of the entry; the entry has been revised to improve visibility. ■ The height of the first floor has been reduced to bring the windows down. ■ The guest suite now has a balcony to the street with French doors facing the street, as does one of the first floor rooms. ■ Building will be of stucco; the garage will have a stone fagade. ■ Believe that the new design will contribute to the neighborhood. Commission comments: ■ Feels the drawings are a bit confusing in terms of their execution, but likes the design. ■ Will there be some form of wood surround around the arches? (Speier — no, there will be no wood surround; will just be stucco arches.) ■ On the driveway side elevation on the water color, looks like window box is made of wood; is this true? (Speier — will be wood.) ■ Need to clarify design details to better understand the design. ■ Will the siding on the rear elevation be stained? (Speier — yes, will be stained.) ■ Simplify the representation of the attachment of the downspout. ■ It appears that a "nana" wall will be installed in the dining room, but it is not consistently shown on the plans. ■ Electrical panels near the entry are not shown on the elevations; not a good spot for them, too visible. ■ Seems like stairs are missing on the second level. ■ On sheet A-202, not seeing the floor to ceiling windows, window materials are not called out. ■ On north elevation; explain how the roofline transitions are designed. ■ On east elevation of garage; is there support under the overhang? (Speier— no support planned at this time.) ■ On west elevation, concerned that the orientation of the house will provide a lot of heat gain; the window design does not provide the opportunity for adequate ventilation. ■ The proportions don't seem proper within the interior. ■ Feels like the functionality of the dining room is compromised. (Speier — the design is specifically requested by the applicant.) ■ The proportions in the guest bathroom do not seem correct. ■ The bathroom is cramped by wasted space near the entry; a lot of these spaces are adding to the mass of the house; better use of the space would reduce the mass of the house. (Speier — design meets the need of the clients.) ■ The garage; why is it not built to property line; why doesn't it follow the driveway line? (Speier — wouldn't have been as effective as a windbreak.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 ■ Seems odd that the French doors open to the top of the steps. (Speier — will provide the opportunity to see visitors to the house; same could be done with tall windows.) ■ The window placement along the kitchen, north elevation (5 windows); the placement will make it difficult to provide upper cabinets. (Speier — the windows lie between the lower counter and the upper counter. ■ On lower elevation below the glass blocks; would be nice to have clerestory windows to break up the wall and add more ventilation. ■ Want to be certain that the client understands the plans so that no changes are requested later. (Breazeale — indicated that her family's idiosyncrasies have dictated the design.) ■ Questioned the open grass area. (Breazeale — wanted to retain a grass area for children. Will also provide an area for a vegetable garden behind the garage.) ■ Likes the design of the house; particularly the way the rear of the house opens up to the yard. ■ Will need at least triple pane windows on the west elevation of the bedroom to shield from the sun. ■ Clearly identify the materials used on the plans. ■ Show materials sizes on the plans. ■ The entry is pretty hard to find. ■ Is it necessary to have the "jog" in the placement of the garage? (Strohmeier — noted that the 4' side yard setback is required to avoid a side setback variance due to the location of the garage.) ■ Feels the design is a bit too massive. ■ If the entry could be pulled out and amplified, could make the entry more visible and the design would "pop". Could spread out the design a bit. (Breazeale — were trying to minimize the amount of lot covered.) ■ On the rear elevation, perhaps extend the overhang. ■ Noted that the basement drainage must be connected to the City storm drain; encouraged exploring this more to be aware of the cost. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; By exempting the basement, are still providing a large space. Explore the issue of sump pumps; they are running all day, and discharging water every day; recommended a minimal hydrology test to determine where the water lies. The glass wall on the west wall will cause a fortune to be spent on air conditioning. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Generally supports the design. ■ Provide material details, sizes and types. ■ Clarify type of windows to be used. ■ Address rear glazing issue. ■ Clarify drawings. ■ Address entry design. ■ Clarify finishing of trim details. ■ Address location of utility panel. ■ Clarify details about the support of the covered roof area on garage. ■ Provide details of bay along driveway side. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Item 5 (1113 Cortez Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the subject property. She left the Council Chambers. 5. 1113 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LAWRENCE AND MARY JO NEJASMICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice job on the design. ■ Regarding the front railing, would like to see a design that looks more related to the period of the house; discouraged pre -fabricated parts. ■ Massing is handled nicely. • With respect to the rebuild of the garage; at some point address how the fencing turns at the garage on the left side. (Meyer — turns to the left to meet the garage; there is a new fence at that location, with an 18-inch offset.) Public comments: Don McNally, 1445 Benito Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke; Confirmed that a new fence exists on the neighboring property near the garage. Have done a great job on the plans. Plans call out vinyl clad windows; typically not encouraged. Perhaps consider wood rather than vinyl. (Meyer — windows are Andersen wood windows that are clad on the outside; are proposed as vinyl clad, but will look at an alternative). There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Appreciates that portions of the house are being retained. Chair Terrones 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 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Yie recused, Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. 6. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JIM AND BARBARA MILLET, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Clarified that the design minus the attached garage and storage area is over the maximum FAR by around 113 square feet. Jim Millett, 1444 Vancouver; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Likes the design. ■ Regarding the entry to the front porch; the only way to the front door is from the driveway; consider providing a path from the sidewalk to the front door. ■ Ok with the attached garage. ■ Design fits well within the neighborhood. ■ Design is massed correctly; has broad neighborhood support. ■ Concerned about the massing on the right-hand side. ■ Concerned about the Variance request and the precedent that it could set; the overage in floor area is blamed on the garage since it is attached, but it is only contributing 273 square feet to the floor area. ■ Placing the garage at the rear of the house would reduce the mass of the house. • If the overage were only related to the garage area; could support the Variance. (Millett — has struggled with the floor area.) ■ Consider removing some of the floor area to reduce the Variance to only that area attributable to the garage. ■ Is there a way to open up the front entry? (Millett — sure something can be done.) ■ Clarify that windows will be aluminum -clad wood windows. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 The design of the house could meet the criteria discussed by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for attached garage; could then be considered as a Special Permit if the increase above maximum FAR doesn't exceed the area of the garage. (Meeker — noted that the applicant has heard the Commission's concerns regarding the excess floor area; it is up to him to strengthen his arguments for the Variance findings.) The reading alcove also adds to the floor area; a reduction could be achieved in this area. Consider opening up the front entry a bit more. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Bruce Detweiler; 1448 Vancouver Avenue; spoke: Understands not creating a precedent, but the neighbors are supportive of the project. Make an executive decision that finds that the design is a remodel; the family is being allowed to take the design to a level that meets their needs. The design is beautiful. There has been a lot of construction that has occurred in the neighborhood; feels the design works and meets the need of the family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Likes that it is a remodel; believes the design is well done. ■ Would be inclined to approve the Variance. ■ There is a problem with the slope of the lot that prevents placing the garage on the downhill slope; can support the Variance. ■ Inclined to agree that the lot slope and impracticality of placing the garage in the rear of the property, combined with the presence of the wall of the neighbor's house contributes to the need for a Variance. ■ The home is nicely designed and massed. ■ If the rear of the house were pulled in, the design would become unaesthetic. ■ Struggles with the potential precedent for approval of the Variance. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: The applicant should review any possible reductions in floor area that could make the Variance more palatable. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 8, 2010 The Commission acknowledged Commissioner Vistica's absence due to his illness; expressing that he is missed and that it looks forward to him returning to the dais when he is well enough to do so. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 1, 2010: The City Council adopted the 2009-2014 Housing Element. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — February 2010: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 13