HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 09.13.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, September 13, 2010 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Yie called the September 13, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (7:03 p.m.), Gaul, Cauchi and Yie
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City
Attorney Gus Guinan
III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS
The following are the Planning Commission Officers until May 9, 2011:
Chair: Commissioner Vistica
Vice -Chair: Commissioner Yie
Secretary: Commissioner Lindstrom
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the August 23,
2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
■ Page 6, Item 3, seventh bullet from the top of the page; revise to read: "the recessed entry creates
a focal point."
■ Page 11, Item 5, Additional Commission comments, third bullet from the bottom of the page; revise
to read: "Supports option 4, which includes the screening of both sets of stacks with no height
reduction, but with painting of the stacks."
Motion passed 7-0-0.
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
VI. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA
—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES INCIDENTAL TO
A RETAIL USE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (WENDY EGER AND VERONICA MONTES,
APPLICANTS; DWIGHT ASHDOWN, ASHDOWN ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECT; DAY FAMILY
LTD. PARTNERSHIP ET AL PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 13, 2010.
Commission comments:
■ Overall likes the concept; not a lot of kid -friendly activities in the Downtown area.
■ The instructional portion of the use is described as incidental; what constitutes incidental and how is
the parking determined? (Hurin — less than 50% of the floor area; instructional activities as a
primary use would only be possible above the first floor. Children will not be driving to the site; they
will be dropped off by parents. Parking is based upon the square footage of the retail and
instructional areas.)
■ Concerned that the number of anticipated patrons may not support the use; perhaps there should
be more analysis by the applicant.
■ Address whether or not there are drop -in classes, or is pre -registration required?
■ Are there terms to the classes; do they build upon themselves?
■ Is there a reason why the number of customers needs to be below a certain number; what freedom
does the applicant have to expand the number of children?
■ Noted that the existing second exit cannot be used as a secondary means of egress; where will the
second means of egress be?
■ Great use; there is a similar use ("All Fired Up") within a half -block, works well in the area.
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
2. 1024 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (E. GARY SCHLOH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEBORAH MARTIN AND BILL
KNOWLES, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 13,
2010.
Commission comments:
■ Why is the item on the Study agenda? (Hurin — does not require design review.)
■ Is the special permit required for the attached garage because the property is in an R-2 zone?
(Hurin — explained that the R-1 standards are applied to single-family homes in the R-2 districts. An
attached garage requires a special permit.)
■ Feels that an attached garage could be a better solution for the lot; is this something that can be
changed? (Meeker — would require discussion by the entire Commission as a separate item from
the current request.)
■ Feels this is a nice design and is only an attached garage in a literal sense, but is attached and
articulated in a manner that pushes it to the rear of the lot with the driveway down the side of the lot.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
Asked if the Commission could consider eliminating the special permit requirement for an attached
garage (Meeker— would need to be addressed separately from this application as an amendment
to the code.)
If this was a real anomaly in the neighborhood, then there may be more of a concern; the proposal
is not out of character with the neighborhood.
This item was set for the Consent Calendar with no suggested revisions. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m.
3. 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE (TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH), ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AFTER -SCHOOL TUTORING BUSINESS OPERATING AT AN
EXISTING CHURCH SITE (SHERMAN TUNG, APPLICANT; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 13,
2010.
Commission comments:
■ Since the drop-off and pick-up will occur within the church parking lot; provide a plan that shows
how the site circulation will occur.
■ Will bicycle parking be provided?
■ Will students from the Burlingame School District also use the facility?
■ Will accessibility alterations be needed for the facility; if so, please make note of them.
■ Is the pre-school still in operation? If so, will activities occur simultaneously? (Meeker —will clarify,
but doesn't believe the pre-school is still in operation.)
■ Look at the Burlingame School District holiday schedule as well.
■ Appears that a couple of other buildings exist on the property; could add to parking and circulation;
show all buildings and how the parking and circulation works on plans.
This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:33 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.
There were no items on the Consent Calendar.
VIIl. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
4. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (JIM AND BARBARA MILLET, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (77 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated September 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
The only reason the project has returned to the Commission is since the foundation was removed?
(Meeker — yes, was approved as a remodel; the entire structure, including the foundation was
removed.)
Chair Vistica opened the public hearing.
Jim and Barbara Millet, 1444 Vancouver Avenue; represented the applicant:
■ Necessary changes were reviewed by the City's Building Inspector.
■ Were attempting to make the existing foundation work; but it was not possible to construct a new
home on the existing foundation.
■ Noted that the Building Inspector indicated that a revised plan should be submitted and approved
by the City replacing "like" for "like"; followed the City's direction.
■ Everyone knew what was going on with the project; the Building Official was very sympathetic to the
situation.
■ Losing five -weeks on the project at this stage is a financial burden.
■ Nothing is being hidden; the same project is being built.
Additional Commission comments:
None.
Public comments:
Bruce Olivier, 2104 Hale Drive; George Tucker, 1436 Vancouver Avenue; and Christopher Munoz, 1428
Vancouver Avenue; spoke:
City owes the property owner an apology for the delays that the property owner has been put
through. (Commissioner— noted that the City is following procedures dictated bylaw. Everyone is
sympathetic to what has happened.)
The property owner is trying to do the right thing.
Hasn't been following the project that closely; there is no particular right or wrong answer. This type
of situation will come up periodically.
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 September 1, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-6 and L1; and date stamped March 26, 2010
sheets A-7, A-8 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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);
E,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
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 November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos,
the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the
City Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's
November 4, 2009 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio
Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will
become void;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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
12. 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;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. 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 Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ Fully supports the motion and the application.
■ Believes that the property owner operated in good faith.
■ Disturbed by the insinuation that the Planning Commission and staff have operated in bad faith.
■ The project has moved forward to the Commission very quickly and expediently.
■ Unscrupulous things can happen with projects; though this is not the case in this instance; the
photos support the applicant's case. The City has regulations and procedures that are intended to
ensure the betterment of the community.
■ Clarified that the fact that the project became new construction due to the removal of the foundation
triggered the review.
■ Not necessary to make this an adversarial situation; supports the proposal.
Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m.
5. 305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA —
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW BAR (FOOD ESTABLISHMENT) (JUAN
LOREDO AND JOSE NATIVIDAD, APPLICANTS; ASHTON CATES, DESIGNER; AND LOUISAZEE AND
LORENZ KAO. PROPERTY OWNERS) (33 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 13, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-eight (28) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
What is the status of the former conditional use permit? What address is it associated with? (Hurin
— the conditional use permit is still valid and is tied to the 1108 Burlingame Avenue portion of the
property.)
Chair Vistica opened the public hearing.
Juan Loredo and Jose Natividad, 305 California Drive; represented the applicant.
Wished to have security beginning at 10 p.m. rather than at 9 p.m.
Noted that there would be special events that could cause an earlier opening time; requests hours
of operation from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. to accommodate this; though normal operating hours will be from
4 p.m. to 2 a.m.
Commission comments:
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
■ Asked if there is a problem with the changes requested by the applicant? (Meeker/Hurin — noted
that the hours reflected the applicant's initial intent, but is possible to change this. Can recommend
the security hours requested by the applicant and clear the change with the Police Chief in advance
of the City Council's consideration.)
■ How often will the business be open at 6 a.m.? (Loredo — only for special events; particularly the
World Cup.)
■ Question regarding limiting alcohol sales hours. (Meeker — noted that the ABC has control over
hours for alcohol sales.)
■ Asked about the changes to the facade windows? (Loredo — this was addressed by the property
owner as part of the design review approval.)
■ Asked for information regarding the exterior of the space. (Meeker— noted that the design review
application for exterior changes was approved previously.)
■ Is there emergency lighting within the storage area; also be certain to ensure that the area is not
blocked as it serves as emergency egress." (Natividad — there is lighting on the outside of the area.
Is certain that the architect will ensure that adequate lighting is provided in the area.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner A uran moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the application with the following
amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped August 16, 2010, sheets ID-000 through ID-202;
2. that this business location to be occupied by a bar, with 900 SF of seating area (597 SF indoor +
303 SF in outdoor patio), may change its food establishment classification only to a full service or
limited food service food establishment upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for
the establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be
approved;
3. that the 900 SF of on -site seating area of the bar shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas
within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building
and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the
business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise;
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within
10' of the property line;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
9. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment
permit issued by the city;
10. that the conditions of the Interim Chief of Police's September 7, 2010 memo, the Chief Building
Official's August 20 and July 9, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 19, 2010 memo, the City
Engineer's July 19, 2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's July 8, 2010 memo shall be met;
11. that the petitioner(s) support efforts of the ABC, the Burlingame Police Department and local
schools related to student education in the areas of alcohol awareness, danger and avoidance, and
education awareness about the dangers of DUI driving in local high schools that have teen age
students at (or near) driving age;
12. that security personnel shall be readily identifiable as security by wear distinctive clothing that has a
logo of the establishment and the apparel shall state "SECURITY STAFF";
13. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and to until one half (1/2) hour past closing the petitioner(s)
shall provide security personnel who shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which
would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by nearby businesses and residents;
14. that all identification shall be checked to verify that the person presenting the identification is of
legal drinking age;
15. that there shall be surveillance cameras located at all exit and entrance points (including patio) so
that all patrons are visually recorded as they enter and exit the establishment. A digital recording
shall be maintained by the establishment for no less than 30 days. The recording must be available
to local law enforcement upon request;
16. that the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption is strictly prohibited. Consumption
of on -sale alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to and within the confines of the building portion of
the premises. There shall be no consumption of alcoholic beverages on the sidewalk area in front of
or adjacent to the premise;
17. that no person under the age of twenty-one (21) shall sell, furnish, or deliver alcoholic beverages;
18. that no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s);
19. that the petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area in front of (sidewalk
and gutter) and adjacent to the premises over which they have control;
20. that loitering (loitering is defined as "to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business") is
prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the
licensee;
21. that the interior lighting maintained therein shall be sufficient to make easily discernible the
appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons in that portion of the premises where alcoholic
beverages are sold, served, delivered or consumed;
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
22. that the exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and
make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any
neighboring businesses and or residences;
23. that all door(s) and window(s) shall be kept closed at all time during the operation of the premises
except in cases of emergency and to permit deliveries, said door(s) not to consist solely of a screen
or ventilated door;
24. that sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the
hours of 6 a.m. — 2 a.m. Monday through Sunday, or as otherwise restricted by the California
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) license for the establishment;
25. that at no time shall the occupancy of the premise exceed the established lawful limit set by the
Central County Fire Department;
26. that at no time shall the licensee(s) allow a third party promoter to have any control over the
marketing, management, operation, or staffing of this business;
27. that graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the
licensee(s) within 72hrs of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a
holiday, the licensee(s) shall remove the graffiti with 72hrs following the beginning of the next
weekday; and
28. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2007 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these
conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these
conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion
passed 7-0-0. The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 2108 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, APPLICANT; KWS UNITED TECHNOLOGY, DESIGNER; AND
VLADISLAV STAVITSKIY. PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 13, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
■ Why is this considered to be a Hillside Area property, when the property is not located on a hill?
(Hurin — identified based upon a 10,000 square foot minimum lot area.)
■ Are distant views considered? (Hurin — yes.)
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard; represented the applicant.
Increasing plate height from eight -feet to ten -feet.
Noted that the proposed setback is consistent with adjacent homes on each side.
Commission comments:
■ Need to address the Variance application with a bit more detail; the rationale is not clearly indicated
in the application; are extending a non -conforming setback.
■ Generally supportive of the design; but concerned regarding the area where the home is being
pushed out; needs more landscaping along this side than is noted on the plans to minimize impacts
upon the neighbor.
■ Not seeing on the elevations or the floor plans the concrete flatwork ramp that exists. (Stachniuk—
noted that it will be removed.) Provide more detail about what occurs within the "existing concrete
front patio"; what will really happen in this area?
■ Replacing nearly all of the windows; could the windows be aluminum -clad wood windows? Vinyl -
clad windows are discouraged. (Stachniuk — included due to their presence on neighboring
properties, but can consider another style.)
■ There is an opportunity to make the porch be more special; make it more inviting.
■ The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee has made a recommendation to change the front
setback from a variance to a special permit when an existing setback is being matched; clarify the
logic for the variance.
■ In favor of the variance request.
■ Do something to enhance the area near the front door, perhaps bring stone work around the front.
(Stachniuk — agreed.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Vistica 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. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
7. 1124 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; ANDREW PENG, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated September 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
Drawings show a 16-foot door, but the parking space dimension is smaller, why is this the case?
(Hurin — there is a closet encroachment within the interior of the garage.)
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
Hector Estipona, 880 Mitten Road #102; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Plans show vinyl clad windows; strongly prefer aluminum clad windows, show the change to
aluminum clad. (Estipona — will be corrected.)
■ The massing and articulation of the house is ok, but it seems that there are some things missing;
perhaps grids within some of the windows to add a bit of detail.
■ Both side elevations are rather stark.
■ The front elevation is good, but the doorway on the rear elevation needs some detail work.
■ Overall likes the project.
■ Thinks that the garage elevation could be handled better; could have an off -set with two single
garage doors to minimize the width of the garage door opening. Check the City's design guidelines.
■ On the front arched windows, is stucco trim provided? (Estipona — yes.)
■ Looks like a rough piece of wood is provided across the top of the second floor windows. (Estipona
— yes.)
■ There seem to be several different styles of windows being provided, along with shutters being
provided at some locations; needs to be more cohesive. Typically "Spanish" homes include some
wrought -iron metal work.
■ Is there a way to move the solar tube skylights to be moved to the rear of the house? (Estipona —
yes. )
■ Supports the argument for the attached garage.
■ On the rear porch there is no detail on the columns; provide detail.
■ Windows need more attention, grids or other detailing, something that is more in the realm of
"Spanish" style.
■ Asked for clarification regarding where height is measured from and the overall height of the
structure; does it fall within the height limit? All of the houses on the street are elevated above the
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
street. Is the proposed house within the height limit? (Meeker — height is measured from the curb
line. Hurin — appears to be right at the 30-foot height limit.)
■ Need some roofing detail on the right -side of the rear elevation.
■ Concerned regarding massing of windows, and the lack of windows in some locations. Provide
more detail for design.
■ Tile material for front porch is not indicated.
■ What is the square pattern provided on the chimneys? Provide more detail.
■ Provide size of the clay vents.
■ Window on front left is to be stucco around the window; is this stucco molding or an inset; clarify
and provide detail. (Estipona — the door and window are recessed.)
■ Regarding the front chimney; does it need to be as high as it is; could it be lowered? (Estipona — is
designed to be proportional with the structure.) Perhaps lower to the declining height envelope line.
■ Ask the landscape architect to clarify the landscaping details on the left side; did he really intend to
install five "Giant Bird of Paradise".
■ On landscape plan, clarify note regarding "new" concrete wall to be cut back; assume this is an
existing concrete wall to be cut back.
■ Clean up some of the notes on the plans.
■ Would suggest looking at the den/powder room area; consider moving the powder room to a
location that allows the den to be squared off and allows additional windows to be provided.
■ Consider moving the kitchen sink to the left elevation and provide a window in that blank elevation.
Public comments:
Sajai Krishnan, 1128 Bernal Avenue and Indra Pachtner, 1120 Bernal Avenue; spoke
■ There have been a couple of re -constructions on the block; this is the first house to have a two -car
attached garage up front. The existing detached garages in the neighborhood provide a feeling of
space.
■ Will be a large house with just walkways on either side.
■ Suggested re -checking the height measurements; there is a wall that retains the lawn in front; the
lawn seems to be elevated more than stated.
■ Seems that the front and rear areas are larger than is currently provided; will be an overbearing
structure on the street due to the width of the fagade.
• Would appreciate some landscaping to provide privacy to the neighbors.
■ Attached garage doesn't fit with the area; will impact light into the house the right.
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.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Vistica 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 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Item 8
(1321 El Camino Real), since he is the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers.
8. 1321 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR A NEW
FIVE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT; JOHN WELSH,
DESIGNER; AND FRANCES MILLIKEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated September 13, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
■ Who determined the movements for entering the parking spaces? (Hurin — staff uses a parking
template; multiple movements are required in some instances due to the placement of columns.)
■ There is a large Magnolia Tree in the easement; is there any requirement to have a fence at the
easement, could it be used for open space. (Hurin — no requirement for a fence.)
■ Are the stairwells required on the front and rear elevations? (Hurin — believes they are required.)
■ The Commission can consider granting concessions for providing affordable units; what is being
provided in this instance? (Hurin — is taking advantage of greater height; reduced number of
parking spaces is not permitted, though a greater number of compact spaces may be able to be
provided to allow expansion of the width of other parking spaces. Different incentives are offered
depending upon the term of affordability.)
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
John Welsh, 107 East Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Has any consideration been given to providing secured bicycle parking? (Welsh — a good
comment; there is space to provide some bicycle parking.)
■ The open space in the back is a nice feature; are there any other amenities intended? (Welsh —
have discussed this and will consider.)
■ Nice looking building; has there been any effort to make the exit stair on the front elevation a bit
less utilitarian? Perhaps continue the shingles and articulate the stairs more? (Welsh —
appreciates the idea, can consider.)
■ Is there anyway to make the side elevation look more like the front; would add to the curb appeal.
(Welsh — can consider this.)
■ Is parking driving the design? (Welsh — yes; have four garages that can be used for very large
cars; and four for smaller cars. The large template used by staff necessitates the request for a
variance. Have provided individual garage doors with columns between doors; this exacerbates the
problem.)
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
■ Would like to see thought given to utilities that will be incorporated into the project; show locations
on plans (e.g. trash, gas meters, water meters, etc.)
■ El Camino Real is State-controlled; the State dictates where trees can be planted in the corridor.
Also look into drainage; can't drain the site to El Camino Real. (Hurin —will be evaluated as part of
the environmental analysis.)
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed and the environmental analysis is complete. The motion passed on a voice
vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul abstained). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m.
Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Chair's Subcommittee Assignments:
Chair Vistica made the following appointments to Planning Commission Subcommittees:
■ 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
The creation of two additional subcommittees, Historic Preservation and Sustainability was also briefly
discussed. Chair Vistica made the following appointments to these subcommittees:
■ Historic Preservation: Commissioners Terrones, Cauchi and Yie
■ Sustainability: Commissioners Vistica, Yie and Gaul
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 13, 2010
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 7, 2010:
None.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — August, 2010:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary
16