Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.12.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 12, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Terrones called the January 12, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; welcomed new City Attorney Gus Guinan. Also spoke regarding recent appeals of Planning Commission actions regarding 1452 Drake Avenue and 260 El Camino Real; and the City Council's recent actions overturning the Commission's decision in both instances. It was suggested that this matter be placed on the agenda for the annual joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Brownrigg spoke to Ms. Giorni's comments regarding the City Council's actions. Noted that he understands the need for swift review of an appeal, if the City Council can accommodate it. He expressed concern about the City Council substituting for the Planning Commission when determining design consistency. He indicated that he doesn't understand the haste that the City Council felt with respect to the Walgreens project. He doesn't dispute the Council's right to make the decision, but doesn't agree with not having it sent back to the Planning Commission. He indicated that he doesn't recall actions of this sort within his eight years on the Planning Commission. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1024 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FORA CLASS USE (DANCE/PILATES STUDIO) (DOUG MCINTOSH, APPLICANT; GLORIA C. CONTI TRUST PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 12, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Consider changing the green (24-minute) parking zone to a one -hour parking zone. ■ Concerned about impacts upon parking in the area due to congestion in the area in the mornings and afternoons related to Burlingame High School; quantify the available on -street parking during peak times. ■ Calculate the parking demand for other tenants of the building. ■ Appears that the parking on Carolan Avenue is not heavily used; check to determine if there is a policy restricting student parking in the area to only the southern side of Oak Grove Avenue. ■ Check to see if the occupancy change for the tenant space will necessitate a second exit; if so, there may be exterior alterations to the building; have Chief Building Official look at this issue to determine if this will be needed. ■ Good use for the site; this use will be complemented by the other uses in the area. ■ There will be minimal parking impacts from the use; the area accommodates parking for AYSO events; there is also parking available on California Drive. ■ Coordinate with Public Works with respect to possible changes along Carolan Avenue that would impact parking on the street (e.g. bike lanes). 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 7:22 p.m. 2. 16 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL TRAINER BUSINESS (KEVIN HOWARD, APPLICANT; AND MIKE HOWARD, PARK ROAD PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 12, 2009. Commission comments: Requested information on the uses present on the second floor and the parking for the uses. 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 7:24 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 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. Vice -Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 3a was pulled for discussion. 3b. 113 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH RECREATION ROOM AND BATHROOM AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ONSITE FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TOM KIELY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Consent Calendar (Item 3b) 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. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3a. 1305 -1331 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP (WILLY OSTERTAG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BRIAN BUCHER, AIA, BUCHER DESIGN STUDIO, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Willie Ostertag, 3104 Cananea Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Built complex in 1975, has operated it since as an automotive facility. ■ Have never had problems with parking since 1975, have complied with City requirements. ■ Noted that there have been problems with employees from area businesses parking on the property. ■ More automotive businesses have come into the area and have impacted the area; he has installed signs on his property. ■ Original plan showed six trees along Rollins Road. Still has one tree along Carolan Avenue. Needed to remove the trees because bird waste caused damage to cars on the property; is a liability issue. The proposed type of tree is not appropriate and will create the same type of problem. Commission comments: None. Public comments: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Richard Johnston, 1545 Rollins Road; requested that parking spaces in the rear be used for parking, not storage. Expressed concern that the interior parking spaces may not be useful. Additional Commission comments: The trees recommended are large scale and go well with the width of Rollins Road. There may be other species that may meet the needs of the City and the applicant. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: All concerns have been addressed in the application. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 16, sheets AO and Al. 1 and date stamped November 18, 2008, sheets A1.0, A1.2 and A2.1, and the Property Condition Assessment date stamped June 27, 2008; 2. that the applicant shall work with staff and the City Arborist to choose an alternate species of street tree along Rollins Road that is still consistent with the intent of the Burlingame/North Rollins Road Specific Plan, in an effort to reduce the potential for damage to vehicles from bird waste; the selection shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as an FYI; 3. 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; 4. that the conditions of the City Arborist's September 4, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's November 26 and July 17, 2008 memos, the Chief Building Official's November 20 and July 3 memos and the Fire Marshal's June 30, 2008 memo, shall be met; 5. that the Parking Variance for backing onto a public right-of-way shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for intentional replacement; 6. that the 40 on -site parking spaces shall be used only for parking by the customers and employees of the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles or any other goods either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off -site parking; 7. that all on -site parking spaces shall be maintained for customer and employee parking and shall not be used to store trash and recycling receptacles or storage of materials related to the business in the condominium units; 51 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 8. that trash and recycling receptacles, furnaces, water heaters and any other utilities shall be shown in legal compartments outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 9. that sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron improvements shall be installed to comply with the Public Works' requirements and construction standards and shall be installed prior to the final inspection; the applicant shall obtain the necessary special encroachment permit for any improvements required in the public right-of-way; 10. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall install six, 24-inch box trees (species determined by staff and CityArborist), spaced approximately forty feet apart, along Rollins Road as shown on the Site Plan, sheet AO, date stamped December 16, 2008; after the final inspection by the City Arborist, plus ninety days for tree survival assurance, the newly installed trees shall become the maintenance responsibility of the City of Burlingame; 11. that the landscaping noted on sheet AO shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 12. that prior to issuance of a building permit or sale of any of the condominium units, the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Attorney; 13. that the reports required by this code, in a form approved by the city, shall be provided to each person executing any purchase, rental or other agreement to purchase or occupy a unit in the project. Copies of the full reports shall be made available at all times at the sales office and shall be posted at various locations, as may be required by the city, at the project site; 14. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 15. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 16. that demolition for removal of the existing structures or walls within the condominium units 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; 17. 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 18. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: Include specifications on the location of dumpsters in the CC & Rs. Other motor vehicle related uses may also make the same request in the future regarding a different street tree along Rollins Road; staff was asked to work with the City Arborist to determine an appropriate alternate tree selection. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:44 p.m. 4. 1517 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND GERARD AND ORLA GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (86 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant.. Have met with the neighbor and have revised plans to address concerns. Public comments: Sean Pitonak, 1521 Howard Avenue; submitted a letter. The applicant is requesting something outside the norm; a Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit are requested. The accessory structure is more manageable, but it is still not per code, the impact upon his property is still great upon his yard. Suggested that the bathroom in the accessory structure be approved. The garage is too far forward relative to his garage; it should be moved back several feet. Felt that he should not need to camouflage the structure from his property. The proposed garage should be of the same height has his garage. Commission comments: Noted that existing garage is set considerably forward relative to the neighbor's garage. Neighbor has a condition with two driveways adjacent to one another; the contention that the front doors of garages should be synchronous is not appropriate. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Is a successful project; improvements have been made to address the neighbor's concerns. Did not see anything atypical about the garage design. Commissioner Vistica 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_December 11, 2008, Sheets 1 through 8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 10, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's October 29, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 17, 2008 memo shall be met; 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, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 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 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 Department; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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: Application has come a long way, hopes that there is no lingering acrimony amongst the neighbors. Noted that barge rafter is intended to balance the front of the garage, perhaps the rafter could be cut back somewhat. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PATTY AND ANDREW JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones (noted that he had listened to the recording of the prior proceedings regarding this matter) opened the public hearing. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Pattie and Andrew Jordan, 2537 Hayward Drive and Victor Zvarich, 3475 Investment Boulevard, Hayward; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted changes to the window grid pattern as was a change to the side lights at the door. ■ Discussed artificial turf; how is it installed (Jordan — installed to allow water to drain through; installed by Heavenly Green). Where does it drain to (Jordan — drains to street). ■ There are a lot more impervious surfaces present on the property (Jordan — wanted to make it as drought tolerant as possible). ■ Expected the project to be built per the approved plans. ■ Railing and chimney cap are the most problematic changes (Jordan — was asked to choose the railing that she likes most that is most aesthetically pleasing). ■ Concerned with the amount of impervious coverage on property; was approved with prior design to alleviate impacts upon drainage. Concerned particularly about the area to the left of the garage (Jordan — offered to plant grass at that location). ■ The architect and contractor need to be familiar with requirements of City. The contractor must know that choices offered must fall within what was approved by the City. The process is intended to ensure that the end product matches what was approved. ■ The changes made are not necessarily unappealing, but are a conflict with the agreement at the time the project was approved; establishes a precedent that can cause future projects not to be aesthetically pleasing. ■ Homeowner is the line of communication between the contractor and the architect to ensure that what is approved is actually built. Public comments: Amanda Wallace, 2521 Hayward Drive; David Attard, 2517 Hayward Drive; Doug Shetti, 2541 Hayward Drive; Shannon Casey Cannon, 2535 Hayward Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project: ■ Supported the applicant. ■ Satisfied with the look of the house. ■ Discussed tree height condition, confirmed that it would remain a condition. ■ Asked why the applicant didn't apply for an amendment previously when they received approval of window changes. ■ Asked if the architect still associated with the project. ■ No details are unimportant; the applicant had a contract with the City to complete the project as approved. ■ Requested removal of all excess paving and replacement of the chimney cap. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The biggest concern is the change in the landscape/hardscape. The chimney caps can be improved. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 1, 2008, as -built Site Plan, as -built Front Elevation, and as -built Landscape Plan; date stamped May 6, 2008, sheets A3 and A4, and date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets Al, A2, A5 through A8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the paved area to the left of the driveway shall be removed and replaced with a planting area (not artificial turf); stepping stones to the rear yard may also be installed within the planting area; 3. that the chimney cap shall be installed as shown on the original approved plans; 4. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the height measured at the time of building permit issuance; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio 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 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 9. 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. 10. 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 Department; 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; 12. 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 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes issued; January 12, 2009 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 14. 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 15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner A uran dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 6. 145 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JENNY NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones (noted he had listened to recordings of prior proceedings regarding this matter) opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Noted standards that are being established for permeability. There are permeable interlocking paving standards that exist; in the future, this standard should be called out in the conditions of approval to ensure that permeability remains for the life of the project. It is critical that sand not be placed between pavers; it will eventually turn to concrete, decreasing permeability. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Public comments: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: On front elevation, a header over the window on the curve would help to balance it. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 3, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1; 2. that exposed 5'/2-inch minimum wood headers be installed above the second story front window, on the rear elevation above the rounded bay, on the right elevation above the planter box, and on the left elevation above the planter box; 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 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 23, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's October 17, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 22, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 22, 2008 memo shall be met; 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 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 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, 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 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 Department; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:49 p.m. 7. 717 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL EWALD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BARRY SUDBECK, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Daniel Ewald, 1175 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Described rationale for the request. Additional Commission comments: Why not extend the dormer, there is more area to work with (Ewald — cost reductions). Public comments: Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; spoke regarding the project: She thinks the project has been well done to date; the contractors have been very nice. Have done a good job; should be allowed to make the changes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 9, 2008, sheets A1.0 through A3.3, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 17, 2008 and July 3, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshall's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos and the City Engineer's June 16, 2008 and July 9, 2007 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 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 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; 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 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 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 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 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 9. 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; 10. 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 Department; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive and Bacilia Macias, 121 Scotts Chute Court, El Sobrante; represented the applicant. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Have revised project to eliminate neighbor's view blockage concerns; though the addition now occupies most of the rear yard. Noted objections from neighbor to left raised at the design review study meeting; the story poles may have alleviated her concerns. Submitted photos from uphill neighbors to Vlahos showing view obstructions. Additional Commission comments: Clarified that 6' 4" side setback is an existing condition. Public comments: Paul Vlahos, son of the owners of 1847 Hunt Drive; speaking on behalf of his parents; and Mrs. Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive, spoke regarding the project: ■ The story poles currently obstruct a lesser portion of the distant view than the prior version of the project. ■ There remains privacy issues related to the Vlahos property. ■ Do not want to be unpleasant neighbors, but want to preserve their views. Leaves it up to the Commission to make the decision; cut some of the added space that obstructs the view from the kitchen. The current design is unacceptable. Further Commission comments: Applicant has worked well to resolve the concerns; is there any room to pull the front wall of the bedroom wall any more to address neighbor's view concerns (Dunning — moving it back any more will further obstruct the windows and make it look odd from the street). Can the closet and the master bathroom be flipped as a better solution for the applicant (Dunning — would impact the flow. Additional landscaping could be provided along the four foot fence on the property line in order to preserve privacy). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: Difficult application; applicant has worked diligently to revise the project to address neighbor concerns. Can support the application as it stands; the applicants have a right to improve their property. 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 December 18, 2008, Sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 through A3.2, A4.0, and A5.0; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 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 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 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 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ The addition has eliminated most of the prior concerns about view blockage; unfortunately, the addition now looks like an addition. ■ Always difficult to build in the hillside area; the project design has come a long way to minimize neighbor impacts; compromises have been made by the applicant. ■ The designer has done a good job of moving the occupied spaces to the downhill side of the addition. ■ Commissioner Brownrigg abstained since he had not visited the Vlahos property. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg left the meeting at 9:24 p.m. IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1461 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIVIAN AND AMANDA LARKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JACK MCCARTHY, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Complemented the design. ■ Concerned about the half bath opening directly off of the dining room, consider placing the door off of the entry. ■ In the family room, installation of clerestory windows would break up the blank wall on the left elevation. ■ Consider reorganizing the kitchen to permit a larger window to allow more light in. ■ Provide a streetscape image that shows the proposed house in context with other houses on the street. ■ Noted that groundwater will be an issue on the lot; review with a soils engineer. Ensure that the sump pump on the property has battery back-up. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project: ■ The architect designed the house to the right; it was built at just under 30-feet. ■ The design adds elegance to the neighborhood. ■ Requested clarity regarding the FAR exemption. ■ Why so many doors and windows from the basement; concerned about having the door become the center of activity for egress. ■ With respect to drainage, her neighboring property owner's sump pump runs frequently during the day. When the sump pump is installed, wants to be assured that it doesn't run as frequently. ■ Asked if a hydrology test has been performed for the property. ■ The lot coverage is increasing with the new design, as opposed to the prior design. Asked for a bit more green area be added to the property. Additional Commission comments: Consider adding a landscape area down the center of the driveway; or otherwise decrease the amount of hardscape on the lot. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Further Commission comments: There is justification for the special permit due to the small nature of the lot. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:43 p.m. 10. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 '/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. John Ward, 792 Willborough Place and Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant. ■ Noted prior design for site that wasn't embraced by the Planning Commission. ■ The Commission directed him to step the house up the hill; and that a height Variance could be supported due to the lot characteristics. ■ Discussed average setback requirements in Burlingame, and the presence of multiple, significantly varied setbacks that are present on the neighboring properties that lie in unincorporated San Mateo County. ■ Noted that large Oak tree in center of property should be preserved, per City arborist. ■ Traditional architecture would add to mass and bulk of building; have chosen modern architecture in an attempt to reduce the mass of the structure on the hillside. ■ Submitted letter from Shefsky's withdrawing their opposition to the proposal. ■ Have not had the opportunity to discuss other neighbors' objections with them. ■ Side setbacks are much greater than what the City of Burlingame requires. ■ Much of the home is dug into the hill; and steps up the hillside. ■ Noted correction in his letter to a neighbor indicating that the distance from his garage door to their dining room is 51 feet. Commission comments: Have done a masterful job of reducing the mass and scale of the house. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 ■ Landscaping helps to obscure the mass of the house. ■ Like the design a lot; suggested consideration of a green (living) roof as it could further soften the appearance of the house. ■ The mass is broken up well; requested a massing model to help illustrate this in 3 dimensions. ■ Appreciated that most of the trees on the lot are being preserved. ■ Design allows the massing to be articulated up the hill; permits it to be achieved with some elegance. ■ When the project comes back, ensure that elevations completely match the floor plan. ■ Massing model could be helpful. Public comments: Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; Donna Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Mike Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Eileen and Steve Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane; Gail Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project: ■ The owner to the left of the property feels that his light on his lot will be impacted. Provided photos of his rear -yard. Has a swimming pool with a 5'/2 foot high wall. Sun sets directly over the ridge on Mortazavi's property. Will adversely impact his property. Height restrictions exist for numerous reasons; blocking out the natural sunlight and privacy. At left elevation; upper floor deck will look directly into his pool. No height Variance should be allowed. Referenced his letter submitted to the Commission. ■ Expressed concern about the position of the garage; concern about fumes from garage entering his property; suggested having driveway enter garage from the other side, rather than circling around. ■ Think about surrounding properties, not just those in Burlingame. ■ Referenced prior design; indicated support for it. ■ Liked that the house has been stepped back. ■ Appreciate that applicant is keeping the oak trees. ■ Was opposed to original design. Likes modern architecture; there is a bit of a precedent; there is a variety of architecture in the area. ■ The applicant has assured that the new home will be finished in earth -tones. ■ Noted that the City's Hillside Area Construction Permit process allows any property owner to call up a permit for review; the procedures do not differentiate between City versus County property owners. ■ Story poles should be required regardless of jurisdiction within which adjacent properties are situated. ■ There will be view impacts from the new design; were supportive of the original proposal that placed home closer to the road. ■ Light to the adjacent property will be severely impacted. ■ The proposed setback will more severely impact privacy on the adjacent property. ■ Noted that California law does not give you light, air and water rights. The local view ordinance only applies to hillside areas. ■ There are few comments about view obstruction; primarily loss of privacy and fear of change. ■ Clarified the method of height measurement is the distance above the curb at the street level. ■ With respect to story poles; will need an interpretation from the City Attorney. Recommends story poles; have generally required them in other hillside areas. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Expressed concern regarding requiring story poles for benefit of San Mateo County residents that are not subject to the same requirement; perhaps consider a more limited story pole installation. A model could help to demonstrate the massing of the project, but would not help to understand the massing in context with adjacent properties. Determined that the applicant can choose to erect story poles, or provide a massing model, but if story poles are not installed the Commission retains the right to require them in the future. Commissioner Terrones 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. Vice -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 Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 11. 1609 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GLIOHLIZ CHEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOE HALL, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Guohui Chen, 1609 Albemarle Way; represented the project. Commission comments: ■ There is no hardship for the Variance; the addition could be reduced by 11-inches to eliminate the need for the Variance. ■ The addition looks like an addition; it is not well integrated and needs more work. ■ Clarify the floor plan; there appears to be a bedroom with no door. ■ Would like to see the door on the rear elevation changed out to wood. ■ Inclusion of a trellis on the rear elevation would help the appearance of the structure. ■ Some of the drawings are inconsistent and don't resolve themselves; it would be difficult to build the addition as shown. ■ Should be sent to a design reviewer. ■ The addition is modest; assistance from a design reviewer could result in changes that could make the project "approvable". Public comments: 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project: Encouraged sending the project to a design reviewer. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Clarified that the architect is no longer involved in the project (Chen — has a drafter to finalize the points on the plans. Can't afford a complete overhaul on the residence. Requested flexibility with this issue). Commissioner Yie made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Modest addition, with some type of streamlining it can become an approvable project. Vice -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 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:01 P.M. 12. 1040 BROADWAY, ZONED RR — SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE TO REBUILD AN EXISTING GAS STATION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A NEW FUELING CANOPY AND DISPENSERS, CONVENIENCE STORE AND CAR WASH (BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND BOE ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 12, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Richard LaRowe, 853 Leith Court, Lincoln; and Timothy Boe, 150 South Arroyo Parkway, Pasadena; represented the applicant. ■ Noted that BP/Arco and the franchisee wanted to halt the project completely after the last study session. Arco is withdrawing from all retail sales operations. ■ Believe they were able to incorporate nearly all of the requirements; but did not incorporate LEED certification (cost prohibitive). ■ Did not consider solar application. ■ Can't support removing the car -wash. ■ Location of building is being dictated by neighboring auto dealer. ■ Requested consideration as a Consent Calendar item the next time it appears on the agenda. 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Commission comments: ■ Vice -Chair Terrones noted that though he wasn't at the prior hearing, he had listened to the recording of the prior meeting. ■ Requested the status of the traffic analysis. ■ Asked about handling of waste water from car -wash. ■ Asked if there is flexibility in the design of the building; expressed concern that the project turns its back on the entry to the Broadway corridor. The design of the building is critical at this location. ■ Faux windows are not an acceptable solution; the design looks like any other design that can be found elsewhere in the State; this is an important site for Burlingame. The design needs to drastically change for it to move forward. ■ The design is still not remarkable; not true to Spanish design; there is no relationship between the function and the design. ■ Asked what is planned for the faux windows on the rear elevation. ■ Requested information regarding the useful life of the buildings. ■ Improve pedestrian amenities along Rollins Road; create some activity at the corner; benches and other amenities that appeal to pedestrians. ■ Would a trellis or some other amenity be means of improving the rear elevation? ■ The design of the canopy diminishes the appearance of the building. ■ The building is only oriented to the canopy but the site is oriented to the corner; this is not acceptable. ■ Could there be some type of corner entry floor plan that can at least open up the corner of the building to the plaza area on the corner. Also create an architectural element that draws attention to the corner; create more shadowing. ■ The project is seeking a significant Variance from setbacks along Rollins Road. ■ Suggested revising the placement of the vehicle bays to create more design flexibility. ■ The "Welcome to Burlingame" sign could be concave to allow more landscaping in front; it could be integrated with other landscape elements. ■ Believe that the spaces at pumps should be considered parking spots. Public comments: None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Questioned the use of brick as a design element; it is not common in this area. Requested an evaluation of traffic and circulation. Requested an evaluation of water use and drainage from the car -wash and landscaping. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 Vice -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 and the environmental analysis is complete. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Introduced City Attorney Gus Guinan. Actions from Regular City Council meetings of December 15, 2008 and January 5, 2009: On December 15, 2008, the City Council granted the appeal of Council Member Jerry Deal and overturned the Planning Commission's approval of the new single-family dwelling at 1452 Drake Avenue. On January 5, 2008, the City Council granted Kevin Cullinane's appeal, and approved entitlements for the proposed Walgreens store at 260 El Camino Real. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — December, 2008: Accepted. FYI: 612 Concord Way — Changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Requested that a public hearing be scheduled to review the changes. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 25