Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.26.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 26, 2008 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the January 26, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Lisa Whitman; Planning Manager Maureen Brooks; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Engineer Doug Bell. III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2009 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - REVIEW OF UPDATE PROCESS, ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 2002 HOUSING ELEMENT, HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED OPPORTUNITY SITES. STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 26, 2009. She noted that it is anticipated that a public hearing to review the Draft Housing Element will be scheduled for the second regular Planning Commission meeting in February. She introduced Julie Maloney from Metropolitan Planning Group, the consultant preparing the Housing Element. Commission comments: Asked if the conversion of rental units to condominiums includes situations where existing units are demolished and replaced with new condominium units? (Brooks - is only meant to apply to situations where existing rental units are converted to condominium units.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 ■ Asked if the City will be required to ensure that the number of units assigned to the City are built? (Brooks/Meeker — the City must identify locations for development and establish policies to encouraged development of the units, but cannot guarantee that units will be built.) ■ Felt that the low-income and inclusionary housing section of the report is weak; there is a need to address this in greater detail. ■ Suggested adding a recommendation that some level of "green building" be required for single- family construction and for multi -family. ■ Asked for clarification regarding the parking ratios implemented as part of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan; was there a conscious decision not to change the ratios? ■ A "no net loss" of housing units policy should be included in the element. ■ Would like to see consideration of ratios of affordable units that are smaller and can remain affordable for a longer period of time. ■ Asked if second units were to be allowed, would they be counted towards our total number of units that are required? (Brooks — such a policy for second units is being discussed; yes, they would be counted towards the number of housing units required.) 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 7:20 p.m. 2. 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 — AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA, AND PROPOSED R-4 OVERLAY ZONE TO ALLOW MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 26, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the C2 zoning will remain, but will be covered with an overlay allowing R4 zoning uses, subject to R4 development standards; asked how this would this impact property values? (Brooks/Meeker — would permit similar development to that existing on the North Park property to the north. Would add more flexibility for development, conceivably adding value.) ■ Asked why a 35-foot height limit was imposed? (Brooks — was an idea developed by staff, is open for discussion.) ■ It may be appropriate to require significant landscaping in the 20-foot buffer between the site and the residential properties on Toyon Drive. ■ It is conceivable that the 20-foot buffer area could incorporate a driveway, and may need to be increased in width for additional landscaping; this could be addressed as a project -specific matter (Meeker— may require 20-foot minimum width, with option to increase width at the discretion of the Planning Commission under those circumstances.) ■ Suggested requiring a 30-foot height review line, with up to 36-feet possible; but must include articulation of the building mass. 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 7:30 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 3. 1812-A MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDREN'S TUTORING CENTER (GRACE KO, APPLICANT; JOHN BRITTON, PROPERTY OWNER: AND LINCOLN LUE ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated January 26, 2009. Commission comments: Requested a comparison of the parking space requirement for the recently approved "Kumon" use on California Drive with the proposed use. Asked that clarification be provided that the off -site parking is not included within the parking assessment for the use. 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 7:34 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 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 Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIIl. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Chair Cauchi recused himself from participation on Item 5 (612 Concord Way) since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the chambers. 5. 612 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVOOD RASHIDI, APPLICANT AND CONTRACTOR; JOHN AND PATRICIA EATON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 consideration. Secretary Vistica opened the public hearing. Davood Rashidi, 734 Winchester Drive; represented the applicant. Stated that the windows did not line up correctly with the proposed siding due to the need for egress windows. Concern was aesthetics and ease of maintenance. Commission comments: Clarified that the egress windows did not change from the approved plans; the wood siding in the rear could have been installed; but is not visible from the street. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The change is not visible from street and is not a problem. 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 Department date stamped March 13 and December 22, 2008, sheets Al and A3 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 13, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's June 18, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 15, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 18, 2007 memo 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; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 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 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, 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 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Noted that in the future, this type of change should be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being implemented. The contractor should be certain to notify the Planning Division of any changes in advance. Secretary Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 6. 1537 AND 1543 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR EXISTING REDWOOD TREES RELATED TO TWO, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION (OTTO MILLER. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-six (46) conditions were suggested for consideration for 1537 Drake Avenue, and forty-five (45) conditions were suggested for consideration for 1543 Drake Avenue. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ Provided an overview of the project's history. ■ Attempted to obtain a bond, but were unsuccessful; required payment of cash deposit. ■ Feels that the construction that could damage the tree has concluded; suggested retaining $20,000, but releasing the remainder upon completion of the project. Commission comments: ■ Asked how the amount of the deposit was determined? (Hudak — arrived at by City's consultant.) ■ Has there been an effort to attempt to obtain a bond in lieu of making a cash deposit? (Hudak — doesn't believe that a bond is an option today; does not meet the test for bonding.) ■ When is the project due to be completed? (Hudak — 4 to 5 months.) ■ On the northern house, there is a chimney next to the tree; is this a real fireplace, or gas -fired? (Hudak — gas -fired.) ■ Clarified that the house on the left still requires driveway construction. (Hudak — will be constructed with pavers that will require minimal ground preparation; will not disturb nearby tree roots.) Public comments: Jan Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; and Regina O'Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue spoke: ■ It is unusual that the funds are not in an interest -bearing account. ■ Read a letter from Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue. ■ Opposed to early release of the deposit; the builder should be responsible for long-term health of the trees. ■ Noted that when approval was given for the two lots, there were 46 conditions of approval for one of the lots; out of those, 29 of the conditions are related to the trees; 45 conditions are apply to the second lot; 29 related to the trees. This indicates how important protecting the trees was to the Planning Commission back when the project was approved. ■ Objects strenuously to the applicant's attempt to obtain a refund now. Urges Commission not to change a single word of the conditions of approval. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 ■ Questions the value of the applicant's opinion of the health of the trees; he has proven to be unreliable. ■ Read a letter from Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, objecting to release of the deposit. ■ There has been no material change that causes the Commission to reverse its prior ruling. ■ The conditions requiring the deposit were approved on July 9, 2007; noted that Mr. Hudak requested an amendment to the condition at that time, but it was not granted; the applicant knew he could not move forward without the condition. ■ The money is intended to cover the replacement of any failing trees post -construction. ■ It is not in the City's best interest to release the funds now. ■ The applicant has misled staff in the purpose of the deposit, as well as the arborist hired by the applicant. ■ Look at the intent of the original proposal; was to ensure the preservation of the trees. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, spoke in response to the neighbors' comments: The purpose of the deposit was not that there would be no impact upon the trees during construction; the purpose was to ensure that the trees that were damaged by the illegal grading survived; any non -surviving trees would be replaced with funds from the deposit. The trees are now healthy, based upon professional arborist opinions; the purpose of the deposit has been fulfilled. Additional Commission comments: The conditions of approval are case -specific; these conditions were laboriously negotiated. There is to be an evaluation done at 5-years post -construction. The deposit was required because of uncertainty about the health of the trees. Nothing has changed. (Hudak — has a different recollection of the purpose of the deposit; there were other remedies that would have been available to the Commission at that time. Required construction of a foundation of a specific design, based upon the site conditions. Were required to come before the Commission in the manner that occurred due to the illegal grading by a grading contractor. The overall goal was for the trees to recover.) Is there a reason why the construction didn't happen in the manner that it was anticipated? (Hudak — took a long time for the foundation design to be done correctly. Wasn't a conscious desire to wait to begin construction.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission discussion: ■ Some sympathy for the applicant; the grading wasn't done by the applicant; he has suffered delays and heavy costs; consider reducing by one-half. ■ The bond was posted due to damage done during the grading; would like to have more information on the genesis of the condition. ■ Would be beneficial for Commission to receive input from City Attorney; empower the Community Development Director and City Attorney to reach a reasonable compromise to be presented to the Commission; consider having a conversation with former Commissioner Osterling who provided input regarding the need for the condition. ■ The trees are in good health; but the deposit was required to ensure the continued health of the tree; the City will lose leverage if the deposit is released now. ■ Today's economy is difficult; this is a significant matter for the applicant. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 ■ Possibly return one-half now; but retain the remainder for a period beyond completion of construction. ■ Language in the condition was directly related to the grading activity. ■ Noted the condition requiring covenant notifying future owners of the importance of the trees. ■ The health of the trees was a paramount issue; it appears that this was a punitive measure imposed upon the applicant; it appears that, based upon the arborist reports that the trees are flourishing and doing well; tend to agree with returning some portion of the deposit at project completion, with retention to some point beyond completion. ■ The condition was not meant to be punitive; but was a representation of the importance of the trees to the community. ■ Include a summary of when the dates of the revised conditions were imposed; when are future inspections yet to occur; what is the extent of work to be done to install the driveway. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item to February 9, 2009 with direction to staff to work with the City Attorney and applicant to arrive at a recommendation regarding the amount of the release of a portion of the security deposit, when the portion is to be released, and how long the remaining portion of the deposit should be retained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of the motion: Requested that the City Arborist be present at next discussion. The conditions are punitive to the applicant, probability of any of the trees dying is pretty slight. Requested that staff confer with former Commissioner Osterling regarding this matter. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT EXIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Design references classic English Tudor homes of the 1920s. Is a large lot; although the FAR is near the limit, the allowable FAR actually drops, even though the lot is actually 50% larger, the home is only 28% larger. Noted that neighbor would like a lattice fence next to his property and raise the sill on the master bedroom window adjacent to his property. Commission comments: 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 ■ Asked if a tree removal permit has been issued for the tree? (Grange — not at this time.) ■ Asked for clarification regarding the existing finished floor elevation? (Grange — roughly 6-feet; the first floor elevation for the new structure will be similar.) ■ Very handsome design. ■ Fascia boards on the front elevation should be a bit heavier. ■ The style often benefits from different materials; might be a good idea to add varied finishes. ■ Requested clarity on the detailing on the front porch. ■ The structure is at the maximum FAR; there is no room for error during construction. ■ Suggested moving the sitting room wall back a foot to provide more flexibility during construction so as not to exceed the maximum FAR. ■ What is the height of the existing structure? ■ Suggested that a 9-foot ceiling would suffice rather than a 10-foot ceiling on the first floor (Grange — 10-feet seems appropriate for this style of house; it represents the desire of the client.) ■ Encouraged use of pervious surfacing materials for driveway. ■ Traditional designs sometimes have rooms with greater heights in some areas, though the general plate height is lower than the current design. Public comments: Rick Schoustra, 1350 Columbus Avenue, spoke: The design is good; it fits in the neighborhood. Chris Knightly (property owner), 1365 Columbus Avenue spoke: The design is one desired by he and his family; they like the 10-foot ceiling height. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Good design; large house, but it is situated on a large lot. ■ Design fits well with the neighborhood. ■ If anything, would like to see proposed design imposed on photographs of streetscape. ■ Noted that the actual house is only 30-feet high from adjacent grade; the lot rises 6-feet from the curb. ■ Ten (10) foot ceilings are not normally allowed on the first floor; not in favor of the 10-foot ceilings on a house that is already raised 6-feet above the curb; typically see a 9-foot first floor with an 8- foot second floor. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: The architect is well -versed at crafting spaces that have more volume and therefore is capable of proposing alternative that lowers plate height on first floor but maintains high ceilings on the interior. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 Alternatively, the first floor plate height could be kept at 10' but second floor plate height could be lowered. Noted that there is only one ridge line at 36-feet at the center of the house; other ridge lines drop down by 2-feet; shouldn't penalize the applicant by reducing first floor ceiling height; the applicant is attempting to reproduce a style of home from the 1920s; doesn't have a problem with the 10-foot ceiling height on the first floor. Chair Cauchi 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8: 57 p.m. 8. 1325 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Feels he has met the neighbor's concerns regarding the design. Commission comments: ■ The proposed design removes a lot of the massing from the neighboring property to the right. ■ Asked if there was a discussion with the neighbor regarding fence and drainage matters? (Chu — will replace fence and improve site drainage. The tree on the property is dying; the neighbor would need to apply for removal of the tree since it is situated on that property.) ■ Complemented the designs of the front porch and the roof slope. ■ Asked if there is a way to make the porch deeper to permit chairs to be placed outside of the bedroom? Taking a foot off the den would permit a more usable porch (Chu — this is possible.) ■ On the left elevation, there could be difficulty installing the corbels shown on the plans. Appears they are pinching the window, may be difficult to build. ■ Clarified that the sill is above the landing height on the stairwell window. ■ Asked why is window further up stair well obscured? Consider using stained glass or rolled glass. (Chu — obscured glass was previously requested; is open to using stained glass or rolled glass.) ■ Clarify that pervious materials will be used on the driveway and other paved areas. ■ Asked if the windows are to be real wood, divided light windows? (Chu — yes.) ■ Clarify finishing materials. Public comments: Brian Bailard, 1329 Cabrillo Avenue; Frank Lowe, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue; Mary Ann Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: The changes to the project accommodate the concerns that were raised previously. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 Requested clarification regarding declining height envelope portion of the request. (Meeker — noted that the agenda is incorrect, this portion of the request has been eliminated.) Requested clarification on the fence height. (Chu — will be 6-feet as measured from the Martinez property, per neighbor's request.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Cauchi 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 9. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated January 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Revised the design to be more traditional. The design could include a detached garage, but it doesn't; is quite a bit smaller than a typical project because of the presence of the oversized one car garage Provided slides showing the property. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the garage location obscures the entry way. (Grange — there is a porch at the location, plus the garage door is decorative. If the garage is pushed further back it impacts the rear yard.) ■ Have done a nice job with the design. ■ Noted that the home is angled on the lot and asked why. (Grange — relates to feng shui, angle is very subtle.) ■ Believes that the garage will look fine; it creates an alcove at the entry. ■ Asked what surface material is surrounding the fountain on the landscape plan? (Grange — lawn.) ■ There are a lot of hard surfaces within the yard, not much green; can any of these areas be made permeable? (Grange — in the rear, there is an existing foundation from the former detached garage; it will be used to build a terrace in the rear yard. Inherited a lot of foundations from the prior structures on the lot. These areas are permeable.) 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 On right elevation, why is the window not treated the same as the other windows? (Grange — is an attempt to be whimsical with the design.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Good design; elegant design; not bothered by the location of the entry. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Opposed to the design; not supportive of attached garage so close to street or small front porch, and doesn't believe that an energy efficient house needs to look so different from others in the neighborhood. Chair Cauchi 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 5-1-1 (CommissionerAuran dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Reminded the Commission of the annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Saturday, March 21, 2009 from 9 a.m. to noon in the Lane Community Room of the Burlingame Public Library. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 20, 2008: Noted adoption of resolution approving the project at 260 El Camino Real (Walgreens). XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:26. Respectfully submitted, 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes January 26, 2009 Stanley Vistica, Secretary 13