Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.08.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California June 8, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the June 8, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES ■ Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the May 26, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioners requested that Item 1 a, 2509 Hillside Drive and Item 1 d, 466 Marin Drive be pulled from the consent calendar. There were no other requests. C. Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the vote on Item 1 c, 1311 Paloma Avenue, because he has a business relationship with the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 1 b. 1561 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SEAN AND MARIE MCCALLION, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1C. 1311 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CAROLE VALENTINE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DREILING/TERRONES ARCHITECTURE. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 1e. 855 MAHLER ROAD, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE LOT (AHMAD MOHAZAB, TECTA ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND RABIH BALLOUT, PROPERTY OWNER) (14 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The motion on Item 1 c, 1311 Paloma Avenue passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained) Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1a. 2509 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOSH GRATCH AND KIM MCKELLAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Dan Biermann, Design Studio, represented the applicant. Commission comment: The window grid pattern on the second story would look better if the middle window matched the others on that level. Could the closet and the bath in the master suite be flipped so that a window could be added, the addition is now two stark walls, could improve the rear elevation. (The applicant noted that the space could be redesigned but would rather not, the owners are happy with it as now designed). Think it would benefit rear elevation if there was window, would help if could come back as an FYI, this application could move forward. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution; with the exception that the applicant should look closely at the possibility of flipping the closet and the bath in the master suite to allow for a window on the rear elevation; if this change is proposed, it shall be brought to the Commission as an FYI item, subject to the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 30, 2009, sheets Al, Al. 1, A3 and S3; and date stamped May 27, 2009, sheets A4 though A8; 2. that the applicant should look closely at the possibility of flipping the closet and the bath in the master suite to allow for a window on the rear elevation; if this change is proposed, it shall be brought to the Commission as an FYI item; 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 April 6 and April 30, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's April 13, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 13, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's April 10, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 7, 2009 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: 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 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 Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 1d. 466 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW BASEMENT, AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE FROM A BASEMENT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (STEVE AND SHEILA DRUSKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND LARRY KAHLE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commissioners asked about the landscape plan, staff noted that the applicant is not proposing any new landscaping at this time, and the on -site tree requirement has been met. Larry Kahle, architect, represented the applicant, and described the changes made to the plans to address the Commission's comments. Commission comments: ■ Think the corbels on rear elevation are a little too much, could be made a little wider and stouter and not have as many. ■ Nice project, like the improvements, but there are two or three variances, don't see a hardship that justifies the variance. ■ For the front porch setback, it can be justified, it's just the location of the posts, they could be moved back. ■ Think that the addition of bay window is good addition, cost effective way to enhance, but if some thought is put into it, it could be done without a Setback Variance, it also adds an FAR Variance, think there is not a hardship, and would like variance to go away, hard to justify variance only on aesthetic appeal. ■ Wondering now that there is gable end what is the ceiling height, is there a vaulted ceiling, could there be an opportunity to have an arched window that goes up into the gable space? (Architect noted that there is no vaulted ceiling, an arched window would start to redesign the space in that room). 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 ■ Addition at the rear is 20' long and two floors high, could reduce it by 3" and reduce the floor area by 10 feet to eliminate the FAR Variance. ■ Bay could be improved if didn't have sloped bottom, could be squared off with corbels underneath. ■ The bay window causes the FAR Variance, and we asked for a solution that would break up the facade. Another option is to go back to the original design, would eliminate the FAR Variance. ■ Applicant has done a nice job, sure that with a little more study, there is a solution that doesn't require FAR or Front Setback Variance, a trim package could be added to the second floor window; hard time supporting, there are solutions that are just as nice and functional without requiring a variance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: ■ Torn, have discussed making front porch a Special Permit, but haven't implemented, and we did ask that revisions be made to improve the front fagade. ■ Agree that given the location of the existing fagade, it doesn't make sense for the addition to meet the block average, comfortable with the Front Setback Variance for the porch, with respect to the bay window and the FAR Variance, concur that it's because they are building to maximum, but it's 1/3 of 1 % over the maximum, for those reasons can support the application as proposed. ■ Can support for reasons indicated, looking to champion porches, with regard to bay window, asked that they add articulation, is de minimus, can support. ■ Clear hardship for the porch Setback Variance based on existing setbacks, issue is with bay window, understand not talking about a lot of square footage, but have applicants that come forward pushing the FAR, and we caution them, think there is a simple way to make the FAR Variance go away, concerned with precedent. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 May 29, 2009, sheets Al through A6; and date stamped May 14, 2009, survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 17, 2009 and May 14, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 11, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 25, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's April 16, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 22, 2009 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Variances for front setbacks and floor area ratio and Special Permits for declining height envelope, a new basement and an exterior staircase from a basement as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 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 Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Terrones called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Terrones dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 2. 1710 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED IB —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR NEW ROOFTOP MECHANICAL SCREENING ON AN EXISTING BUILDING (SARA ROBERTSON, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND HELLMUTH, OBATA+ KASSABAUM. INC.. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Peter Espe, HOK Architects, represented the applicant, noting that the new mechanical equipment is replacing existing, enclosure is getting bigger, but not as high, new mechanical equipment is less square footage, but because of spacing will take up more room, is being replaced with more energy efficient equipment. Commission comments: • What is the material for the screen? (Architect noted that it will be a simple corrugated material, with 4 to 6 inches wide spacing). • Will the project be LEED certified? (Architect noted that it would be too hard to achieve LEED certification, but will be more energy efficient). • Has the American Heart Association thought about adding signage, should encourage them to think about increasing signage, didn't know they were at this location. • Appreciate want to put up nice new screen, color will match body color of building. Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 22, 2009, sheets A0.0, A-R1.0, A1.1 and A1.3; 2. that any changes to roof screen, including height, enclosed area or material shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 26, 2009 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's May 27, 2009 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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 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 7. 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 June 8, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 3. 2963 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT NEBOLON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAUL LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Robert Nebolon, architect represented the applicant. Provided photos of the site and reviewed revisions to plans, reduced height from 12'-0" to 10'-6", made front elevation more inviting, added trellis in front reminiscent of Eichler homes, put window over garage door, trees are slow growing, and low. Met with the uphill and downhill neighbors, reviewed plans, did lower the height, understanding is the neighbor didn't want any change to height because of the potential for blocking distant views. Height is raised because roof is required to be sloped and insulated. Commission comments: Like the design changes that you made to the front fagade. Appreciate the changes; the issue will be the height and the potential view blockage. Public comments: Harrison Holland, 2967 Frontera Way; and Luis Divito, 2953 Frontera Way; spoke: Retired foreign service officer, lived in home 36 years, since proposal from neighbor came through, written several letters to Commission, appreciated that Commission came to visit to stand at kitchen window and see the view. Have been thinking carefully about this project, and see no real alternative in terms of the view obstruction. He has made some concessions, but have not been able to eliminate obstruction to view of the East bay, of water, East bay hills and Mount Diablo, views mean a lot to family, while don't want to be stubborn, feel some accommodation has to be made, alternative is view will be cut off. Mr. Holland presented photographs of the view from his window (Holland). Appreciate Mr. Nebolon coming over, appreciate that by lowering height, helped atrium view, still have concerns with impact on light to my existing fruit trees, not completely satisfied, presented some photographs showing impacts on views (Divito). Applicant Response: Understand that neighbors have lived with view for long time, hope we can come up with something; regarding fruit trees, if has 6 hours or more of sunlight, will get plenty, as far as daylight, are already shaded by fruit trees. !3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Commission comments: ■ Appreciate your attempts to work with neighbors on this. • Need to find a solution, do we lower it all, or step it so the front is lower. ■ Can't judge something that's not before us, did see some problems with view obstruction, understand have made height as minimal as possible, now the view is just right over the adjacent roof line, any obstruction changes that from view of east bay to tops of trees. Something has to happen because we have the view ordinance. ■ Application now is to put mechanical equipment in roof space, would have to look at other solution for mechanical equipment. ■ Applicant made the suggestion that front half could be lower. Suggest that go with height of fence, that shouldn't cause view blockage, if half in the back could be where it is, but in front could reduce the height to the elevation of the fence. If the building were no higher than the fence, that could preserve the views. ■ On north elevation, the aluminum reveal runs along top of garage, on east side it stops, could it be continued around the side? Nebelon — responded yes. ■ Siding indicated to be lapped, would it be more appropriate if it were a straight siding rather than beveled, so it has a more contemporary feel? (Architect - Thought about it, but proposing a 1 x 4 with fine scale, contemporary flavor will come from stucco finish. Will get nice horizontal shadow line). ■ Like the idea of lowering ceiling height in front, and higher in back, could have clerestory window. The dividing line could be the line of the old atrium, coincides with where the mass of trees begins. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from voting on this item (Agenda Item 3 — 2963 Frontera Way), since he was not able to view the story poles from Mr. Holland's house. Further Commission Comments: Still view obstruction issues to be addressed, we've all dealt with these issues before, stood at window with Mr. Holland, has view higher than fence, the pictures don't reflect this. Can't see height being raised at all, should be denied with prejudice, would have to be reduced to accomplish; need to work with the slope of the lot, may possibly need to lower floor elevation. Would like to see if the applicant can work through the view issues with the property owner and neighbor to find a solution, maybe have the front portion lower; think everyone is working towards good solution. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to continue the item to allow the applicant time to work with the property owner and neighbor on a solution with less impact on distant views. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Comments on the motion: Would encourage the applicant to work closely with Mr. Holland, that is key to success. Think the applicant needs to consider alternatives, including lowering part of the existing house, and working with the sloped grade, challenge is doing that within the vocabulary of an Eichler. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Brownrigg abstained, Commissioner Auran dissenting). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais. 4. 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA (ANZA AREA) — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (JOKHTAR MESSAOU, RED ROOF INN, APPLICANT; DANNY MEAUX, AND RED ROOF INN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mokhtar Messaou, 777 Airport Boulevard, represented the applicant. Commission comments: Why are designated spots where they are proposed on the property? (Applicant - Chose spaces because they are accessible from lobby and we can keep an eye on them). Think it is great program and support, will encourage more business at the hotel. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 and date stamped December 16, 1998, Sheets A0.1, A1.1, A3.1 and A3.2, with 201 parking spaces provided, 94 of which are compact; and that all parking spaces designated for the park and fly program at the rear of the hotel shall be striped yellow in order to identify them; 2. that the hotel shall continue to provide a 24-hour airport shuttle service, which includes connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees during shift changes; 3. that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on -site parking without amendment to this use permit, this would include valet parking arrangements; 4. that any changes to changes to the parking configuration, or operation of the park -and -fly program shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes except that the hotel manager may live on the site; 6. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; and 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 7. that any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 19 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY DECK ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND RICHARD AND CHRIS SHAW, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Michael Kaindl, J Deal Associates, represented the applicant. This is a simple request for a larger deck at the rear, due to the slope of the site, it is 80% covered with vegetation, deck provides usable space. Commission comments: ■ Had opportunity to visit with the property owner; owner had talked to neighbor at right; the neighbor had no objections. Public comments: ■ None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ Should we require story poles? Love the idea — nice living space, but in fairness we always require story poles for properties in the Hillside Areas. ■ Drove down Canyon Road, deck comes out quite a bit, concur that we need story poles, could show outer corners of deck, could show the outline by using 2x4's cantilevered off the existing deck that shows the outer corners. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when story poles are installed to show outer limits of upper deck. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would recuse himself from participating on Agenda Item 6 (1595 Columbus Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 6. 1595 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND RENOVATION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (SERGE AND ALMA KARANOV, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN) (55 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 8, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property and left the dais. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 Grant Place, designer, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ For the Lot Coverage Variance, the hardship is the existing hollow on the site between the house and the cottage at the rear, need to fill it in is causing need for the variance. ■ Why keeping to one-story? (Applicant - Neighbor would prefer it not to be two-story because of issues of light and impact). ■ The home office, given that the cottage doesn't count as bedroom, why not put the wall and door back in, and have it be considered as bedroom. Would not trigger the need for an additional parking space. ■ Like to see the proposed stamped concrete be replaced with a material that has a pervious surface, this would mean proper installation to make sure it is pervious, please include details. ■ Would like to see the Side Setback Variance on the right side eliminated and the setback increased to seven feet, house is squeezed, could be stepped in without compromising the layout. ■ Have issues with right side setback as well, this is a 70 foot wide lot, there are other houses with 3 or 4 foot side setbacks, but those are 50 foot wide lots, only hardship presented is difficulty in removing existing footing, have concerns with how tight things are in that corner, especially in the rear area, which is a new area with new footing. ■ Like to see front porch a little more open, front portico is fairly enclosed, looks more like a room than a porch, going through a tunnel to get to front door, like to give more attention to making it more open with some columns instead of solid walls, way it is now, won't get used as sitting porch, with columns would get some use. Doesn't have to get bigger, but could use columns instead of solid corner wall. ■ Design is handsome, massing broken up. ■ There is no justification for setback variance, like to see setback on right side met, close to corner. ■ In terms of lot coverage, situation is there is an existing hollow, cottage reinforces the hollow, makes sense to fill it in. ■ Pretty handsome design with texture, might be nice to add something like exposed rafter tails at roof line. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Public comments: Patricia Carlsen, 1549 Columbus, spoke: Concerned with the portion of the project that borders back yard, raised patio area with hot tub, oven right on edge of property line, concern with height of those elements, just got plans this afternoon, raising grade by 3.5 feet, never been a fence, don't know if one is proposed, don't know if hot tub will be raised, involves loss of privacy. Commission comments: It appears that the hot tub will be set into grade, will not be above grade. Suggest that the applicant get together with the neighbor to explain plans, including fencing and landscaping. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: There are significant issues with regard to the right side setback and porch, but the applicant has been given clear direction. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Brownrigg recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 1, 2009: Reviewed the Council's action on the appeal of the Commission's decision on the application at 1140 Cortez Avenue, noting that the Council upheld the Commission's action on the project. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — May 2009: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 8, 2009 Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 14