Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.22.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 13URLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, June 22, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the June 22, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Lindstrom, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 9, fifth bullet from top of page; insert "(Nebelon - responded yes)" Page 9, correct Commissioner Brownrigg's statement at conclusion of proceedings for Item 3, prior to vote, that he would abstain from voting on the matter; delete references to leaving the Council Chambers. Page 11, Item 5, bullet under "Commission Comments';- revise to read: "Had opportunity to visit with the property owner, owner had talked to the neighbor at the right; the neighbor had no objections". Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 2a was moved to after "From the Floor" V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke: Consider, when approving basements, the height of the water table. Not a good idea to remove ground -water, particularly in the summer, not good for the Bay. Consider referring to a Commission subcommittee. 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. There were no requests. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes 1v June 22, 2009 2a. 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 Commissioner Cauchi 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 Yie. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. STUDY ITEMS 1450 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 AND R-3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, EL CAMINO SETBACK VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND HOURS OF OPERATION, AND REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM R-3 TO C-1 FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING SAFEWAY WITH A NEW SAFEWAY STORE, A NEW RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AND RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING (AT 249 PRIMROSE ROAD) (DEBORAH KARBO, SAFEWAY INC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 22, 2009. Commission comments: Clarified that Commissioner Vistica's written comments will be included into the record. (Brooks/Meeker — yes.) Requested that the applicant provide specific justification for the Variance request regarding the setback along El Camino Real. Regarding exit from Lot K to El Camino Real was critical; how will it be addressed in the analysis? (Brooks — will be evaluated as part of the environmental analysis.) Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Deb Karbo, Real Estate Manager for Safeway; Ken Lowney and Brian Nee; Eric Lowe; and Bruce Jett (landscape architect) presented an overview of the project. ■ Believe the project meets the majority of the items from the Safeway Working Group. ■ Consensus items from the Working Group include: 45,000 square foot footprint for main store, building oriented to Howard Avenue, have created pedestrian connections to downtown through walkways and visual connections to downtown, majority of parking is on rooftop to reduce the amount of surface parking, renovation of Wells -Fargo building, proposal for a retail building at the corner of Howard Avenue and Primrose Road. ■ Provided a video overview of the project design. ■ Financial feasibility of the project is dependent upon the mix of retail, parking, and store size reflected on plan. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 If approval received this year; can be under construction in February of 2010; open by Christmas 2010. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Susan Castner-Paine, 728 Concord Way (speaking as private citizen); Kathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue (representing Safeway Working Group); Carl Martin, 451 Cumberland/Studio Shop, 249 Primrose; Mary Ann Saucedo (representative for petitioners), 925 Larkspur; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon, (SWG member representing Citizens for a Better Burlingame); Ben Barnes, 1168 Barroilhet, Hillsborough; Laura Medanich, 156 Chapin Lane; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root, 728 Crossway Road; Vi Huynh, 930 Peninsula Avenue; Jeff Londer, 216 Bancroft Road; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; and Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way; spoke: ■ Likes the Safeway building design. ■ Not "crazy" about all of the angles on the lot and the buildings; the angles do not relate to the perpendicular nature of a standard block. ■ Building is a big improvement. ■ Thinks the Wells -Fargo building is worth saving. ■ Feels it is difficult for a pedestrian to get to the store or to the parking ramp; hopes that more effort is made to define the pedestrian paths of travel through the property. ■ Doesn't like the tall dominant appearance of the corner building; particular that it is built at an angle. ■ There was an opportunity to bring all retail to Howard Avenue. ■ The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) did not take the opportunity to weigh in on the project design. ■ Nothing in the plan relates to the sense of downtown Burlingame. ■ The Safeway Working Group (SWG) didn't get the guidance needed for the project. ■ Referenced lack of connections to historic structures within the vicinity of the project. ■ Don't think the Commission can do much with the project siting. ■ Encouraged the Commission to look at the architecture of the project as it relates to downtown Burlingame. ■ City needs to be more active in forming its future. ■ The decision not to use City lands as part of the project significantly impacted the project design. ■ Key aspects of the project can be supported by SWG. ■ SWG is committed to driving for the best design, based upon what has been submitted. ■ Safeway has continued to keep dialog with SWG open; open to discussing how to keep the communications open. ■ Was on SWG, representing downtown merchants. ■ Still a lot of details to be worked out on the project. ■ Traffic needs to be analyzed. ■ With respect to pedestrian access; pedestrian access needs to be provided near the southwest corner of the store from El Camino, near the loading dock; also need access from the corner of El Camino and Howard, as well as a good entry design at that area. ■ Provide pedestrian connections to and from downtown from site. ■ Address pedestrian safety at vehicle crossings. ■ There should be a better location for the trash enclosures; the one near Lot L may obstruct pedestrians. ■ Look at a means of providing pedestrian paths behind Wells -Fargo building to Safeway; perhaps reconfigure parking; this would also provide better access to Fox Mall. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 ■ Project is a win -win opportunity for the City and Safeway; hopes the Planning Commission appreciates all of the hard work of the SWG process. ■ Safeway has worked in good faith; give them the approval they deserve; restore the community's faith that the City can complete what it started. ■ This plan is a significant improvement over the prior plan. ■ Commended Safeway for incorporating several consensus items put forward by the SWG. ■ This layout was not favorably considered by SWG; particularly the location of the loading dock; was preferred off of Lot K; potential for conflict between pedestrians and trucks. ■ Safeway can control delivery truck timing; however, independent vendor trucks are more difficult to control. ■ Recommend evaluating a safe and reasonable manner for providing deliveries and minimizing pedestrian conflicts; study various options and alternatives available to eliminate this problem. ■ Time to move forward with the plan. ■ Likes the plan; addresses the corner; provides open space. ■ The hidden parking is a good idea. ■ Be careful not to squander more hours of the SWG. ■ Bicycle access needs to be considered; provide convenient places for bicycle parking; consult the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for guidance, or Pat Giorni. ■ No bicycle parking exists at current location. ■ Could possibly locate bicycle parking at some of the more inconvenient vehicle parking spaces. ■ Thanks SWG and Safeway for their participation. ■ Project needs something special at the corner of Howard Avenue and El Camino Real. ■ The loading dock location is unfortunate. ■ There is a modest amount of landscaping in the parking lot, but nothing shown on the rooftop parking deck; need lush landscaping. ■ Walkability needs to be discussed in greater detail; particularly access to and from Burlingame Avenue. ■ Concerned about attention to green building principles; need to comply with AB 32; provide recycling opportunities, solar panels and other means of reducing power consumption. ■ Concerned regarding amount of activity and movement on the site; potential conflicts between pedestrians, trucks and other vehicles. ■ Encouraged involvement of the TSP. ■ Plan is not perfect; but believes that the Planning Commission can make significant changes to improve the project; use the design criteria of the SWG in the review. ■ Mixing pedestrians and trucks at the front of the store is problematic. ■ Thinks that number of curb cuts will impact pedestrian flow. ■ Access to Lot K is impacted; there is no plan to widen Fox Plaza Lane. ■ Need to look at pedestrian circulation on the site. ■ With respect to design integration; doesn't meet criteria as a timeless entry statement to Burlingame. ■ New project can either be a contribution to the community, or a detriment; need to take the time to arrive at the correct result; City needs to take its future into its own hands. Chair Terrones closed the public hearing. Safeway response: Deb Karbo: E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 Involved in LEED through a pilot Safeway program; very committed; hoping for LEED Silver rating. Committed to recycling and composting. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is the Wells -Fargo building going to be "shaved" to increase the width of Fox Plaza Lane? (Karbo — no, but are creating new storefronts along Fox Plaza Lane.) ■ What is Safeway's suggestion regarding Fox Plaza Lane? (Karbo — had proposed one-way entry to Fox Plaza Lane; will need review.) ■ Asked to explain pedestrian circulation at the front of the store. (Karbo — deal with the issue on a daily basis throughout the chain. Provide for wide aisles and wide sidewalks. Three or four semi - trucks per day; smaller trucks are not much of an issue. This is something Safeway is accustomed to.) ■ Concerned about potential automobile conflicts; how will pedestrians be made aware of the potential presence of vehicles? (Karbo/Lowney — the wide aisle is a pretty typical standard for the store. Need to make an effort to ensure that the actions are handled correctly. Consider different paving patterns and enough area for vehicle maneuvering.) ■ With respect to angled parking behind Wells -Fargo, why is it not 90-degree? How do you prevent vehicles from turning right into this area from the Primrose entry to the site? (Karbo/Lowney — signage to be used.) ■ City needs to look at how the City properties integrate with circulation on the Safeway site and taking into account the Walgreens development; consider a working group process led by the City to come up with alternatives. ■ Where are the City metered parking spaces to be located, and for how long. ■ Regarding the rear of Lot K; there is no access to Safeway from that parking lot; there should be secondary access to the rear of the building; could smaller, secondary trucks load and unload at the rear of the building; very narrow access, obstructed by Eucalyptus trees. ■ Like the general appearance of the building; but unsure about the second story at Howard and Primrose. ■ Would like to see improved pedestrian access from Primrose. ■ Perhaps the green -shaded area at the front of the store should not be vehicle access. ■ Where do the shopping carts go on the rooftop? (Karbo — will need to provide the information, will be shown on the resubmittal.) ■ With respect to lighting; how many customers will there be at night; is it feasible to close the rooftop parking after dark to prevent light pollution? (Karbo — could be considered under the right circumstances; will be evaluated.) ■ Show circulation signage on the site. ■ The corner of Howard and Primrose is bothersome; not human scale; would prefer the corner to be a plaza or a single story element. Would be great to create a central gathering space. Long term desire is to revitalize Howard. Design should beckon people from Howard into the site; now it is not inviting. (Karbo — the perspective makes it look like a grander scale than it really is; shown at 34' 6" at the high point; but understand the comment, will be studied.) ■ Asked about the mix of uses in the corner retail building; concerned that uses need to bring people to the public plaza area to make it more inviting. (Karbo — have provide three public stairs; and encourage the plaza for use for specific functions.) ■ Could a restaurant be allowed on second floor? (Brooks — yes, with a conditional use permit.) ■ Control air quality during the demolition process, particularly due to the proximity to residential uses. (Karbo — Safeway has programs for addressing this concern.) ■ Some concern regarding the aesthetics of the location of the loading bay. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 ■ Referenced design of shopping carts that lock when leaving the site; concern about how carts will be handled at the parking deck level; how will carts be prevented from rolling down the ramp? (Lowney — there is a means of preventing this.) ■ Pedestrian and vehicle access ways need to be clearly delineated. ■ What is the age of the existing Safeway building. ■ New design is nice; particularly with respect to "Anthropologie", across the street. ■ Look at landscaping on the rooftop. ■ Concur with comment regarding bicycle accessibility and parking. ■ Likes the two-story corner element. ■ Need to provide a drinking fountain and restroom facility off of the rooftop plaza. ■ Shares concern that Lot K has been substantially cut-off; consider a rear entry. ■ With respect to trash enclosures; where is it located? (Karbo — a compactor is inside the Safeway store. Two other separate enclosures are provided in the parking areas adjacent to the new retail building and the Wells -Fargo building. Recycle a lot of materials at the Safeway store.) ■ Would like to see the project move forward. ■ Concerns about site plan are similar to SWG comments, particularly from El Camino Real and Howard. ■ Not concerned about the delivery trucks; but concerned about the parking ramp entrance; perhaps improve access and visibility at the ground level. ■ Concern regarding pedestrian access from Fox Plaza Mall; consider working with the City to improve access is this area. ■ Not concerned about reduced access to Lot K; dedicates it more for Burlingame Avenue use. ■ Concerned about rooftop plaza use; how well will it be used. ■ Concerned about the placement of the trash receptacle near Lot L; particularly for trash removal. ■ Howard and El Camino is a significant entry to downtown; needs some attention, particularly at the pedestrian level. ■ Look closely at confluence of pedestrians and vehicles. ■ There should be a means of providing a tree -lined paseo from the Oak tree plaza, to the front of the store. ■ Use trees to emphasize pedestrian circulation. ■ With respect to rooftop parking; could be a great place for employee parking. (Karbo — could limit rooftop parking and lighting after a certain hour.) ■ Has no issue with 24-hour operation. ■ Lot K is a great opportunity for additional parking for those who do not wish to park on the roof; however, the El Camino elevation is very uninviting; consider creating a better pedestrian connection from Lot K along this area. ■ With respect to the mixed -use building; concerned about the design of the corner element; somewhat detaches the two sides of the building. (Lowney — the corner element solves a lot of problems; it offers a civic invitation to move to the upstairs plaza. The double -volume retail height is also attractive for certain retailers.) ■ Is "ledgestone" a given on the new buildings; is there an opportunity to tie in the brick from the Wells -Fargo building? (Karbo — is a Safeway preference.) ■ Why might the brick need to be removed from the Wells -Fargo building? (Lowney — are evaluating to see if it is feasible to retain. If it has to be removed, could conceivably be replaced with a similar material.) ■ Two-story element seems out of scale at corner of Primrose and Howard. ■ Happy to see the generous sidewalk on Howard. ■ Look at the rear of the store adjacent to Lot L and consider increasing sidewalk width. ■ Sympathize with flat elevation on rear; but look at possibly improving articulation. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 ■ The architectural vocabulary proposed is good for the project. ■ Create a strong pedestrian character. ■ Is there a reflective surface that can be used on the rooftop? (Karbo — like to incorporate "cool roofs", and are looking at "cool roof" options. Is better handicapped accessibility required from Howard Avenue? Should something be provided from the front of the building? (Lowney — have provided the most direct means of access, plus there is an elevator.) This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2008 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (BILL GUAN, XIE ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CARUSO AND JOSEPHINE TAM, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 22, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Bill Guan, 1330 Palou Avenue, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked what are the dimensions of the new one -car garage? (Guan — 18-feet wide.) ■ Why have such a wide garage; could have a more modest garage door, with a more generous porch and interior space. (Guan — providing potential future parking for a small car.) ■ Are the garage doors "overhead" doors? (Guan — yes.) • The design being put forward, is the design that must be installed; if changed, will require requesting approval of a change by the Commission. (Guan — understands.) ■ Complemented the design changes. 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 June 11, 2009, sheets A1.0, A2.0 through A2.2, A4.0 and L1.0; and date stamped June 17, 2009, sheet A3.0; 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 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 September 12, 2008 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's September 15, 2008 memos shall be met; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that 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; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect 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; 11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Have pushed back the garage, but front elevation is still imbalanced, but will vote for the motion. The lighting on the front elevation needs to be focused down. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 4. 1104 HAMILTON LANE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND COLLEEN MCDONNELL AND DONNY O'DONOVAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 22, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Donny O'Donovan, 1104 Hamilton Way; and Bill Pashelinsky, 1937 Hayes Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Lack of detail on elevations, particularly with respect to bedroom 2; window shows on elevation, but not on floor plan. (Pashelinsky — will ensure that floor plan and elevation match.) Concerned about extension of the three-foot setback along the left side; the neighbor has a very small rear yard; will have a significant impact upon the neighbor; Variance is not very well supported. (Pashelinsky — has made contact with left side neighbor, has no objection.) Public comments: Phillip Kennedy, 1100 Hamilton Lane; spoke: ■ The front of the house at 1104 Hamilton Lane encroaches upon his property. ■ Fence along properties was misplaced when originally built. ■ Applicant required that the fence be relocated at the exact property line; caused a loss of square footage. ■ Look at the matter based upon the concerns of all involved. Additional applicant comments: Bill Pashelinsky, spoke: Are not adding to the front of the property. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 The changes on the right side comply with the required six foot side setback and do not impact the neighbor at 1100 Hamilton Way. An alternative would have been to construct a second -story addition; the three-foot setback is an alternative, less impactful solution. Additional Commission comments: ■ Odd confluence of rooflines, jumbled, unusual angle of walls, did you look at other roof solutions. (Pashelinsky — difficult to work out with a single -story addition. Could look at the conditions again if needed. Trying for a more interesting design. Angle of property line also influenced roof angles.) ■ There is an obligation for the design to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, even though the six-foot setback is being respected. Noted cut off eaves and odd angles; needs to be revisited. ■ Why not place closet at corner of "clipped" roofline, with it inset. ■ Could re -configure the master bedroom suite to enhance neighbors privacy and improve design. ■ Would like to see the new windows be wood or aluminum clad and not vinyl. • The columns do not work on the front elevation; don't feel like they belong there, railings would be more inviting. ■ Need to have the issue of the Variance re -addressed; hardship and justification for the Variance needed. ■ There may be some area in which the odd shape of the lot could contribute to the request for a Variance. ■ Extension of a non -conforming condition is not adequate justification for a Variance. ■ The application is only before the Commission because of the neighbor on the right side; have discussed making extension of non -conforming setbacks possible; can live with the requests. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Colleen McDonnell, 1104 Hamilton Way; spoke: If Variance is granted; consider a contingency that a second -story addition cannot be added, unless the non -conforming setback is eliminated. (McDonnell) continued wall at the existing setback because it works well given the floor plan of the home. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Seem to be brought into a neighbor dispute; wouldn't be considering the matter if not for the neighbor dispute. ■ Could eliminate both Variances; would like to see the side setback Variance eliminated. ■ Cost of a second -story addition would be substantially greater. ■ If the project were to go through design review, could eliminate Variances and improve the project. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to resolve design issues and resolve side setback issues or argue it better. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 Discussion of motion: Design could be modified to eliminate Variances. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the continue. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Vistica absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Yie recused herself from participating on Item 5, given a past business relationship. She left the Council Chambers. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1208 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW BASEMENT QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND ROXANN LOOSE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 22, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; and Roxanne Loose, 1208 Bernal Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Clarified finishing materials. ■ Roof plan appears to show tile. Are their samples; bring them when the project comes back? (Grange — will actually use a metal roof; standing seam that will accommodate the solar panels.) ■ Why can't the garage side setback be increased? Would improve the design. (Grange/Loose — basically cutting the rear of the house off, behind the garage; the front walls will remain. The owners don't want to have it considered to be a new home for tax purposes. Have multiple bicycles; wider garage provides storage area.) ■ Likes the rear elevation; but there is something about the front elevation that doesn't work; the cornice element doesn't appear to work. (Grange — can take another look at it.) ■ Landscaping will assist with the front elevation. ■ The front entry element calls for something special in the window above, perhaps a mission -style window or a stone surrounded window. ■ With respect to garage doors; correct references for hinges (noted as "grates" on plans.) ■ With respect the rear balcony; clarify the material used. ■ Generally be certain to call out all finishing materials, including sizes of corbels. ■ Show the missing stoop on rear elevation. ■ Landscaping is nice; there is a lot of paving, but don't know where more softscape would be placed. (Grange — pavers will have increased space between them to improve permeability.) ■ Regarding the FAR Variance; are improving the situation, the height will come down by two feet and articulation is being added that will help with mass and bulk, plus the code changed since the home was built. ■ No problem with the Special Permit for the basement; the landscaping will work well with the stairs that exit the area. ■ Sympathetic to bicycle storage needs. ■ The windows in the garage door seem small. ■ Like doors opening onto the front patio. ■ Have a built-in table in the dining room; but could conceivably build a pantry under the stairs if they were relocated. (Grange — since the stairs also lead to the basement, could not accommodate this change.) Public comments: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: ■ Agreed with other comments regarding Variance and Special Permit, design changes improve conditions on the property. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Terrones called fora 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:23 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ Director Meeker will be absent from the July 13, 2009 meeting. Planning Manager Brooks will take his place. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 15, 2008: ■ Adopted Climate Action Plan. FYI: 1140 Cortez Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes June 22, 2009 Sandra Yie, Secretary 14