Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 12.14.09 APPROVEDdBARLINGAME 0CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, December 14, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the December 14, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer, Victor Voong. III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the November 23, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 2, first bullet at top of page; replace "they are" with "the greater church community is". Page 8, in paragraph regarding the vote on the motion for Agenda Item 6; delete "appeal procedures were advised". Page 10, in paragraph regarding the vote on the motion for Agenda Item 7, delete "appeal procedures were advised". Motion passed 6-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND PROJECT 1. 1420 — 1450 HOWARD AVENUE & 249 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 AND R-3 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 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 (DEBORAH KARBO, SAFEWAY INC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND LOWNEY ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 14, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Two -hundred six (206) parking spaces are provided; there is a requirement for 186 spaces; does this take into account the parking credit for the contribution to the parking district? (Brooks — yes, the contribution is factored into the supply, plus Safeway provides parking at a rate somewhat greater than the City's requirement.) ■ How was the percentage of the applicant's contribution to the cost of the traffic signal at El Camino and Primrose determined? (Brooks — represents the value based upon the level of impact that is contributed by the project. The traffic study determined that the signal is not triggered by Safeway alone, but may be triggered with new development under the Downtown Specific Plan. Will continue to be monitored.) ■ Regarding the Public Works requirement for monthly construction status reports; how is it determined who is affected by the construction and who will be notified? ■ Regarding hydrology and water quality mitigation measures; there are some areas of bio-swale treatment on the site, but doesn't appear to be enough provided; clarify how all storm water runoff will be treated, and bring back this information. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Deborah Karbo, 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road, Pleasanton; Ken Lowney, Lowney Architecture, 360 171n Street, Oakland; and Bruce Jett, Landscape Architect; represented the applicant. Showed how the project has been revised to address design concerns raised by the Planning Commission and public at the Commission's June 22, 2009 meeting. Also showed how the project addresses the design guidelines set forth by the Safeway Working Group. Additional Commission comments: ■ Concerned about the note on the plans "existing brick to remain if possible" with respect to the 249 Primrose Road building; wishes to have the building continue to have a brick finish. (Karbo/Lowney — brick will be replaced with similar brick as necessary during the renovation of the structure.) ■ With respect to the corner element of the structure at Primrose and Howard; there should be a better finishing element at the top of the corner tower element. ■ With respect to trees on the property, the plan shows two new trees on Primrose in front of Atherton Culinary; there are currently two existing street trees; why must they be removed? Is there any reason why they cannot be replaced with three street trees? (Jett — was advised by the City's Arborist to remove the trees due to the amount of debris they create. Three trees could be installed to replace the two trees that are removed.) ■ Concerned about the lack of trees in the main parking lot; why can't the trees in front of the building be the Cork Oak trees? (Jett — the Cork Oak trees are slow growing; the Hackberry trees will grow more rapidly.) ■ Suggested additional locations for trees within the parking lot; bolster the landscaping within this area. ■ Still unsure regarding the architectural style of the building. The new commercial building works well with the 249 Primrose Road building; however, the Safeway building still feels a bit disjointed. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 The facades seem to be designed to conceal the rooftop parking, but they do not stand out as strong design elements. (Lowney — describes it as a "Contemporary" building.) ■ On the commercial building on the corner of Howard and Primrose, there appears to be an awning projecting from the second floor; suggested revising this to bring a similar feature down to pedestrian level. (Lowney — could integrate something into the storefront system.) ■ Also encouraged similar awning -style elements at a pedestrian -scale on the Primrose fagade. ■ With respect to the design of the Howard and El Camino entry element, the landscape plan does not show a backdrop of trees as indicated on the rendering. (Jett — indicated that the plan had not been updated to reflect the proposed design with trees as a backdrop.) ■ Could include a trellis element at the entry feature. ■ Could also consider an island with an entry element within the Howard Avenue right-of-way. ■ At the prior meeting, the Commission discussed limiting access to the rooftop parking area after a certain hour, and not just for vehicles. (Karbo/Lowney/Jett — have not yet addressed this concern. Could be addressed with an arm that will prevent entry after a certain hour; but must also allow vehicles to leave the parking area. Needs to be designed to ensure that police access is maintained.) ■ Was there any thought to providing an improved treatment of the rear wall of the store? The El Camino elevation includes a living wall; could this type of element be installed on the rear? (Karbo/Lowney — the building runs to the property line; but the plan will incorporate planter pots at the roof line. Building needed to be moved to the rear property line to maintain adequate clearance for trucks.) ■ The front elevation appears a bit stark; is there any way to include perhaps an arched treatment at the entry? (Lowney — attempting to avoid this type of treatment since it is not consistent with the Contemporary architecture.) ■ What type of pedestrian warning device will be provided at the parking ramp? Should be multi - sensorial. (Karbo — will consider this in the final design.) ■ With respect to interaction of vehicles with delivery trucks; consider reconfiguring the parking layout to reduce potential conflicts. (Karbo —reductions in parking will limit ability to tenant other spaces.) ■ Provide auditory and visual warnings at the loading dock. ■ Likes the way the massing of the Howard and Primrose building was broken up; but agrees that the tower element should be capped. (Lowney — the corner element was designed to be something different from the rest of the building; meant to be something special.) ■ Could the corner be designed to contain a public art piece? (Lowney — wished to avoid this type of change to maintain the timeless character of the building.) ■ Concerned about the dry -stacked stone finishing; this type of material is not present in other areas of the City. Would like finishing materials that are more tied into the Wells -Fargo building. ■ Noted that a recent newspaper article stated that proposed Safeway in Millbrae will include underground parking. (Karbo/Lowney — the store will be built as a podium with parking at grade, the store above. The 15-foot box culvert present under the Burlingame site would also be difficult to move in order to accommodate underground parking.) ■ Noted the smaller roll -up door adjacent to the delivery bay, intended for smaller delivery trucks. ■ Improved screening needs to be provided at the corner of El Camino and Howard. ■ The landscaping appears to be an afterthought based upon maximizing the number of parking spaces on the property; the landscaping should add to the experience of shopping at Safeway. (Jett — will consider adding more trees. Could provide Magnolia trees as a backdrop element with perhaps a trellis at the corner entry element.) ■ Noted that staff report notes that all pedestrian paths are "striped"; would prefer a different material in these areas. (Jett — can look at different scoring and colors in these areas.) ■ Provide images of the various sizes and shapes of the trees to be installed as part of the landscape plan. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 ■ Is there any commitment, or intention to pursue LEED certification? (Karbo — Safeway has a program that is comparable to LEED certification; the store will be comparable to a LEED certified "Silver".) ■ With respect to Parking Lot L; what is the trash enclosure at the end of the lot? (Karbo — is the trash enclosure for the Wells -Fargo building, is located on Safeway property and accessed through Lot L.) ■ Asked if Parking Lot L could be better connected to the circulation on the site? Could it be connected to the parking lot behind 249 Primrose Road? (Karbo/Jett — wanted to design it to preserve the City's ability to do what it wishes with the public parking lot. An additional concern is pedestrian safety.) ■ Make certain that the details in the 3-D rendering and the landscape plan are coordinated. ■ Provide more substantial screening at the ramp leading to the rooftop parking. ■ Noted that the second floor area of the building at Howard and Primrose is shown as office space. (Karbo — the use is not limited to only office; could also be a restaurant.) ■ Clarify what landscape materials work best along El Camino and Howard. ■ Would like to see more stone used on the Safeway building; perhaps covering the two tower elements at the store entry. Public comments: William Nack, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City; Kathy Schmidt (representing neighborhood stakeholder group), 1512 Howard Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Charles Voltz (representing Citizens for a Better Burlingame), 725 Vernon Way; John Root, 728 Crossway Road; Carl Martin (represented the Downtown Merchant stakeholder group), 244 Primrose Road; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Michael Brownrigg, 1524 Columbus Avenue; Cynthia Wukotich, 15 El Camino Real; and Bobbie Benson, 550 El Camino Real spoke: ■ Encouraged Safeway to utilize unionized workers in the construction of the project. ■ Still concerned about the access point for pedestrians at Howard and El Camino Real; would prefer to see some form of access directly from the corner to the store to improve the pedestrian experience. ■ Could the building at the corner of Howard and Primrose be of a brick finish, similar to Walgreens? ■ Agrees with Commissioner's comments regarding the Cork Oak trees; will there be an irrigation plan for the landscaping; will this be extended to Howard? ■ The trees on Howard Avenue are shown as Ornamental Pear trees; this is not necessarily a good choice for such a wide street; reconsider, it will affect the choice of street trees encouraged throughout the downtown area. ■ Was a green roof considered for the building at the corner of Howard and Primrose? ■ Encouraged a committee to work with the neighbors to address construction impacts. ■ Could the corner gateway feature pay homage to the De Anza Expedition Camp that once stopped there? ■ The renderings do not show signage; would like to see some indication of the retail signage. ■ The rear of the building could be decorated with a mural of some type to add interest; perhaps an historic mural. ■ Pleased with the architectural style; but the dry -stacked stone doesn't relate to other buildings in the area; should better relate to the Wells -Fargo building. ■ Project is much improved over prior project even though the City parking lots could not be incorporated. ■ There is significant community consensus regarding the project, due to the Safeway Working Group process. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 ■ The prior project was of a similar size; but the current design is much improved due to the use of rooftop parking. ■ Likes the treatment of the walkways and loading dock (though still not thrilled with the location). ■ Landscaping should be generous, not an afterthought; there is no landscaping on the roof, some thought needs to go into landscaping this area. ■ The Howard and El Camino Real entry element needs to be significant. ■ Coordinate the street trees around the site with the Downtown Specific Plan., ■ Lowering the awnings to pedestrian level will make a lot of sense. ■ Provide more trees if possible. ■ Appreciates the surplus parking spaces. ■ Encouraged awnings on Primrose to help draw pedestrians to the area and provide protection from the elements. ■ Security cameras could provide coverage of the rooftop parking. ■ Concerned about limitations on access to Lots K and L only from Fox Plaza Lane. ■ Rooftop area needs some form of shading for vehicles parked in the area. ■ Acknowledged that the community came forward to work on a project that fits better with Burlingame. ■ Look at lighting of the rooftop parking, as well as impact of vehicle lights impacting nearby apartment buildings. ■ The environmental document did not assess the public parking lots, since they are not part of the project; the Commission should comment on the circulation within these parking lots. ■ With respect to Figure 7 (page 23) of the environmental document; suggested that the design element shown on this illustration can become an important design feature. ■ Should incorporate outdoor seating both in front of the store and in the Heritage Oak Plaza. ■ Need to consider making more of a statement at the corner of El Camino and Howard; dislikes the fountain; could be an opportunity for public art. ■ The rear of the building could also incorporate some form of art. ■ Burlingame is a walking city; having the extra entry to the site from El Camino is a nice feature. ■ Provide seating for people who utilize taxis for transportation to the property. ■ Remember to install adequate bike stands. Additional Applicant comments: Will provide outside seating in front of the store. Will look at other suggestions and consider changes, based upon Commission and public comments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Provide more explanation regarding how storm water run-off from the entire site will be treated. ■ Likes the suggestion regarding some form of art work on the rear wall. ■ Parking along the rear of the building (in the City lot) could be finished with a trellis to provide relief for the rear wall of the building. ■ Perhaps install trees and/or planters in the City parking lot. ■ Like the idea to reference local history in the installation at the corner of Howard and El Camino. ■ This could be another significant location for a public art project, similar to the hospital site. ■ Encourage a more pedestrian -friendly element at this location, not just a piece of art. ■ Fountain could be a maintenance issue. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 With respect to parking lots K and L; is it possible to get an indication regarding the adequacy of access to the parking lots from the City side? (Brooks/Voong — discussions are still occurring regarding access from the parking lots to El Camino Real. Have had discussions with CalTrans and believe they have a design solution that will work.) Would like to see a public gathering space in an area other than the rooftop area on the building at Howard and Primrose; is there another design solution that would encourage impromptu gatherings at the Oak Tree plaza? 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 9:10 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS 2. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 250, ZONED ECN —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANT; AND 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated December 14, 2009. Commission comments: Clarified that the amendment is intended to assist the property owner with re -tenanting the building. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. VIII. 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. 3a. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2010 — STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS 3b. 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE TO AMEND AN EXISTING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (MICHAEL TUCKER, BOOKS INC., APPLICANT; JERRY WYMAN, DESIGNER; AND KARIM A. SALMA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 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. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1441 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JAY TRYGSTAD AND THERESA HEI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from November 23, 2009 Meeting) Reference staff report dated December 14, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Street, San Mateo and Jay Trygstad, 1441 Balboa Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Like the extension of the porch. Troubled by the removal of the front window that was present prior to the porch being extended; could it be placed back in the area? (Chu — removed to protect privacy in the adjacent room.) Could a decorative window feature be placed in the area? (Chu — can possibly relocate the closet and accommodate the suggestion.) Public comments: Angela Valles, 1437 Balboa Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: ■ Does not provide appropriate living space. ■ The home design is present in many locations throughout the City. ■ Have not adequately addressed concerns regarding the driveway. ■ Opposes due to the structure overwhelming the property and changing the character of the neighborhood. ■ Requested a line of trees along the property line with 1437 Balboa Avenue. ■ Concerned regarding the driveway and loss of parking on the street. The driveway is now curved and removes almost eight -feet of parking space; will impact the available on -street parking. ■ Objects to losing parking space given the number of vehicles on the property; would like to see originally designed driveway. ■ Encouraged moving front steps to the side, providing access from the driveway area. ■ Eliminate the front sidewalk; it is excessive paving. Additional applicant comments: Four (4) feet were removed from the curb line; could go back to the original design. Provided a petition from seven (7) neighbors expressing support for the project. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 Additional Commission comments: ■ Would the applicant agree to the placement of plantings along the driveway adjacent to 1437 Balboa Avenue? (Chu — could install vines; but nothing more since it may damage the driveway.) ■ What is the minimum clearance required for the fire hydrant? (Meeker — would need to confer with the Fire Department.) ■ Feels that the in -swinging door at the nook will make it difficult to use. ■ The laundry chute opens in a manner that does not work well with the laundry area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Applicant has agreed to add a window element to the front; reduce the curb -cut; and add vine pockets along the driveway. All of these items may be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 13, 2009, sheets A.1 through A.9, Landscape Plan and Boundary and Partial Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that a window shall be added to the front elevation of the structure adjacent to the porch; the curb - cut for the driveway shall be narrowed to the greatest extent possible to improve the space available for on -street parking; and vine pockets shall be installed along the driveway, adjacent to the property at 1437 Balboa Avenue; these items shall be submitted for consideration and approval by the Planning Commission as an FYI, in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 14, 2009 and October 16, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's September 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 14, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's September 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 14, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. 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. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 5. 2517 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK TO AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DENNIS LIU, APPLICANT; CHIAYUN ALAN WANG AND LAN -FANG NEI WANG, PROPERTY OWNERS; MARCH DESIGN, DESIGNER; AND WEC ASSOCIATES. CIVIL ENGINEER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 14, 2009. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Dennis Liu, 2517 Easton Drive and Mike Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino; represented the applicant. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: The Variance is warranted since the space being converted to a garage is existing building space, and it was originally the location of the attached garage for the house. 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 November 30, 2009, sheets A-1 through A-5; 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 City Arborist's October 22 and September 30, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's September 24, 2009 memos and the City Engineer's October 5, 2009 memo 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; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 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; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built Using similar windows and roofing materials will assist in making this look like the original design. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 15 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED IN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (WINNIE HUNG, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHI-HUA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 14, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 Winnie Hung, 2899 South Court, Palo Alto; represented the applicant. Provided illustration of roofing materials and solar panels. Commission comments: ■ Not certain that enough is being done to the structure. ■ On the front facade, is there a particular purpose for the valance between the first and second floor? (Hung — it resembles other design features present on the house; wishes to retain the same design features.) ■ There is a complete lack of detail in the design; simply cleaning up the structure; looks very stark; detailing needs to be added back into the design. ■ What is being done to support the additional weight of the clay -tile roof? (Hung — additional support is being provided.) ■ The basic bones are provided in the design; but the details need to be refined. ■ Perhaps consider a window box under the second -story window to provide a purpose and visual interest for the valance detail. ■ There appears to be a lot of hard surfaces throughout the property; not much greenery. Install drought -tolerant ground cover along the path on the left side. ■ Consider awnings or other details along the driveway side to soften the appearance of the structure. ■ Is there a reason why the garage cannot be placed straight back on the property to reduce paved area? (Hung — preserving trees and attempting to provide options for outside living space.) ■ With respect to landscaping, consider a larger tree next to the flagstone path along the left side of the house. ■ The structure has been in bad repair for years; will require a lot of work. ■ Provide more substantial finishing details (quoins, stucco molds, window moldings, etc.). ■ Provide finishes that enhance the building. ■ Is the chimney being raised? (Hung — no, but are adding a chimney cap.) Public comments: Gil Borgardt, 17 Clarendon Avenue spoke: The developer and designer have taken the time to go to every impacted neighbor; all are in favor of the project. Moving the garage would waste a lot of land. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Believe input from a design reviewer would be helpful. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to refer the item to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 No consistency on windows, finishing, no gutters, etc. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:08 p.m. Commissioner A uran indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (1221 Balboa Avenue) since he has a business relationship with the property owner. He further noted that he would also recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding the FYI item regarding 1333 Bernal Avenue, since he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers (and the meeting). 8. 1221 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 14, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo and Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Not sure it is the right design for the area. (Chu — there is no clear style present in this block of the street. The massing is typical of the Colonial style.) ■ Doesn't like the columns. (Chu — the columns are typical of the Colonial style of architecture.) ■ Doesn't like the false chimneys; particularly heavy-handed on the left side. ■ Thinks the entire kitchen/nook area will be problematic due to circulation patterns. ■ The storage next to the toilet in the upstairs bathroom will be awkward to use. ■ Bedroom 2; the bathroom includes 60-inches of counter space; could include two basins; could also consider separating the toilet and shower areas. ■ Feels the architectural style could fit into the neighborhood given the massing of other homes in the area. ■ Why is the driveway being flipped; mimicking the pattern in the neighborhood? (Chu — yes.) ■ The columns at the door on the right elevation appear to be out of place. ■ On the front elevation; correct label for planter boxes. ■ Correct grade references. ■ May not need the pediment over the front door; could be more elegant without this feature. ■ Thinks the massing will be good on the block. ■ Likes the pediment over the front door. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 ■ The block was denuded of street trees 25-30 years ago; encouraged street trees to improve the urban forest in this area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The rear chimney is not necessary; it should be removed. Commissioner Cauchi 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 Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-1 (Commissioner Yie dissenting, Commissioner Auran recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:27 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 7, 2009: ■ None. FYI: 1333 Bernal Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — November, 2009: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 14, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 15