HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.10.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Burlingame Public Library — Lane Community Room
480 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
March 10, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the March 10, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Osterling, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Osterling to approve the minutes of the
February 25, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 9, second bullet under "Discussion of motion" (mid -page); revise to read: "The existing
basement condition, which is more than 2' above grade, is an existing condition that cannot be
modified... "
Page 10, third bullet under `Additional Commission comments" (near top of page); revise to read:
'Asked if the porch... could put a triangular pattern of tiles to create a vent in the front gable."
Page 14, fourth bullet under "Discussion of motion" (near top of page); revise first sentence to read:
"Erect story poles".
Motion passed 7-0-0
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
None
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT
COMBINATION
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 10, 2008.
Commission comments:
■ Commented that there were no comments in the environmental analysis regarding the flooding that
occurs on El Camino Real; should there be additional conditions to address the situation.
■ Existing and proposed conditions for hardscape are about the same; are there circumstances that
require additional requirements to address flooding.
■ On sheet GO-0, and on landscape plan; shows gas meters next to driveway and in front of walk; could
be placed on other side away from the walkway; or could be placed on the other side near service
parking, should be screened with landscaping so they are less visible.
■ On Sheet L-2; parking shown on front for deliveries looks tight; could it be widened, though it may
impact landscaping in the area; particularly since off of El Camino Real; also consider shortening
landscape arms adjacent to facilitate ingress and egress.
■ No problems with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
■ More attention to the details on a building of this size is needed; in particular, make sure that the
window sill and trim are wood.
■ Muntin bars should be true or simulated true divided light -style.
■ Chimney elements are a strong feature and should be another material other than stucco to make a
statement; add more shape or something to show that they are being supported at the bottom.
■ With respect to the roof garden ; thanks for providing the space; consider looking to "BuiltltGreen.org"
for guidance on sustainable treatment of the roof garden
■ Concern with stucco posts on the balconies, there are a lot of stucco elements, could be too much.
■ Be certain to call out specific materials used in finishing as well as size of finishing elements.
■ Note on plans that all windows are clad aluminum, simulated true divided light.
■ Asked if the retaining wall at the front of the property can be removed.
■ The building design has improved; particularly the changes made at the main lobby.
■ Still some concerns about the exterior elevations; still a bit stark particularly above the entry; the tile
roofs are still just a token gesture, perhaps provide additional wood ornamentation on front fagade to
tie in this detail, or consider straight parapet with more details and a trim band.
■ Use wood sills on windows.
■ Details of backflow preventer at the front of building are needed; what is proposed for screening.
■ The stair element at the front of the building needs some more work to make it more architecturally
appealing.
■ The visual simulation demonstrates that the building will be taller than others in the area; does the
floor assembly need to be 18-inches; couldn't it be 12-inches.
■ Provide additional screening and/or landscaping at the edge of the rooftop garden to provide privacy
to neighbors.
■ Questioned how frequently the rooftop garden will actually be used.
■ The rooftop space could also be used for solar panels to provide increased building efficiency.
■ The rooftop garden will receive more sun than landscaped areas in rear of similar projects that are
generally shaded.
■ There is not a single architectural style present on the building; could a mansard roof could be more
in the vocabulary of building's style and bring down the height.
■ The entire fagade should be looked at more closely with respect to detailing and tying in architectural
elements.
■ Consider a wind screen at the roof garden to make it more usable.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
2. 1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO AMEND THE
HOURS OF OPERATION (SAHAARA RESTAURANT, APPLICANT; RALPH T. BEHLING, PROPERTY
OWNER: AND DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
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 Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:36 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED
GARAGE (GEOMEN AND ELIZABETH LIU TRUST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY
DEAL. JD & ASSOCIATES. DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated March 10, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Michael Kaindl, JD Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Clarify material to be used on the front railing and provide greater detail of the rail's construction.
■ Requested that wood stucco molding be applied around the windows; there needs to be shadow
lines around the windows.
■ Questioned why the muntin bars were eliminated (applicant: delivered without muntin bars and
installed by contractor without cross-referencing plans). The architecture of the home would have
been a better example of Prairie -style if the muntins had been included on the windows.
■ There should be more details to balance the entry.
■ Be mindful of the proportions of the pilasters given that stone veneer is being applied below the
main level and on the lower portions of the pilasters; be certain that the finished element is
reflective of what is shown on the plans.
Public comments:
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
None
March 10, 2008
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 29, 2006, sheets 00 through 07 and T-1, and date stamped January 7, 2008,
sheets 01 through 04, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor
area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that stucco molding shall be applied and wood sills provided on the windows on all elevations, a
stucco band shall be applied above the windows, pilasters shall be as shown on the plans, and the
railing shall be redesigned to reflect the Prairie style; all of these items shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission as an FYI item;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 27, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's
October 30, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's October 26, 2006, memo, the City Arborist's February
8, 2006, memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 11, 2006, memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's October 30, 2006, memo shall be met;
4. 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;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
7. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. 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
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
The Prairie -style muntin pattern was important to the design of the project; but rather than have
windows removed, or snap -in grid, will reluctantly approve; shouldn't set a precedent for future
projects.
The plain look of the current window design is not desirable; the muntins added a lot to the design
of the residence; noted earlier Commission comment was that removal of muntins is not acceptable;
have previously required applicants to make changes consistent with approved plans.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-2-0 (Commissioners
Osterling and Cauchi dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m.
4. 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE FOR RECREATION
PURPOSES (TRENT AND ANNE WRIGHT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND
WINGES ARCHITECTS. INC.. ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated March 10, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Requested clarification regarding the bedroom count for the residence, applicant indicates the count is
reducing from four to three bedrooms.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
Staff noted that door into study would need to be widened to 6-feet, rather than 5-feet, and the door
removed, to ensure that at least 50% of the wall is open to the adjacent room in order to exclude the room
from being considered a bedroom, so the bedroom count remains at four.
Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant.
Space being created for pool table, etc. Lower bedroom being converted to study. Reducing four
bedroom house to three bedroom house; will change door to qualify not as a bedroom. Upgrading
look of garage and windows.
Additional Commission comments:
Call out materials for French doors and garage door.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
The request should not be supported; the applicant is moving living space closer to neighbor's yard;
and creating the potential for an illegal unit.
The bathroom off of the rumpus room is large enough to accommodate a shower, the bar looks like
it could be converted to a kitchen; these characteristics lend themselves to conversion of the
rumpus room to an illegal unit.
The house is not that large; the proposed improvements are appropriate.
Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date
stamped February 4, 2008, sheets T-1, A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1 and A5.1;
2. that the walls adjacent to the property line in the accessory structure shall be of sound -rated
construction to eliminate noise transmission to the neighboring property, the window over the sink
shall be eliminated, and the unfinished space over the garage shall not be converted to conditioned
space in the future;
3. that if the structures on the property are demolished in the future, the rumpus room in the accessory
structure shall not be re -built;
4. that the accessory structure shall only be used for parking (one covered parking space) and for
recreational purposes with a half -bathroom (toilet and sink);
5. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen, there shall be no shower or tub added
without an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit, and the accessory structure shall never be
used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit;
6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 8, 2008, memo, the City Engineer's and
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
Fire Marshal's February 11, 2008, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 13, 2008, memo
shall be met;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that 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
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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ If the structures on the site are demolished in the future, the rumpus room shall not be re -built.
■ Consider reducing the size of the bathroom, or eliminating it.
■ It was noted that it would be possible for the rumpus room to be illegally converted to another unit in
the future, without the City's knowledge.
■ Rear setbacks are required to preserve the peace of neighbors; this encroaches into yard area
intended to protect neighbors; can't convert a garage to living space; will be converted to illegal unit;
approval is setting a precedent.
■ Require that the walls adjacent to the neighbor be sound rated (STC rating); plus there is a 10-foot
easement between the properties.
■ Consider eliminating the window above the sink and that the window in the other part of the rumpus
room could be moved to be greater than 10-feet from property line; doing so would eliminate the
request for a Conditional Use Permit.
■ The maker, and second, of the motion agreed to require a sound -rated wall, elimination of the
window above the sink and that the area over the garage not be converted to conditioned space.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-3-0 (Commissioners
Auran, Yie and Cauchi dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m.
5. 223 VICTORIA ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR COVERED PARKING SPACE
LENGTH FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE (SEAN AND OLIVIA CANNIFFE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK
ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo and Sean and Olivia Canniffe, 223 Victoria Road;
represented the applicant.
Clarified that the laundry area now in the garage will be moved into an existing powder room if the
Variance is not approved.
Public comments:
Virender Ahuja, 221 Victoria Road; doesn't feel any of the findings for a Variance may be met. Is a
typical requirement that conforming parking be provided. Both the covered and uncovered parking
spaces are substandard. No hardship to support approval. Can meet the requirements if they need
to. There may be other alternatives. If the Variance is allowed, cannot park a reasonably large car
in either of the spaces; will result in cars parking over the sidewalk. All other residences have
compliant garages. There are a lot of homes with home businesses; vehicles for these businesses
impact parking. If approved, will exacerbate the existing situation. The applicant runs a publishing
company from the home and has deliveries that impact the ability to park in the driveway; believes
that most of the time the garage is used for business purposes.
Additional Applicant comments:
The owners only have one car.
The newspaper deliveries are only periodic (about once a month) and are present on the property
for a very short time before delivery; the owners are willing to have them delivered elsewhere if this
is an issue.
Similar projects have been approved elsewhere in the City; the request would normally be approved
as a Minor Modification since it is minor encroachment and is a pre-existing condition.
Public comments:
Kieren and Fiona Muldowny, 220 Victoria Road; would like to see the project approved.
Rachna Rachna, 221 Victoria Road; noted that her husband covered most of the points. Neighbors
clearly wish to have a larger house; sooner or later they will need a larger garage as well. Don't
continue the non -conforming situation when their need is increasing.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
The neighborhood is affected by substandard parking for apartment buildings in the area; could
discuss this issue with the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
The residence was built to the code that existed at the time; the request should be approved.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 20, 2008, sheets 1, 2, 3 and 5, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of
the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 8, 2008, memo, the City Engineer's and
Fire Marshall's February 11, 2008 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's February 13, 2008, memo
shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as
well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
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 all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Discussion of motion:
■ Believe the parking will work.
■ To bring the parking into full compliance with current requirements, the home would likely be
demolished and a home of greater size, and impact, would likely be built.
■ Retention of existing structures in established neighborhoods is to be applauded.
■ The depth of the parking space is sufficient in its current condition.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
Commission Auran recused for Item 6.
6. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES,
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Michael Kaindl, JD Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Questioned the reason for having a bathroom for every bedroom; each bathroom takes up space
that could be used for other purposes, and results in a project that falls just below the maximum
FAR.
■ Will an electric gate be provided.
■ The design is out of character with the neighborhood; particularly the two story element in one
plane built at the front setback line; this is the wrong scale for this block, there is a regular stepping
back and scale to the homes in the neighborhood; entry portico is too small, the execution of the
style is not what it should be.
■ Need to look at plant species choices in the rear yard.
Public comments:
■ None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed
on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner A uran recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 9:11 p.m.
Commissioner Auran returned to the dais.
7. 1348 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JENNY
NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated March 10, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented
the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant; is a spec home.
Commission comments:
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
■ Complemented the design.
■ A lot of homes with stucco frontage in the area; could stone be added to reduce amount of stucco.
■ Call out wood materials to be used for trim and attic vents.
■ Landscape plan; could be a stepping stone or two to connect driveway to porch.
■ Would like to see designer take his standard designs to another level.
■ Uncomfortable with two-story front element; could benefit from upstairs bedroom stepping back
from room below; provide some relief to front elevation.
■ The right elevation is a bit bland; pop -out is only 12-inches deep, will not likely read as elegantly as
it appears on the plans, but might be constrained by the driveway; suggested a different finish such
as stone for the pop -out.
■ Concern about detachment created by matching bathrooms to bedrooms.
■ Number of bathrooms occupies area that could be used for open space/deck or porch features.
■ With respect to the landscape plan; the choice of shrubs in bed next to porch should be replaced
with a tree to soften the two-story look of the residence.
■ Clarified that the paved areas are set on a pervious surface.
■ Clarify that windows will be wood clad, simulated true divided light style.
■ There are few windows on the right elevation; the kitchen will be dark; is there an opportunity to
break up the wall and add natural light to kitchen.
Public comments:
None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Brownrigg provided the Commission with an update regarding the Safeway Working Group's
progress on the Safeway site at Howard Avenue and El Camino Real.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Community Development Director Meeker noted that 3066 Hillside has been appealed.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 3, 2008:
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council conducted a study session to
review the results of the Development Impact Fee and User Fee Studies prepared by
MuniFinancial.
Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log (no complaints received during February, 2008):
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 10, 2008
■ Accepted
■ Commissioner Osterling requested that staff monitor the landscaping for the project.
FYI: 1353 Vancouver Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved design review
project:
■ Accepted
FYI: ADDRESS — 1641 Lassen Way — requested changes to a previously approved design
review project:
■ Accepted
FYI: ADDRESS — 750 Walnut Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved design
review project :
■ Bring back as an amendment.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
12