Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.25.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDC' CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION B.. - - AI%ME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, August 25, 2008 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the August 25, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Community Development Director Meeker noted that Agenda Item 4 (2707 Martinez Drive) is being continued at the request of the applicant. V. FROM THE FLOOR Robert Ansara, 2712 Martinez Drive; noted that the request for 2707 Martinez Drive was denied previously by the Planning Commission; he feels the project is taking too long. He asked when the item would appear on the agenda again (Meeker — noted that the timing for placement on the agenda is dependent upon the applicant). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 917 LARKSPUR DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARY WAGNER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK RILOVICH, RILOVISION, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 25, 2008. Commission comments: ■ Doesn't appear to be a storage shed; feel that the special considerations could be eliminated for a storage shed. ■ Inadequate hardship for Variance. ■ Why couldn't the structure be 5-feet from the main structure? ■ Why are the windows required for a storage shed? ■ Why is a covered porch needed for a storage shed? ■ Applicant should consider reducing lot coverage. ■ The lot coverage Variance is not justified; the lot coverage far exceeds the maximum; not persuaded by the applicant's arguments. ■ Will the existing storage shed be removed? 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 7:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. Item 2b (1244 Jackling Drive) was pulled for discussion by a member of the public (John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling Drive). It was noted that Condition 3 for Item 2c (1480 Broadway) will be modified, with the consent of the applicant, to indicate that the facility and the restrooms will be accessible during all hours of operation. 2a. 1321 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JIM AND JENNIFER CALLAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMElER/RUBEN HURIN 2c. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT SERVICE BAY TO RETAIL SPACE AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION (SHATARA ARCHITECTURE INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND 1480 BROADWAY PROPERTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 Commissioner Terrones moved approval Consent Calendar Items 2a and 2c, 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, including an amendment to Condition 3 for Item 2c, including language that restrooms shall be accessible during all hours of operation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6- 0-1 for Item 2a (Commissioner Brownrigg abstained from voting on this item since he was not present at the Design Review Study Session for the item) and 7-0 for Item 2c. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2b. 1244 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES SKELTON, EDIT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND COLAINE AND BOB ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER/RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated August 25, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. James Skelton, 3564 17t" Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Public comments: John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling Drive; resides on the immediately adjacent property; expressed concern regarding the north wall of the structure, and the potential for it to impact sunlight to his rear yard and impact privacy. Suggested rotating the roofline 90-degrees to reduce shade impacts and lower height near his property line. Commission comments: It appears that the window placement would still work with the change suggested by the neighbor. Specify the type of windows prior to bringing the item back. Change in gable is a good idea; may require re -study of the rest of the fagade as well. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant to consider rotating the gable and re -study the rest of the north fagade to minimize neighbor impacts. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. 3. 2015 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID HIRZEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SUSAN AND DAVID TUDONI PROPERTY 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 25, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. David Hirzel, P. O. Box 1808, Pacifica; represented the applicant. Reduced rear porch roof back to reduce lot coverage and increase proximity from adjacent property. Shadow study shows that shadows do not fall on 2012 Devereaux Drive. The kitchen design was not altered, but eliminated a closet adjacent to the front porch and incorporated this area into the front porch. Commission comments: Requested clarification regarding shade -shadow study. Asked if the applicant met with the neighbor on Devereaux Drive; would have been rather simple and efficient to have done so (Hirzel — did not meet with neighbor). Complimented on addressing the design concerns of the neighbors and the concern regarding the front porch. Public comments: Dennis Creedon, 2012 Devereaux Drive; is not opposed to constructing an addition, but would place it on the opposite side of the property where a 5-foot setback exists and that lies adjacent to an existing two-story building. Didn't see clerestory windows on plan. (Hirzel; sill height of 6- feet shown on clerestory windows; a person of average stature would not be able to look over the window. The lot is peculiarly shaped, the adjacent yard is a side -yard and is setback at the minimum distance. Having an addition on the opposite side would create a shadow issue on the other adjacent property.) Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked if the applicant did consider other options for placement of the addition (Hirzel — the current design is the most successful and meets the client's needs). ■ Would it be possible to install landscape screening at the area adjacent to 2012 Devereaux (Hirzel — the intent was not to revise the landscaping; having a tree of sufficient size would potentially create a negative effect upon the neighbor's property); could be a good way to soften the appearance from the neighbor's property. ■ The addition is in the correct place; doesn't create privacy impacts for the neighbor. ■ Encouraged installing a hall closet adjacent to one of the bedroom closets. ■ A different location for the addition would create more problems, but suggested installing some type of landscaping to soften the appearance from the neighbor's property (2012 Devereaux Drive); add a condition that some type of screening element be added; could be brought back as an FYI. IS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 Commissioner Brownrigg noted he is not in favor of the proposal; a 15-foot rear setback is required to prevent impacts from adjacent buildings; proposal will put a two-story structure adjacent to the rear -yard of 2012 Devereaux Drive. The house is appreciably closer than normal; applicant could have looked at placing the addition on the middle or left side of the house; driveway setback exists on the left side to mitigate impacts on that side; wrong place for the addition. The point made by Commissioner Brownrigg is actually a statement of the hardship in placing an addition on the property; massing of the addition is appropriate, would have greater concern regarding shadow casting at another location on property. Have consistently been concerned about bulk and mass, but not shadow lines. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 date stamped August 1, 2008, site plan, proposed floor plans, proposed elevations and landscape plan and date stamped July 3, 2008, existing floor plans and existing elevations; 2. that a landscape screen shall be provided between 2012 Devereaux and the subject property, and shall be reviewed as an FYI by the Planning Commission. 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Lot Coverage Variance and Special Permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and NPDES Coordinator's April 21, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's May 14, 2008 memo, and the Fire Marshal's April 23, 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 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; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 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; 10. 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; 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 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Fairly modest proposal, height is lower than it could be. Reasonable application. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (RESUBMITTAL OFA PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE— REQUEST TO CONTINUE BYAPPLICANT) Continued at the request of the applicant. The matter will be re -noticed prior to appearing on a future agenda. 5. 808 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CONNIE 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 KNIVETON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOHN MATTHEWS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 25, 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. Jack Mathews, 335-A East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Unusually small area of lot is justification for the Variance. 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 August 15, 2008, sheets A-1.1, A-2.1, and A-3.1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Building Official's June 9, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's June 19, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1524 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN STEWART, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND DEBRA SPRENG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 25, 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. Alfaro Reyes, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos; represented the applicant. Second -story necessary to accommodate a growing family. Placement of the addition at the rear will allow retention of the original Craftsman details on the front. Commission comments: ■ Applicant recently purchased residence; concerned that during construction, that project could exceed the maximum FAR; be careful that the FAR isn't exceeded, and no special consideration is requested in the future. ■ Clarified that all existing windows will be replaced. ■ Has the applicant considered another "peek-a-boo" window into the bath area to enliven the front elevation a bit more (Reyes — ok with making the change). ■ Right -side elevation; would it be problem to line up the window at the kitchen with the gable. ■ Appreciate that the house will not be torn down. ■ Nice addition, the sides are nicely articulated, but towards the rear the change to a two-story is pretty abrupt; is there some form of treatment (a negative space) to soften the appearance, perhaps a roofline change. ■ With a second -story, will the columns on the front of the house appear out of scale, or is the addition far enough to the rear that it will not impact the columns. ■ Good job appreciate using original materials. ■ Clarified that brick veneer will be carried through to stairway and steps. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 Should a bay window be installed, may require floor area reduction; may wish to find room to provide a deck by reducing lot coverage to permit a deck. Look at a better design for the garage door; find a Craftsman design. Perhaps consider a variation in the plate line for the addition to vary the rear fagade. Public comments: Linda Holden, 1520 Newlands Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Sean Pitonak, 1521 Howard Avenue spoke: Glad the home will not be demolished. Would like to see some additional screening on her side of the property to soften the addition. Concerns regarding the size of the house, especially if the property was bought by investors; don't have five -bedroom homes in the neighborhood; could tower over her rear yard. Whether or not a "spec" house is not the Commission's purview. The possibility always exists for the house to be sold. It is incumbent upon the Commission to see if square footage can be reduced to ensure that special consideration is not requested in the future. The property backs up on Howard Avenue; have they considered moving the mass to the front of the house? There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Modify to reduce mass and be careful not to exceed maximums. Consider landscape changes to soften appearance from neighboring property. Don't know if shifting mass to front would work. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • Care should be given to thinking through the landscape plan to address neighbor concerns. ■ More articulation needs to be provided at the rear of the house. ■ Provide a larger porch at the rear of the house. ■ A slight shift to the front may be workable and could open up to the possibility of a deck. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. Commissioners Yie and Auran recused on Item 7 (1115 Drake Avenue); Commissioner Yie lives within 500-feet of the property and the subject property is CommissionerAuran's daughter's property. Both Commissioners left the chambers. 7. 1115 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MICHAEL AND LISA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 25, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Were the trellis' ever permitted by the Commission. (Strohmeier — didn't exist several years ago) Michael Gaul, P. O. Box 1617, Burlingame; represented the applicant. ■ Attempted to make the addition look like it was always part of the original home; trying to keep it within the original design. ■ Trellises were there when the applicant bought the home; trellises will be removed. ■ Doesn't feel the front porch should be considered living space. ■ Property has a larger amount of open space than others in the neighborhood. Commission comments: ■ Kitchen is disjointed; and not functional. ■ Commended for not increasing the number of bathrooms to match bedroom count. ■ There is some justification for the Variance given the garage and porch are counted as living space. ■ Window on north elevation; replacing a large gridded window at back porch, will be a new window at the kitchen. ■ Clarified that new windows will match existing. ■ Sympathetic to request, but struggling for justification for the Variance; not in favor of the detached garage incentive that currently exists in the code; but this house happens to include an attached garage; elimination of the breakfast nook would allow a reduction in floor area. ■ Hardship difficult; but could consider that the design maintains the existing character of the house to accommodate a small addition. ■ The fact that the existing garage is not at grade does not add to the mass and bulk of the property. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Katherine Driscoll, 1117 Drake Avenue spoke: This looks like a case of modifying the house to meet the needs of a growing family. Whether or not the trellises were built without permits, the applicant bought the house with that existing condition. Were counting on using the space that they purchased; is somewhat of a hardship. If approved, perhaps limit any future additions. Concerned about placement of windows adjacent to residence at 1117 Drake Avenue bedroom. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Consider floor area changes that may reduce or eliminate need for Variance; move wall near family room. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 ■ Have an existing situation where there is a nice piece of architecture worth preserving, but it doesn't work for currently living; would typically see a more drastic modification to such a property. ■ Shouldn't set a precedent that an unpermitted deck or trellis can be converted in the future to living space in the future. ■ Persuaded that preserving the historic nature of the house makes it special and may support the Variance; work on the Variance findings. ■ Doing as little as possible to the home, is most sustainable solution and is admirable. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Auran and Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. Commissioner Yie recused herself from participating on Item 8 (1125 Cabrillo Avenue) since she lives within 500-feet of the property, she left the chambers. 8. 1125 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 25, 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. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nicely designed. ■ Encouraged use of wood trim rather than foam trim. ■ Elegant use of special consideration for greater height to achieve a design solution. ■ Concern about not exceeding maximum FAR during construction. ■ Requested clarification of material used for headers. Public comments: Jim and Kathy Ward, 1133 Cabrillo Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Happy with the homes being built in Burlingame during the past 10-years. Why does the proposed pitch work on the design; why can the rules be changed in this instance? Will lose light through 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 the kitchen windows. Seems a bit odd to have two doorways leading into a four -foot side -yard; a porch to nowhere. They have a 35-year old pine tree on their property (1133 Cabrillo Avenue), they want to have story poles to show height of the building; concern about the mass of the addition and its appearance from their property. Also a concern about impact upon a stonework element in the rear of the property at 1133 Cabrillo Avenue. Roofline would be higher because measured at the curb line. Doesn't know why the house needs to be as tall as it is; "Tudor" style not necessary or consistent with the neighborhood. It is a spec house. Need to take neighbor's concerns into account. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Feel that any second -story should require story poles, or consider story poles for any house over 30-feet. ■ There is more work that can be done given that there is a flat area on the second floor roof. ■ Perhaps pull the den inward to provide weather protection at door and eliminate roof overhang and columns to provide more opportunity for landscaping on neighbor's side. ■ Well designed; but likes the story pole idea for this project and perhaps for anything over 30-feet in height. ■ Story poles should show constraints of house and the portion at the maximum height, exceeding 30-feet. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. Commissioner Vistica recused himself from the discussion of Item 9 (100 Arundel Road) since he lives within 500-feet of the property. He left the chambers. 9. 100 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DON DONOUGHE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 25, 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. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Good design Public comments: 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9: 33 p.m. 10. 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 24-HOUR OPERATION OF A DRUG STORE FOR A NEW 13,765 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KEVIN CULLINANE, APPLICANT, KEVIN AND LISA CULLINANE, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND NILMEYER AND NILMEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 25, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Concern expressed regarding history of parking district and not requiring parking. Did environmental analysis take into account development of the Safeway project? Concern regarding granting parking variances will result in significant parking deficits in the future. Requested clarification regarding action to be taken this evening regarding the environmental review. (Anderson — noted that the City Attorney will need to prepare a memorandum to address whether or not the environmental analysis needs to include Safeway. Meeker — Safeway is not a current application at this time; parameters of project are unknown. This evening the Commission should provide direction to staff regarding any additional analysis to be included in the environmental analysis). Asked who is responsible for monitoring compliance with mitigation measures (Meeker — City staff is ultimately responsible). How does the Commission determine that cumulative effects from this project and Safeway are not significant? Mike Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue; and Kevin Cullinane, 311 South Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Noted a correction to page 2 of the staff report. Made changes to the floor plan to accommodate the rear entry to the building. Expressed concern regarding tree in bulb -out not to obstruct view from parked cars; it also impacts parking availability on Burlingame Avenue. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 Clarified changes to the plan. Discussed potential elimination of alleyway along side of the building. Discussed parking Variance and in -lieu fee. Commission comments: ■ The entrance may be better to have oriented more to Burlingame Avenue (Cullinane/Nilmeyer — grade of the property; a 15'/z inch differential with the property to east, makes access difficult. Design is a better solution from an aesthetic standpoint). ■ Clarified size of large trucks to be delivering at front of property and also hours for deliveries (Cullinane — majority are small trucks); concern about impacting traffic at intersection if window for deliveries is missed. Deliveries would occur between midnight and 8 a.m.; 27-36-foot trailers.) ■ Important consideration is impact upon public parking lots. ■ Visibility into the store is a deal breaker; is critical; maximum obstruction of four feet, with views into store above (Cullinane — is possibly a deal breaker for Walgreens). ■ Can benches be provided in the planting area along Burlingame Avenue (Cullinane — can be achieved). ■ Signage is less than Walgreens would normally provide; clarified that it falls within what is allowed by the code. Can signage be conditioned? ■ 8 a.m. deliveries are a bit late (Cullinane — most of the locations are done first, normally between 1 and 2 a.m.); limit to no later than 6 a.m. rather than 8 a.m. ■ Could the exterior finish be real brick; rather than veneer (Nilmeyer — have chosen a slightly thicker brick veneer that permits a deeper joint that will provide more of a shadow; the bricks are installed individually). ■ Concern about appearance of stairwell on front and rear. ■ Consider setting up a percentage of open window area. ■ Doesn't it feel like this is the wrong tenant for the location? ■ Do display area along El Camino, with more transparency along Burlingame Avenue; also consider a "community wall" on the outside of the building. ■ Rear of building could be dressed up more (Nilmeyer — doesn't see increasing the length of the awing as a big issue; also want plant materials growing up the building). ■ Could a smaller brick design be placed above the awning? ■ Could Walgreens not be the right tenant for the space; the project squeezes the tenant into a small space. Public comments: None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Research regarding considering Safeway as a part of the cumulative projects. ■ Look at parking absent Lot K. ■ Not overly impressed with the project. ■ Parking analysis is blase, simply assumes delivery area will work. ■ Not persuaded by traffic generation reports; what happens when trips are doubled due to lack of parking; the analysis assumes that trucks will pull upon on Burlingame Avenue. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 ■ What about jay -walking pedestrians? ■ Look at assumptions with parking analysis; Lot K? Safeway? ■ Must look at Burlingame's needs, not just Walgreens' needs; look at needs of site as a part of downtown. • Site underutilized; but handsome building, visibility into the store is a critical element; can be given up somewhat on El Camino side, but not on Burlingame Avenue side. ■ How can environmental assessment be accepted considering assumption that Lot K is not a given. ■ No issue with Conditional Use Permit. ■ Concern about parking variance and commercial design review assumptions in environmental analysis. ■ Concerned about timing of deliveries. ■ Concern about two entrances; want to ensure that both entrances remain operable. ■ Handsome building; not sure that this is the appropriate entry statement, however. • Substantial concerns regarding the truck access. ■ Will lighting be an issue for the residential uses along El Camino Real; should this be addressed in the environmental document? ■ Noise from deliveries should be addressed. ■ Use better building materials to reflect the elements on older buildings on Burlingame Avenue (e.g. clad windows rather than aluminum anodized windows). ■ Applicant is concerned primarily with use of his property; irrespective of status of Safeway. ■ Clarify signage regulations for property. ■ Transparency along Burlingame Avenue is critical, but not as critical on El Camino Real. ■ Have materials palette available for next review; brick should not be a homogenous palette. ■ Look at design of building absent Walgreens. ■ Could be good to have the appearance of residential space on second level. City Attorney Anderson reminded the Commission that if permits are granted based upon the use of the building, the Commission needs to specify the use. This item concluded at 11:01 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR REPORTS Subcommittee Assignments — Hospital Public Art Subcommittee: Commissioner Brownrigg agreed to sit on the hospital committee reviewing proposals for the public art project for the property at the "pre -selection" stage. Commission Communications: Noted August 19, 2008 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to receive the Safeway Working Group's recommendations. City Council regular meeting — August 18, 2008: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 25, 2008 Noted that the City Council denied the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of permits for modifications to a single-family residence at 1837 Hunt Drive. Noted that the proposed ordinance creating procedures for conversions from stock cooperatives to condominiums was introduced. FYI: 3209 Hillside Drive - Review of required changes to a previously approved design review project: Accepted. FYI: 1705 Easton Drive - Changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 16