Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.07.14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 14, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the July 14, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 23, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following corrections: add a comment that all commissioners visited the site for item #2 on page 2, item #7 on page 7, item #8 on page 10, item #9 on page 10, item #10 on page 12, and item #11 on page 13. The minutes of the June 23, 2003 special study session and the April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003 regular meeting (Safeway) of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, asked if the Planning Commission would be discussing the Peninsula Hospital project on this agenda; yes. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE NOT RELATED TO AUTOMOBILE SALES, SERVICE OR STORAGE (AL HERIZ, APPLICANT; BAUM TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN ____ Plr. Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. All Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners asked: • Clarify the number of tenant spaces and businesses at the rear of this building facing West Lane; • Clarify where deliveries will be made, staff report indicates deliveries will be made to 218 California Drive, but also indicates that 218 California Drive is vacant; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 2 - • Explain why there will be an increase in the number of employees in 2-5 years, but no increase in the number of customers; • This is a unique combination of retail rug sales and music instrument repair, provide more detail about the services offered by the proposed business; • Explain what is involved in the music instrument repair portion of the business? What type of instruments will be repaired? • Applicant indicates a total of five customers to visit the site on weekdays, this number appears low for the proposed hours of operation, please explain; • Where will the employees park; and • Applicant currently is operating this business on Broadway, parking does not seem to be a problem there and is manageable, please have applicant explain the parking situation at the Broadway site and compare to this site. 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 7:16 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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. C. Auran recused himself from voting on item #2b, 1135 Drake Avenue, because he was the broker on the sale of this property. Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There was a request from the floor to call off item #2a, 1516 Forest View Avenue. Commissioners did not request any other items to be removed. 2B. 1135 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MATTHEW GAUL, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER ____ 2C. 1661 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN ____ C. Vistica moved approval of items #2b and #2c, 1135 Drake Avenue and 1661 Albemarle Way, on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1135 Drake Avenue and 1661 Albemarle Way on the consent calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining) on a voice vote for the project at 1135 Drake City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 3 - Avenue and 7-0 on a voice vote for the project at 1661 Albemarle Way. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2A. 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS ANDCONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH A WORK ROOM (BERT AND CHRISTINA TOMA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 14, 2003, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Burt Toma, applicant and property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, were present to answer questions. The applicant is aware that the adjacent neighbor has concerns with the project, but she did not share the details of her concerns with him. The Commission asked how tall is the existing garage? The applicant noted that it is approximately 9’-6” tall. Jean Judson, adjacent property owner at 1514 Forest View Avenue, Ross Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue spoke: noted that she is concerned with the height of the proposed detached garage, submitted a letter in objection to the proposed height of 15’-0”, it will be five feet taller than the existing garage, the taller garage will block the sunlight to the rear of her house and into her garden and will block her view of the sky, all she will see is the garage. Neighbor that he was in favor of the proposed project. Further comments from the floor: the applicant noted that the additional height is to have storage in the attic above the garage; the dormers add architectural interest to the garage. In order to reduce the impact on the adjacent neighbor, the applicant offered to lower the height of the garage to 12’-6” above grade, which would eliminate the storage space and dormers, but would reduce the amount of sunlight lost t the neighbor with the taller design. The roof would still be pitched. The Commission asked what is the roof pitch on the existing house. The applicant did not know the exact pitch, but noted that the roof pitch on the house is less than that proposed on the garage. The Commission asked the designer to explain how the shadow line from the proposed garage will affect the sunlight into the neighbors’ property. The designer noted that the sunlight will be affected slightly in the late afternoon hours, the amount of sunlight in the afternoon varies at different times of the year; the existing trees surrounding these properties also have an affect on the sunlight. The applicant is willing to eliminate the dormers and architectural interest to reduce the height, but is not willing to propose a flat roof. The Commission asked if the designer could tell what the roof pitch is on the existing house. The designer noted that the roof pitch was not measured but that it is was approximately 5:12. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 4 - C. Brownrigg noted that the applicant offered a workable compromise by reducing the height of the detached garage, with the change the shadow line does not appear to be a problem, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions regarding the height of the detached garage: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 2003, sheet G-1, and that the detached garage shall not exceed 420 SF in area (14'-0"W x 30'-0'D), shall not contain any dormers, shall have a maximum plate height of 9'-0" measure from adjacent grade; and that the roof pitch shall be revised so that the detached garage shall not exceed an overall height of 12'-6" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge; 2) that any waste line to the accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum 2 inches in diameter and shall not be increased in size without an amendment to this permit; 3) that the workroom in the detached garage shall not exceed 110.5 SF in area (8'-6" x 13'-0" interior dimensions); 4) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and a workroom and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and the Recycling Specialist’s June 2, 2003, memos shall be met; 6) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 3. 1309 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION (JULIA OTANI-CARUSO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER ____ Reference staff report July 14, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thee conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that a third condition was added which requires the applicant to provide a survey of the property line to document that all the fence posts and fencing are entirely on the property at 1309 Cabrillo Avenue prior to issuance of a building permit. The City Librarian submitted an email noting that the library courtyard will be enclosed by a 6 foot tall fence, that the library remodel includes removing and rebuilding the rear portion of the library, and that the City will be building a new fence after the construction is complete. The Commission asked if the applicant spoke with the City Librarian; don't know, applicant can respond. The Commission also asked if the new garden wall by the children's area will extend to the rear property line and it's approximate location; CP noted that the new wall will not extend to the property line, but will be very close, the new wall will be located at the center of the rear of the lot. All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Caruso, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions and noted that the purpose of the proposed fence is to enhance the visual quality of the landscaping in the front yard and to create privacy for his house, house will face on the side of the public courtyard proposed at the library. Commission asked the applicant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 5 - if the proposed fence will be one or two-sided, typically a fence will have a front and a back, but because the fence will also face a public area, would like to see this fence have two front sides; applicant agreed. The Commission noted that in order to grant a fence exception, there has to be exceptional circumstances on the property and asked the applicant to explain what the hardship is on this property. The applicant noted that the hardship is that because his property is adjacent to a public property which will have a public courtyard next to his house, the additional fence height is needed to maintain privacy, also noted that he left a message with the designer for the library remodel and was waiting for a response from the designer. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg noted that there are exceptional circumstances on this property, this is a unique property, this house is located next to a public building, the living room faces the library, the 7'- 0" fence height is not being brought to the front property line, no other private properties will be affected by this fence height, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions regarding the design of the fence and requiring a property line survey: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2003 site plan and fence elevation; with 16 feet of 7 foot tall fencing (6 feet of solid board and 1 foot of lattice) extending from the corner of the house toward the front property line and 5 feet of fencing (4 feet of solid board and 1 foot of lattice) completing the fencing to the front property line along the left side of the site; 2) that the facing on the fence shall be applied to both sides of the horizontal members of the fence so that there is no back side to the fence facing the adjacent property; 3) that prior to issuing a building permit the applicant shall provide a survey of the shared property line with the library and document that all the fence posts and fencing are entirely on the property at 1309 Cabrillo Avenue; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: instead of adding a solid fence, suggest the applicant plant taller shrubs within the landscaping to increase privacy, shrubs would eliminate the wall effect, a standard height fence with taller vegetation would accomplish much more would have a softer look; there appears to be no coordination with the library. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Osterling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 4. 1840 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE A, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE USE (SULLIVAN SANTOS, SSS DESIGNS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KUO TAY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report July 14, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the building is under parked, it appears that an agreement with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 6 - property owners in this area to provide parking in the railroad right-of-way across California Drive has lapsed, why? CP noted that this agreement occurred almost 40 years ago and that most likely years ago the lease for parking on the railroad land was never renewed. For clarification, Commission asked if the current office use in Suite A requires 2.74 parking spaces; yes. All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Sullivan Santos, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions; he noted that the parking study shows that this dental office will have a minimal impact on the parking. The Commission asked the applicant to explain how the business will operate at this site. The applicant noted that there will be one dentist and one assistant in this office and will provide dentistry services to clients who cannot make appointments during the hours of operation at the San Mateo clinic. The Commission asked if there will be a dental hygienist at this site; no, just one doctor and his assistant, doctor will perform cleaning as well. The Commission noted that the applicant states that there is additional parking available and asked him to where is it located? The applicant noted that there is street parking available in front of this building and there are additional parking spaces in the shared parking lot behind the building. The Commission commented he was understand that the parking at the rear was for 1860 El Camino Real; applicant was not sure who it belonged to. The Commission pointed out that the staff report and conditions of approval indicate the office will be open from 2 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, should be corrected to state 2 p.m. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that this is a good use in this building, use in this tenant space is not being greatly intensified, parking will not be a problem since business is only open Monday through Wednesday and on weekends, office does not open until 2 p.m. on weekdays, the applicant has done a good job varying the hours of operation to avoid impacting the parking, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the health service office use at 1840 El Camino Real shall be limited to 2,281 SF (797 SF in Suite A, including the new 25 SF mechanical unit, 367 SF in Suite C, and 617 SF in Suite F), as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 28, 2003, site plan and floor plan; and that the conversion of any other office or building space to health service shall require amendment to this permit; 2) that the health service office in Suite A shall have regular business hours from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; 3) that the maximum number of employees in Suite A (772 SF) at one time shall not exceed two persons which includes one doctor, one assistant; a dental hygienist shall not be allowed as part of this business; and the number of patients on the site in one day shall not exceed 4 persons; 4)that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 5) that any improvements for the use in Suite A shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: do not see an exceptional circumstance, should treat every variance application evenly and fairly, the applicant has the burden to establish a hardship; feel that there is an exceptional circumstance, parking was promised in the railroad right-of-way when the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 7 - buildings in this area were built, changing the use from office to health service in this tenant spaces requires 0.63 of a space, round up to one parking space; support use but concerned with also having a dental hygienist at this site, would like to add condition limiting this business to one doctor and one assistant, maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-3 roll call vote (Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, and Bojués dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 1230 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (VITAE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ZEDEN JONES, STARBUCKS COFFEE, APPLICANT; TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER ___ Reference staff report July 14, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that they had all visited the site. Commissioners asked staff: what is the definition of "take-out debris", what are the Planning Commission's review parameters regarding the issue of whether a business is a chain or an independent store; is the signage shown on the plans a part of this review. CP Monroe noted that "take-out debris" refers to the containers in which the food is served, and noted that the signage is not a part of this application but would be reviewed separately. CA Anderson noted that California State law and Federal law prohibits distinguishing between owners of business, the Planning Commission is limited to looking at the impacts of the business based on the zoning code criteria. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Nick and Ted Koros, property owners, and Marcelline Mahern, Development Manager, Zeden Jones, Gary Reikelmeyer, representing Starbucks, presented the project and were available for questions. Mr. Hudak noted that this is a conditional use permit application, not a variance where findings to be made are more strict, owner wants to upgrade buildings, have owned two properties on Broadway since 1971 and are here to stay; next door to the proposed Starbucks there will be a new café from the owners of La Scala; the applicant talked to 65 merchants in Broadway area, 90% support the project, some are lukewarm, only two oppose; the project will help to bring more foot traffic onto Broadway; the petition submitted was compiled mostly from customers of Il Piccolo, shows it has a strong customer base, that business will benefit from competition. He further noted that 65% of Starbuck's business occurs from the time it opens until 9:00 a.m., when many other area businesses are not open; the former restaurant at this site had multiple problems with the health department, it would have required a lot of money to correct the problems, so they decided to terminate the lease; the conditional use permit is to change from a full service to a limited service food establishment, criteria for limited food establishment is 250 SF of seating area, this proposal would have more seating area than that, but less than was in the previous full service restaurant. The Burlingame Avenue location has been very successful, have been there since 1992, Starbucks contributes to local community organizations, would like to have a second store, the outdoor seating will be within the property City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 8 - and not on the public right-of-way; this site is not near a high school so there shouldn't be loitering problems, encourage people to linger inside, believe this location will have a different clientele; Wall Street Journal article submitted shows that competition is healthy for area businesses. Commissioners asked the following questions of the applicant: the application states that there will be a maximum of 20 people on-site at any time, but the site plan shows seating for 35. The applicant noted that they want to have more seating available for customers, but realistically there are about 20 people at any time on average; this site would be the same size as the Burlingame Avenue store plus the additional 175 SF of patio seating, may exceed 20 people on site at some times. How were the number of customers per day determined; applicant noted that they took the projected number of sales divided by the average purchase per receipt, data gath ered from operations and development managers from similar stores. Application materials note that the sidewalk area would be power washed daily; and that signs could be placed at the front of the store to direct customers to park at the rear; also would like to change the wording of the condition regarding take-out debris to include all debris, does the applicant have an objection to having these added as conditions of approval. The applicants noted that they would agree to those conditions. Continued Commissioner questions: the Burlingame Avenue store has a retail component, will that be included here; the furniture shown on the floor plan labeled F421, could you describe. The applicant stated that there will not be as much retail at this site as is found in the Burlingame Avenue store, the furniture shown on the plans would be large, overstuffed chairs. What type of security measures will be installed? All new stores have an $8,000 fully interactive security system, with video and audio monitoring, normally security issues are resolved as they arise as has been done at the Burlingame Avenue store, store manager worked with the Police and Planning Departments and resolved on a case-by-case basis. Can a condition could be added to require that the Starbucks management meet with the Police and Planning Departments on a regular basis. CP Monroe noted that she had met regularly with the Burlingame Avenue store management and Police for a period of about a year, and tried different ways to resolve issues until found good solution, found that it is best to respond to circumstances as they happen, would not like to commit to meetings if they are not needed; the majority of the problems at Burlingame Avenue location happen on the sidewalk, this site would have recessed seating that will be contained and no seating on the sidewalk because it is so narrow. Commissioners asked: it appears contradictory to say that traffic and parking will not increase, yet there will be an increase in foot traffic. The applicant noted that when people come in the morning to get their coffee, they will become familiar with the area, and will come back at another time and walk Broadway to other stores. Where is the video monitor located, could a camera be placed to capture the streetscape; how long is the video data kept. The video cameras are there for the protection of the employees and customers, don't know how long the data is kept, customers would feel uncomfortable if cameras were pointed at customer areas, sidewalk and street could be a privacy issue. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 9 - Public comment on the project: Dave Arminino, owner of Il Piccolo Caffe, Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue, Patty Bloom, 161 Los Robles, Patricia Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Mike Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue, thanked the property owner for putting independent businesses in other tenant spaces, noted that if he had only 300 customers per day, he would be out of business, by 8:00 a.m. have had several hundred transactions, Broadway is a smaller commercial area, Burlingame Avenue has more public parking, when Coffee Stop opened several years ago on Broadway, it created traffic congestion, Broadway is not a retail street, it is located in the middle of a residential area, people don't meander, they stop quickly to get coffee and move on, there is not enough parking for this. Noticed that Broadway is a direct connection between the residential parts of Burlingame and the freeway, the placement of this business on the north side of the street would cause people stopping on the way to the freeway to park on the south side and walk across the sidewalk; would smoking be allowed on the patio, if so there would be impact on people walking through; concerned with trash problems have seen at other locations, the fact that safety is being discussed so much speaks for itself, would not walk past at night with children, independent cannot compete with corporate chains. This is a residential neighborhood, older people and children trying to get across the street, will create a mess on the street, look at what it has done to Burlingame Avenue; ride bicycle through the area, it is already a dangerous corridor, this will increase traffic and make the situation worse, riding from El Camino Real to Airport Boulevard on Broadway is very difficult. Not opposed to the project, concerned about the design, the gate across the outdoor seating area looks like a bicycle rack, the street and sidewalk are narrow, kids walk and ride bikes, could a recess be added for strollers and bikes to be placed on-site off the sidewalk area; would like to see change in the area, will increase foot traffic, but concerned about the narrow width of the sidewalk, have a child in a wheelchair, so there is a problem if it is blocked. Applicant response: good point made about the bikes, the issue could be reviewed by the Broadway Improvement District; smoking is regulated by ordinance and the outdoor seating area will comply; regarding the justification for the amount of seating, outdoor seating area will improve ambience on the Broadway; you can't treat Starbucks differently, if Il Piccolo lost its lease and moved across the street it wouldn't be a problem; would be willing to remove a table in the outdoor seating area to provide a staging area for bicycles and strollers. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: regarding security, there will be a camera in place, the applicant has agreed to work with police and Planning staff to address problems as they arise; agree that don't need camera oriented toward the street, would be an invasion of privacy, but have seen adults and teens crowd around, is inconvenient and disruptive; would like to see a condition added that the application will be reviewed six months after opening and annually for five years as well as upon complaint. Both sides have valid points, go to Broadway every morning to pick up the daily papers; meet frequently at Il Piccolo, it may be difficult to find parking on Broadway, but there is plenty of parking in surrounding lots, impressed with the number of signatures collected, it shows that the local shop does well; Broadway has struggled for many years, time to expand and look at alternatives, Starbucks can help other merchants, will increase foot traffic; thank staff for the detailed data on other stores in the area; talked to the manager of the Boulangerie next to Starbucks in San Mateo, a similar situation and business had increased there, this will benefit Broadway, support project. Problem with jaywalking well taken, drivers City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 10 - need to be careful; concerned about potential problems, can project be done in stages, try indoor seating first then add outdoor patio seating, could come back in one year or next summer and review, see how it is going; regarding concerns with loitering, agree project should be reviewed six months from opening and upon complaint; regarding security cameras, if problem in the future they can be modified to address, it is not the norm now to require that kind of surveillance; can review parking and traffic situation in six months as well; would like applicant to undertake a parking and traffic study, establish baseline now before store opens and study again six to nine months after it opens, see if there are dangerous turns being made on the street, double parking or increased queue length at Broadway and California Drive; can bring study back to the Commission and, if necessary, conditions can be modified based on the study. In favor of application, it is not the Planning Commission's role to regulate competition between businesses, but to look at compliance with zoning ordinance, this project meets the criteria for a conditional use permit; Starbucks is a responsible citizen and has shown a willingness to address issues immediately; regarding the indoor seating, for the extra 91 SF interior there will be oversized chairs, suggest that a condition be added limiting seating to 23 inside and 9 seats outdoors; removing one table in the outdoor seating area would leave enough room for a bicycle/stroller staging area. C. Keele 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 Department and date stamped May 12, 2003 site plan, floor plan and building elevations; with a total tenant space of 2,147 SF; 2) that this business shall be occupied by a limited food service with a total of 516 SF of on-site seating, 341 SF of indoor seating and 175 SF of outdoor patio seating, and seating and tenant space area may by enlarged only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that this limited food service may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit amendment; 4) that the business may be open Monday through Thursday from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of five employees, including the manager, on-site at any one time; 5) that this business shall be responsible for immediately cleaning any coffee or other beverages spills that result on the public right-of-way in front of this location; and that if a cleanliness problem arises the operator shall steam clean the public sidewalk on a schedule approved by the City; 6) that all deliveries to the site shall be from the rear of the store, shall not result in double parking along Broadway and shall not exceed 5 deliveries per week; 7) that should security become a problem or the use become a public nuisance the operator shall provide on-site security during the hours of operation and shall work with the City to develop the most effective solution to the problem and the applicant shall provide 24 hours a day, a surveillance camera with video and make this information available to the City for law and code enforcement; 8) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for sale of food prepared on this premise; 9) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10’ of the property line; 10) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any other retail use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 11) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store and a trash receptacle on the sidewalk along Broadway at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department, and the trash receptacle on the sidewalk shall be of the design approved for the streetscape City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 11 - improvements and installed as required by the City; 12) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and within 50' of the store in each direction; 13) the store operator shall have the sidewalk area in front of the store power washed once a month, or more frequently as determined by the City should it become a problem; 14) that the applicant shall post signs at the front of the store to notify customers of the availability of parking at the rear of the store and in public lots on Paloma; 15) that the indoor seating area shall have no more than 23 seats and the outdoor seating area shall have no more than 9 seats; 16) that a bicycle/stroller staging area shall be established within the outdoor seating area; the staging area shall be separated from the seating area by a railing and shall be posted with a sign identifying it for stroller/bicycle parking; 17) that six months after the store opens, the applicant shall meet with the City Planner to discuss security and parking impacts from the business, the results of that meeting will be reported to the Planning Commission for review; 18) that before scheduling the final inspection of the tenant improvements the applicant shall provide a traffic and parking study of the Broadway corridor between El Camino Real and California Drive, the study shall include a baseline survey done prior to the store opening; and six months after the store opens a follow- up study shall be done including observing if there are dangerous turns being made on the street, occurrences of double parking or an increase in the queue length at Broadway and California Drive; neither the baseline or follow-up studies shall be done during a holiday weekend or between Thanksgiving and Christmas; 19) that the business shall be evaluated for compliance with the conditions 6 months after the store opens and annually thereafter for five years or upon complaint; and 20) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. The Commission took a 10 minute break. The Commission reconvened at 9:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED - ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGARDING AN APPLICATION TO RE-CONSTRUCT MILLS-PENINSULA HOSPITAL (258 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON ___ CP Monroe briefly presented a brief description of the project, and explained that the purpose of environmental scoping is to identify those issues which will be further examined in the environmental document. Any comments made tonight which are project related rather than environmental in nature will be addressed separately, the environmental review focuses on changes resulting from this project as it relates to existing conditions. There were no questions of staff, and Chair Bojués opened the public comment. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 12 - Patricia Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Vince Muzzi, Hillsborough, area property owner; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Terry Heubner, 1708 Davis Drive; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; Glen Mendelson, 1816 Barroilhet Avenue; Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive; Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello Drive; and Mike Franco, 1700 Davis Drive made the following comments regarding the project: LEASE OF PROPERTY • Request that the Commission table consideration of the hospital until the contract between the District and the Hospital lease is finalized; it will only confuse the electorate on how it will be financed and they will conclude that the negotiations are a done deal; SF PUC WATER MAIN • Concerned about the San Francisco PUC water line running through the site and the emergency access for the hospital running over that line, what permits are required to construct a driveway over the easement, and if repairs are being done to the line, how will emergency access be provided to the site; TRUCK LOADING AREA ON EL CAMINO REAL • How will the truck traffic on El Camino Real be handled, will there need to be a signal at the service vehicle entrance, will Caltrans allow a signal there since it is so close to the signal at El Camino and Trousdale; • Need a study of how many trucks will be coming to the site, how will they maneuver, and where will trucks park while waiting to get in, will traffic be forced to stop while trucks maneuver to get back to freeway, there will be traffic conflicts; PARKING • Will there be sufficient parking for the hospital and the medical office and administration building; HELIPAD • How will the helipad near El Camino Real and Trousdale affect traffic at that intersection, concerned with its location, should be moved to the roof; LOCATION OF MAIN ENTRANCE/TRAFFIC IMPACTS • What effect will the main entrance have on traffic on Trousdale, will there be an additional left turn lane into the site; • What are the traffic and safety impacts on Trousdale with the two new hospital entrances, there are now four "T" intersections in a short distance, this will add two more, it is already confusing; • Opposed to adding more traffic to Trousdale, existing entrance is on El Camino Real, which is a State highway, which is the responsibility of the State to maintain, if entrance is moved to Trousdale, the additional upkeep of the roadway would fall to the City and it would become costly; traffic to and from the parking structure with parking for 1400 cars would be added to traffic on Trousdale; • Hope that the traffic study is conducted when school is in session for a more accurate assessment; • Concerned about conflict with traffic at the shopping center across Trousdale, it is hard to exit there now, will be worse with added entrance, will lose business at the shopping center; • Given increased traffic due to BART, entrance should be on El Camino Real; PEDESTRIAN ACCESS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 13 - • How will pedestrians coming from El Camino Real and the bus stops there get to the main entry; AIR QUALITY • Concerned with air quality impacts from car fumes in parking structure on the residents of Ray Park, child has asthma, what will the impact be; AESTHETICS/LAND USE/GATEWAY/SCENIC ROADS/OPEN SPACE • Is there really a need to have a "grand entrance", it takes up a lot of land and is not efficient, does there need to be a separate emergency entrance; • Want to see the elevation of the structures as seen from Davis Drive properties, want to see the height of the office building and parking garage to understand the impact, concerned about property values, scale of use, additional traffic; • Look at orientation of the building with the front facing west, having the back of the hospital on El Camino Real conflicts with the gateway concept; PARKING/LOCATION OF THE GARAGE • Submitted letter with concerns, most important is parking garage, could it be enlarged or another garage built on the surface parking lot on the west without coming back to the Planning Commission, is there a height restriction on the parking structure; • What is the impact of having the entrance to the garage on the side near the homes on Davis Drive, now parking next to the homes is employees, the new parking structure and use of the surface parking lot will be patients and visitors and have more activity near homes; • The surface parking lot adjacent to homes on Davis is only six feet from the fence, now this is employee parking, there should be a greenbelt buffer if it will now be used for public parking, because visitors/patients will be coming and going throughout the day; • Could the parking structure be moved closer to Trousdale; • Hospital had made promises about parking garage, they said they wouldn't need the second garage if they had the whole site, are now proposing second garage anyway, also not providing greenbelt behind homes next to surface parking, parking structure should be closer to Trousdale; • Neighbors have had concerns about the parking garage from the beginning, but the plan drawings haven't changed; NOISE • Where will the dumpsters be located; concern with noise from garbage trucks in the early morning hours, this is an issue now; • Look at noise impact from generators; • Concern from noise pollution from all the cars in the parking garage; LIGHT AND GLARE • When cars come into parking garage at night will the lights shine on neighbor's property; There were no other public comments and the public comment was closed. Commissioner comments: • Agree with the comments from the public; LOCATION OF MAIN ENTRANCE/TRAFFIC IMPACTS • Need to study traffic carefully, concern with traffic confluence, Trousdale is an artery from BART and there is heavy traffic from the schools; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 14 - • Look at the location of the entrance on Trousdale and its impact on traffic, if it were located further east where the emergency entrance is, would that be better; • Analysis of the impact of the employee entrance on Marco Polo Way; • Concerned with the relocation of the entrance from El Camino Real to Trousdale, major concerns with traffic and queuing on Trousdale with traffic going to 280; AESTHETICS/LAND USE/GATEWAY/SCENIC ROADS/OPEN SPACE • This portion of El Camino Real is a gateway to the community, the impact on aesthetics needs to be analyzed; • Need to look at potential deterioration of open space and open space policies in the general plan, the destruction or deterioration of greenery with the removal of 88 protected trees; • Need to look at the potential deterioration of scenic routes, both El Camino Real and Trousdale are designated as scenic routes; • Look at the elevation on El Camino Real and how it addresses the streetscape considerations of the North Burlingame Specific Area Plan; • Look at aesthetic impact, general plan policies related to scenic corridors and scenic transportation routes; • Examine the visual impact from the flats as well as from the hillsides looking downward, it is now a landmark, will there be change, will the mass of the building create view blockage from neighbors on uphill side; • The eucalyptus trees won't last forever, need a greenbelt management program for long-term greenbelt values; • Visual impact of high-tech cladding is not in keeping with the character of Burlingame; • Story poles may be important in assessing the impact of the project; • Need a view study that will look at the elevation of the various structures relative to the homes on Davis Drive at key locations, as well as the general overall impact on Davis Drive residences, the parking garage and surface parking to the west. NOISE • Noise from hospital operations and activities, truck traffic, air cooling towers, HVAC and the helipad; AIR QUALITY • Comprehensive review of impact on air quality from truck emissions and cars in parking garage, look at the location of the parking structure; LIGHT AND GLARE • Review of light patterns, reflection and glare impacts on neighboring residences; SHADOW STUDY • Need to do a shadow study, these are tall structures; PARKING IMPACTS/LOCATION OF GARAGE • Need a convincing parking study that compares the parking needs of this project to similar projects; • Analysis of parking and traffic should include BART shuttle access; • Overall, the project has a huge footprint dedicated to parking, about 25 percent of the site, should reduce single level parking and increase garages; • There will be a lot of medical offices on the site, will there be sufficient parking; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 15 - • Is there presently a shuttle service for employees to take from Peninsula Hospital to Mills in San Mateo, heard that some Mills employees park at Peninsula and take a shuttle to Mills, if true these cars need to be taken into account in the parking study; BED COUNT • Is this the appropriate bed count for this project, is there a seasonal increase/decrease in the hospital population, is there a need for the number of beds proposed; ALTERNATIVES/VACANT LAND/MITIGATION • Analysis of the remainder of the property not built on and alternative land uses, their traffic impacts, and the available access to the remaining land; • In alternatives analysis, would like to see an alternative with relocated entrance to hospital, and one that looks at the consumption of land, this is an inefficient layout, should look at one with less surface parking, perhaps another parking structure north of the one proposed; • If employee housing were included, the traffic impacts would be reduced; • Need to look at mitigations in terms of trade-offs, if you move the helipad to reduce traffic impacts, will there be an increased impact on residents; PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS • Look at pedestrian access, this site severs the neighborhood from the shopping district, could there be pedestrian/bicycle access through the site; • Need to look at pedestrian circulation, it's a long hike to the main entrance from El Camino Real and bus routes, look at a second public entrance or relocate entrance; • There is an informal bike lane on El Camino Real to Adeline, will it be maintained with this project; HELIPAD • Location of the helipad should be studied, it is potentially dangerous; • Concern with helipad noise, and it will be highly visible, what is the impact on traffic; • Need discussion on the safety parameters for the heliport, what is the extent of the wind expected from landings and take-offs from the heliport; WIND • Look at the change in wind patterns and the affect on the adjacent neighbors; TRUCK TRAFFIC ON EL CAMINO REAL • Look at truck traffic on El Camino Real SF PUC WATER LINE • Look at seismic safety of the SF PUC water line, if it is damaged in the earthquake, will water be available for the hospital to stay open; what will flood; • A structural engineer should look at the water line to determine its ability to withstand a seismic event; • Need to find out if it is sacrosanct that nothing can be built on top of the water main, can we call out the rules about building on top of a water main, is there a possibility that they could build over the easement and devise a different site layout; HAZARDS • Concern about the proximity of the back of the hospital to El Camino Real, an accidental or intentional collision where a vehicle is used as a weapon, should be assessed under hazards; • A seismic event of 8.0 should be the basis for determining possible ramifications. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 16 - There were no further comments regarding environmental scoping from the Commission. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 7. 1240 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, AIA, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARKE AND CORINNE PITRE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER____ Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. All Commissioners visited the site. Commission noted that the west elevation shows a declining height envelope exception and asked what is the exception? Staff indicated that the note refers to the chimney which is exempt from declining height envelope. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, architect, noted that the addition is in keeping with this traditional English Tudor house, addition will meet the need of the growing family, they want to stay in Burlingame, propose to move the existing downstairs bedroom to the second floor, add a family room and expand the kitchen on the first floor, existing rear elevation is a mix of designs, propose to improve the flow of the house, declining height envelope now extends into the existing second floor, first floor addition is only 88 SF and project complies with all zoning regulations, will retain the one-story element at the front of the house and only add a dormer to break up the existing roof, some existing windows will be replaced to match the original and all will be consistent throughout the house, property owner spoke with adjacent neighbor and noted that he has no objection to the proposed addition. Commission noted that there appear to be a discrepancy in the staff report, which notes the proposed building height to be 28’-5”, while the plans show 29’-9” from average top of curb, this needs to be checked and clarified. Commission expressed a concern with the net height of the house and how it will fit with the context of the block, the peak of the roof is overwhelming. The architect noted that the roof at the front of the house is being built up by approximately four feet so that it will have the softest impact on the street, height was shifted to the rear of the house and a gable added at the front of the house to break up the mass. Commission asked the architect to clarify the plate heights, appears to have 8’-6” plate height on the first floor and 7’-6” plate height on the second floor. The architect noted that the plate heights vary on the second floor vary, 6’-0” plate height along left side, 5’-0” at the front, and 8’-0” along the driveway, and noted that the proposed addition complies with declining height envelope. Commission commented that this is a large house, 15 SF below the maximum FAR; the house is well composed and detailing is consistent throughout the house, good design for this size house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • Plans need to clearly show the proposed additions on the building elevations, difficult to understand what is existing and proposed; • Need to correct inaccuracies on building elevations regarding the roof configuration, roof configuration on front and rear elevations do not match, ridge line shown at different heights, please verify that roof configuration and heights on all building elevations are drawn correctly; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 17 - • Concerned about the net roof height, appears tall and not consistent with the houses on this street, mass will be noticeable, applicant needs to address proposed height, would like to see some modifications to the roof; • Staff report and plans need to be consistent in proposed building height as measured from average top of curb; • Front yard landscaping is bare, would like to see a landscape plan for the front yard, suggest evergreen materials to help screen the height of the house; and • Brick chimney on west elevation should be carried down to the ground. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the inaccuracies regarding the roof configuration and height have been corrected and the plans have been revised as directed regarding the roof height and configuration, front yard landscaping and chimney. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote. Comment on motion: still concerned with proposed height and roof configuration, matching the existing 16/12 roof pitch will be noticeable on this block, not comfortable with placing this project on the consent calendar; agree house will be overwhelming and will not be compatible with the existing houses on the block, would like to see modifications to the roof. Chair Bojués made a motion to reconsider the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to reconsider. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-0-3 (Cmsrs. Keighran, Osterling and Auran dissenting). C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the inaccuracies regarding the roof configuration and height have been corrected and the plans have been revised as directed regarding the roof height and configuration, front yard landscaping and chimney. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. 8. 39 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CARLOS RENON DOMINGUEZ, DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that while on a site visit it appeared that there is an existing basement in the house, but it is not shown on the floor plans. Staff will verify with the applicant if a basement exists in the house, and if so it will have to be shown on the floor plans. All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Sofia Makris, applicant and property owner, was present to answer questions and clarified that the existing attached garage is a two-car garage. Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 18 - asked the applicant if a basement exists and if so, what is the ceiling height? The applicant noted that a basement does exist and that the ceiling height is approximately 7’-0”. Commission noted that the proposed addition is minimal, but that the design is too simple. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • Need to provide a floor plan of the existing basement including interior and exterior access to the basement, and the building elevations also need to reflect any windows in the basement; • It appears that there are inaccuracies in the drawings which need to be corrected; design of railing at front is not shown accurately, left side building elevation does not show the closet protrusion in the bedroom at the front of the house or the change in the roof line, the protrusion should be accurately shown on the building elevations and roof plan, some roof overhangs are not shown correctly, applicant needs to make sure floor plan, roof plan and building elevations are consistent; • Grid pattern of the windows on the second floor front elevation are not proportionate with the rest of the windows, need to revise so grid pattern is consistent; and • Applicant should consider a way to add more interest to the second floor front elevation, possibly with dormers to add more variation along this wall. C. Brownrigg noted that small changes are necessary to make this project more interesting and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made as directed. The motion was not seconded. Commission Comment: Commission requested that staff verify the proposed floor area once the existing basement is included on the plans, and if the project exceeds the floor area allowed then the project should be removed from the consent calendar. The Commission noted that because there are several inaccuracies which need to be corrected, the project should be reviewed on the regular action calendar. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made as directed. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had 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 11:35 p.m. 9. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT ____ Cmsrs. Keighran and Brownrigg recused themselves from this item because they live within 500’ of the subject property. They stepped down from the dais and left the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 19 - Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri, property owner and applicant, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. The applicant noted that the neighbors’ concerns have been addressed, the proposed house was designed around the existing protected- sized oak tree; requesting side and front setback variances because the house was shifted towards the right side of the lot to stay away from the existing oak tree, the landscape plan was revised based on the direction given by the Commission at the previous meeting, and an arborist report completed by Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., was submitted along with this project. Commission noted that it was surprised to see this project come back with two variances, this is a large lot where 85% of the lot is buildable, cannot see the hardship for the side and front setback variances. The applicant feels that the existing protected-sized oak tree is a hardship because in order to retain it, the house had to be shifted towards the right side of the property, and the right side property line angles in towards the rear of the lot. Regarding the front setback variance, a detached garage was considered for this project, but is not possible because the lot is irregular and gets narrower towards the rear of the lot; the proposed front setback meets the average front setback along this side of the street. The applicant also pointed out that the footprint was reduced from the previous application, the living spaces were reoriented to face the existing creek, and the second floor will appear smaller because the majority of the second floor is behind the garage, approximately 50’ back from the street. The Commission asked if the easement along the right side property line is existing; yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • concerned with the requested front and side setback variances, because this is a new house see no hardship on the property, feel that the applicant can redesign the house to eliminate the variances, this is a new house on a large lot with 85% buildable area, see no justification for the variances; feel that the creek on this site is an amenity and not a hardship, creek does not curve through the site. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made as directed and the concerns regarding the setback variances have been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cmsrs. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:55 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of July 7, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions which related to planning at the Council meeting of July 7, 2003. Noting that the ordinance to require inclusionary affordable residential units was approved and will become effective August 6; Council did not introduce the ordinance ending the stipend to the Planning Commission and directed the City Attorney to revise the ordinance City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 - 20 - to establish a training fund and/or funding for Commissioners currently unreimbursed expenses, Council cancelled the July 21, 2003 meeting; Council suggested that a joint study meeting of the Council, Planning Commission and Bayfront Working Group be scheduled to discuss the Preliminary Draft of the Bayfront Plan update. - FYI – 1415 Benito Avenue - windows changes to an approved design review application. CP Monroe noted that this request was to add two windows, one on each side of the building, in the two front bedrooms on the second floor in order to comply with Building Code egress requirements for sleeping areas. The Commission acknowledged the change and noted that they did not affect the design as approved. - FYI – 1033 Balboa Avenue – exterior material change to an approved design review application. CP Monroe noted that this request was to change the material on the chimney and exterior trim from river rock to real wood shingles. The Commission felt that this change was significant to the design of the house. For this reason they felt that the request to change this item should be set to a public hearing so the applicant could present other ideas and to bring samples of the proposed material. The Commission noted that the applicant should provide calculations by a licensed engineer to document that the river rock is too heavy for the house. - Set date for Planning Commission review of Safeway Response to Comments Document Amendment. The EIR consultant is working on an addition to the Safeway EIR Response to Comments document. Safeway is providing some additional information, when that is completed and the information reviewed the additional response to comments will be circulated. Council has indicated that they would like the Planning Commission to review the additional responses to comments. This should take place sometime in August or September, depending on the completion of the report. The Council subcommittee met with Safeway representatives and may meet with them again. - Confirm Planning Commissioner’s vacation schedules: The Chair asked that the Commissioners respond to staff regarding their vacation plans for the summer so that staff would know if there was a quorum for each of the meetings. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 12:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2003\minutes07.14.03.doc