Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.05.28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, May 28, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the May 28, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the May 13, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission was deferred until the June 10, 2013 meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1301 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID WAITE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 2 Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Hector Estipona and David Waite represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Preferred the alternate window arrangements.  Does the chimney need to be as tall as designed since it is gas-fired? (Estipona: It is a gas appliance. There is two feet from the roofline.) (Waite – can check with the building department for requirement.)  Feels that with the cap on the top, the fire place looks fine.  Have supported the request for the side setback variance.  No issues with the design.  Could connect the roofline and allow the windows to remain in the same location as originally designed. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 25, 2013, sheets A-1 through A-4, G-1 and L1.0 and with the windows in Bedroom 1 aligned with the French doors on the first floor, as shown on the Left Side Elevation (8½” x 11”), date stamped May 15, 2013; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 15, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's March 19, 2013 memo, the City Engineer's April 1, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 18, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's March 18, 2013 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 3 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 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, 2010 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 applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  Agrees with the hardship for the variance. There is only a very small portion of the house in the setback area. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 4  Another home in the averaging area has a setback that skews the average setback.  Are placing the home at a location that matches the pattern of the adjacent properties. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. 2. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff: Was the 2003 approval by the City Council in response to an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action? (Hurin – will research.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Will Withington (Vanguard) represented the applicant.  Noted that the 2003 action by the Planning Commission was taken forward to the City Council by then Council Member Galligan in order to impose a fee upon the use payable to the City on an annual basis.  The applicant proposes substantial improvements to the site; particularly changes to promote green- vehicle initiatives. Will include alternative fuel stations, charging stations and a potential car-share station.  The ten year timeframe is needed to allow the property owner to amortize the capital improvements over a reasonable period of time.  The milestones proposed by the applicant are contained in the April 22, 2013 letter attached to the staff report.  The property remains for sale. It is ideally situated for development, but the right buyer needs to come forward to develop the property. Not certain if that is a function of the recessionary times, or other factors.  In the event that the permit is extended, but a buyer comes forward, the property owner is committed to selling the property.  Feels that there is a new energy in the area. Feels confident that a buyer may be found; this would trump the current owners’ plans.  At the City Council’s recent goal setting session, it is clear that the City Council supports the implementation of green initiatives in the City. Commission comments:  Has there been any thought given to allowing perhaps two hotels on the property or another arrangement? (Hudak – continue to use the full site. The property is well suited for a hotel and an ancillary use, but wouldn’t think to subdivide the property; it is configured in a manner that is suitable for either a single or more hotels.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 5  Is the site divided into different parcels? (Withington – one address is the office, the other is the storage and maintenance facility – it is only one parcel.)  The milestones don’t seem very aggressive. (Hudak – the milestones are driven by demand for the alternative fuel vehicles.)  Doesn’t believe that it is in the City’s best interest to tie up the property for another ten years, especially given that the Burlingame Point project was approved by the City and may create demand for development of this property. Almost feels that the request could be denied and appealed to the City Council to see where the Council’s position will land. Believes that the ten year extension would not motivate the property owner to actively market the property. (Hudak – not tying up the property. Extending the conditional use permit doesn’t preclude anyone from coming forward to buy the property. A buyer could submit an offer that would permit the sale to a higher and better use. Need to have the benefits of the use for the next five to ten years until the property is sold and developed.)  Could anyone in the community use the charging stations? (Hudak – yes .)  Could a lesser time frame be approved? (Meeker/Kane – the length of the extension is discretionary, a lesser time frame or denial could be considered – the full range of discretion is available. Hudak – a lesser time frame would not allow the improvements to be made to support the conversion for alternative fuel vehicles – the cost of the improvements could not be amortized. There would be no benefit to the City if the improvements are not installed. Withington – want to install Enterprise green vehicle and car-share technology, and storage and maintenance for electric vehicles. Had an offer on the table five years ago, but it fell through. The short duration of the conditional use permit doesn’t allow investment in the property. Have not committed to the area yet since the permit must be extended every five years. The company wishes to expand in this space; there is no other presence in the San Francisco area. Would be surprised if movement didn’t occur on the property in the next year or so if the permit is extended as requested.)  What is the alternative fuel? What is the public benefit? (Withington – charging stations could be placed in other areas of Burlingame and could work with City to replace City vehicles with electric vehicles. Don’t currently have a facility to maintain and store vehicles.)  Could do a car share program without the significant infrastructure improvement. (Withington – need to have a center of operations.)  Struggling with the ten year extension – doesn’t feel that the City is getting anything of value with the extension request. The City Council has indicated that it doesn’t want facilities like this to remain in the area for many years.  Requested clarification regarding the history that explains that the conditional use permit has been relinquished – is this true? (Meeker – no, the applicant did not relinquish the permit as planned. This site has continued to have a valid conditional use permit.)  The use has been in place for more than thirty years; the use is no longer permitted. The viability of the site as a car rental facility has run its course; there is more going on out there than the City would like to see.  The City would like to see sites such as this converted from this type of use to uses consistent with the Bayfront Plan. Are encouraging other uses of the property.  Extending for ten years allows a continuation of a non-permitted use for another ten years.  It seems like a two year extension could be sufficient to permit improvements to the property; particularly if the investment doesn’t add to the value of the property. (Hudak – the improvements will not be a barrier to the selling price for the property – the property would be sold whether the improvements are made or not. No investments will be made in the property with shorter extensions. The sale price of the property and the investment in the property are completely unrelated in terms of their economics.)  Investment in the property doesn’t provide the property owner with the incentive to sell the property. (Hudak – there is no disincentive to sell. Can’t amortize the cost of improvements with a shorter time frame. Withington – no one has looked at the property in five years. The improvements will not affect the appeal of the property for sale purposes. This is the most expensive property in the State CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 6 of California to operate. If the property is sold, then the property is paid off in total. Allows a longer time for the operator to pay back the parent company for improvements.)  Believes that the approval of the Burlingame Point project has changed the landscape in terms of demand for development in the area.  Is there a way to condition that if an offer of a certain amount is received, it must be sold? (Meeker/Kane – cannot impose conditions that require the sale of the property.)  If the public benefit is car sharing, it would be more appropriate on a smaller property in an area where the use is permitted. Feels that the use of the property is not appropriate for this location given the size of the property.  The site could support perhaps two hotels and a restaurant; can’t see the motivation to pursue sale of the property if the permit is extended. (Hudak – when a reasonable offer is made for the purchase of the property, then it will be sold. Five years have lapsed without a viewing or an offer. A property of this size on the Bayfront is a huge undertaking. Millions of dollars are required for the land and development costs. Giving the applicant the ability to do something reasonable on the property will not prevent the sale of the property.)  Clarified that if a ten year extension is granted, then there is no reason for not extending for two year increments. (Hudak – if a two year extension is granted, then there will be no investment made in the property. Sounds like the City is making it difficult to allow the applicant to operate to encourage sale at a lesser value.)  The investment would be made by the applicant if it is a good investment. If really motivated, the improvements could be made in a year. (Hudak – yes, if there was enough demand for the use.)  The We Car program has not been implemented in the past five years of discussions. (Hudak – have had ongoing discussions with the City over these years, but haven’t achieved a model that will work. The applicant is in a position to implement programs that are desired by the City Council.)  Feels that the applicant will not likely be as active in selling the property if the permit is extended for ten years.  If extended for five years and the improvements can be installed in one year, why not proceed in that manner. (Hudak – the demand is not in place for the car sharing program. Won’t embark on the program if the ten year extension is not granted. The City Council encourages green initiatives such as those presented. A buyer is not going to be concerned about the action of the Planning Commission regarding the extension request.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Agrees that it is a non-permitted use for the area; but the use is there - is concerned about forcing the applicant to sell the property.  The use has been there for 30 years; nothing is wrong with the status-quo.  Aren’t there benefits to allowing the use to continue?  Doesn’t see the benefits as presented. Extension of the permit would appear to deter efforts to sell the property.  If a car share program were created and the property were sold, what would happen to the City’s car share program? (Meeker – clarified that the City doesn’t have a car share program in conjunction with the applicant – discussions have been ongoing, but consensus has not been reached. Though the City is supportive of green initiatives; it has not gone on record as supporting this extension request. In fact, the City Council has encouraged the use of properties such as this site for higher CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 7 and better use. There is not commitment on the part of the City to support the applicant’s programs. Feels that the Commission has done a good job of articulating its concerns.)  Are there other areas where the use could occur? (Meeker – yes, the Rollins Road area permits the use.)  The Bayfront Plan doesn’t envision long term car sharing use of the property.  Feels that a ten year extension would allow the use to dig in deeper. The incentive to allow development consistent with the Bayfront Plan would not exist. Commissioner Gaul moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 1310 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CROCKETT LANE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The garage door is specified as a steel door; wouldn’t a wood door look better? Would prefer a wood door. (Unidentified – would not be able to tell that the door is steel; proposed for maintenance purposes.)  The lot is prime for a prominent porch given the width of the lot – was one considered? (Chu – has a large patio, have a large rear yard area and have expanded paving at the front entry.)  The rear patio is great on the east side, but will be more appreciated in the afternoon on the front elevation. In the afternoon the rear yard will be shaded.  It is more neighborly to have a larger porch.  Appreciates a new layout given the larger lot area.  Likes that the owner will be more likely to park on the driveway than in the street given the presence of the mud room on the side. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 8  Feels like some space is needed under the windows on the second floor transition from shingles to siding.  On the utility door on the left elevation, are steps required? (Chu – no steps required.)  Agrees with the desirability of a wood door rather than a steel door – less likely to be damaged and easier to repair if damaged.  Agrees that a front porch could be included – could perhaps extend the roof line a bit more to provide a more defined porch. Currently, the two columns on the left look unbalanced.  Consider celebrating the finish of the fireplace off the family room a bit more by using stone.  There is two story massing on the left and right sides with little articulation. (Chu – will have second story elements, especially on the right side.) Enlarging the porch could help to break up the massing.  Likes the landscape plan.  The architecture of the plan will add value to the neighborhood. Public comments: Daughter of the owner of the property at 1316 Columbus Avenue (to the left), spoke:  The new home will block sunlight into her mother’s property.  Have an existing fence that divides the properties; will this be removed? Concerned that in the next earthquake the cinder block wall could fall over and damage the new fence. (Commissioner – it appears that the fence will be replaced with a six foot tall wood fence. Meeker – suggested that the applicant work with her to develop a solution at this area.)  What is being housed behind the steel utility doors? (Meeker – typically a water heater and furnace.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 4. 2000 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMJAD HANIF, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 9  Does the fireplace impede upon the parking space? (Hurin – a one car garage would be nine feet wide; the garage space is in between a single-car and a double-car garage. The garage is considered a non-conforming two-car garage due to the encroachment from the fireplace.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Hector Estipona and Amjad Hanif represented the applicant. Commission comments:  How long has the applicant lived in the house? (Hanif – five years.)  How old are the existing windows? Normally would suggest replacement of all windows in the house as the existing windows are vinyl; a significant number of windows are being installed. (Hanif – replaced the windows with vinyl five years ago.)  Feels that the face of the east elevation of the addition looks pretty abrupt. Perhaps a different treatment should be provided for the addition to eliminate the truncated face of the addition.  There should be a better way to design the second floor. A corner lot presents a challenge due to two exposed elevations. The east (McDonald Way) elevation will be prominent and must also be designed like a front elevation.  The board and batten siding will be removed, eliminating any design detail on the home – will be replaced with stucco.  When this much work is being done on a house, expects much more detailing.  Dress up the gable ends and design the second story to better integrated. (Hanif – have designed the project to minimize disruption of the initial renovations to the project.)  Could the roofline in the living room and dining room be raised to add more interest to the area? (Hanif – did an expensive renovation of the first floor previously; did not wish to disturb the areas that were previously renovated.)  Consider a different approach to the roofline on the addition.  The right side elevation could use a trellis or something else to break up the wall.  With respect to the vinyl windows, have at times allowed them to be used in additions to match existing. Will the new windows have trim? (Estipona – will provide stucco mold on the new windows. Hanif – the existing windows do not have trim, they were removed with the new window installation.) The first and second floor should match trims regardless of approach.  Uncomfortable with two findings that must be made for the driveway and the garage interior space variances. (Hanif – explored expanding the garage, but too limited space. Also considered expanding into the family room.) The fireplace could be removed to eliminate the substandard condition in the garage.  The location of the fireplace does not impact the ability to access the vehicles when parked in the garage.  The neighborhood is not heavily parking impacted – doesn’t have an issue with the variance from the parking requirement. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 10  Would like to see the second floor and the McDonald Way elevation revised. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 5. 826 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT C. KUEHNE, SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATHAN HILT, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff:  Is the outdoor kitchen included in the lot coverage and setbacks? (Hurin – only included in lot coverage and setbacks if a substantial covering is provided.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Scott Kuehne represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Clever approach to the design.  The design makes the rear yard much more useable.  Nice design.  No problems with the requests for special permits. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 11  None. Chair Sargent 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 6. 1551 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR AN INTERIOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DAREN IGUCHI, JOHN LUM ARCHITECTURE INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG HOU, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. John Lum represented the applicant. Commission comments:  What is being done with the front roofline? Where is the front eave line? (Lum – are creating a shed roof that opens up to the view, dropping it two feet from the original peak height. The façade is staying essentially where it was.)  How will the new aluminum windows be finished? (Lum – would like a clear anodized finish to retain the clear aluminum look.)  Requested a sample of the window material; concerned that it may appear too much like 5 0s architecture. (Lum – will provide a sample.)  Will the wood siding be painted, or stained? (Lum – natural wood likely.)  Will the fireplace be behind the wood siding area on the front? (Lum – yes, but not emphasizing as a chimney.) Would assist design by piercing the roofline with the element to add a vertical element that contrasts to horizontality of the design.)  Appreciates the design.  Will the steps require hand rails? (Lum – will likely be hand rails necessary. Front entry shifted to take advantage of the slope. Will provide illustrations.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 12  Supports the variance. Unique lot, not extending the structure any further from the existing condition. The lot is situated on a hill and is not blocking views.  The eave line is being moved back.  With respect to the parking variance; there are two compliant spaces in the driveway to mitigate the substandard garage space.  Are not adding a significant amount of FAR; not a huge intensification of the site. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:59 p.m. 7. 1225 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, SIX-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM. (PRIMEVERE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; EDI INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER Reference staff report dated May 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. No ex parte communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Made note of an e-mail received from Commissioner Terrones that contains his comments regarding the project. Questions of staff:  With respect to the affordable housing unit; how is the rental or sale monitored for ten years? (Meeker – the City enlists the aid of an agency in San Jose that selects and qualifies tenants based upon income criteria and monitors compliance with the City’s program.)  Why is the restriction only for ten years? (Meeker – the City restricts to only ten years, some communities have 30 year terms or greater.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Alex Mortazavi represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Has the applicant seen the e-mail from Commissioner Terrones? (Mortazavi – no. Meeker – provided a copy to the applicant.)  What is the clearance of the interior of the garage? (Mortazavi – ten feet, six inches provided; the dimension required by the manufacturer.)  Asked if the lifts have been used in other communities? (Meeker – Not in Burlingame, but have been used in other communities. Has been used in San Francisco and San Mateo.)  Doesn’t like the front elevation – not attractive; it is the first element that people will see. Could the garage be forgone for the front unit to provide a more desirable unit? Could a lounge area for CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 13 residents be provided as a means of balancing out the structure? (Mortazavi – objected about removing the parking spaces from the affordable unit. Is attempting to make all of the units the same. Can work on the front elevation.)  Feels that if someone qualifies for affordable housing, they are likely to have fewer vehicles. (Hurin – parking is required for affordable housing; the only option would be to provide compact spaces as an incentive.)  How did the project end up with more parking than required? (Meeker – because the spaces are taxed. A moderate income level is roughly $96,000 in Burlingame. Hurin – moderate income is 120% of the area’s median income.)  There are other three story buildings on the block, but they are placed on wider lots.  Feels that the design looks very development driven without placing the project in context. Looks like trying to squeeze as much as possible onto the lot.  The front elevation is a problem; it is a traditional design that should be balanced.  Were different size units explored? Architecturally, the stacking of the living space appears unbalanced.  Perhaps bring the wall over towards the driveway to better balance.  Commissioner Terrones’ e-mail was inserted into the record as a public comment.  There are many other buildings in the neighborhood that are configured similarly.  The outdoor area at the rear is a bit lost.  Consider separating into two buildings with a center courtyard. Doing so could provide similar unit sizes and would serve to break up the massing. Referenced a courtyard style building that exists within the neighborhood. (Mortazavi – the code requires the project to be one unit.)  Could provide a breezeway or walkway between a project that is broken into two buildings.  Is there an ADA requirement for the project? (Mortazavi – not for the project as configured.)  The front of the building needs to be dressed up to appear more attractive from the street.  Is there a noise impact associated with the parking lifts? The doors are facing the adjacent property. (Mortazavi – the lifts are quieter than gates that provide security at parking entries in other developments.)  Is there an acoustical consultant involved in the project? (Mortazavi – yes, has an acoustic consultant; a noise level will be provided. The proposed parking is facing the parking of the adjacent property – there is a forty four foot separation between the buildings. There is a significant distance between the garage entries and the units on the adjacent property.)  Noted a discrepancy in the window counts reflect on the floor plans and on the elevations in a few instances. (Mortazavi – should be three windows.)  Concerned with both front and the rear elevations – would like elevations to be more exciting.  On the right side elevation, feels like there are six industrial type doors at this area. (Mortazavi – will be shielded by a six-foot tall fence.)  Is there room in the garage for bicycle storage with the lifts installed? (Mortazavi – will review and provide a response.)  Was a garage with lifts considered at the rear of the property, separate from the living units? (Mortazavi – this is a townhouse approach; the other approach would be more like a condominium block-type building.)  The lot feels too small for six townhouses.  If there was a separate garage, then a car-share approach could be provided.  Noted that the cut sheets for the parking lifts encourage building the lifts separate from the dwellings. (Mortazavi – can adequately soundproof the adjacent units, will need to do more research regarding the impact upon the neighboring property.)  Consider the vibration that may occur within the building and to neighboring properties from the parking lifts.  Interested in the experience of other communities with parking lifts.  Want to ensure that the garage still provide area for storage. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 14  Are there liability issues involved with parking lifts?  Is there adequate clearance to allow access to vehicles when parked in such a garage configuration?  Have there been any comments from neighbors regarding the project.  Asked for clarification regarding how vehicles are accessed. Public comments: John Root spoke:  Served on Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) for Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and lives on Douglas near the project.  Parking is inadequate in the area of Oak Grove Avenue.  Read Commissioner Terrones’ comments regarding the design; they make a lot of sense.  Did speak about lifts during the discussions regarding the Downtown Plan.  The building doesn’t look special; we should encourage a special design. Need to take the time to ensure the design works and other quality of life issues (trash chutes, etc.) are accommodated.  The idea of walkability is critical.  The parking lift approach has merit. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director Meeker noted that there was no need for a motion regarding this item, as the item will automatically be placed on the Regular Action calendar when the applicant has modified the project as suggested and the environmental analysis is complete. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 20, 2013:  None. FYI: 1423 Laguna Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project:  Accepted. FYI: 2346 Hale Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project:  Accepted. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 15 FYI: 1361 Bernal Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary