Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.10.15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California October 15, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Davis called the October 15, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Chair Sargent Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Vice Chair Davis moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the September 9 and September 23, 2013 regular meetings of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: September 9, 2013 minutes:  Page 9, Condition 1.d – add shall be provided as an FYI.  Page 17 discussion of motion repeats the final commission comments rather than a different discussion. Is a repeat.  Page 18, encourage applicant to note to their clients that public parking is available across the street.  On Item 1a should read Commissioner DeMartini has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet.  Voting counts on first motion are not listed correctly. Need to be consistent on all items. Page 1, Page 2, Page 7 are not consistent with each other.  Page 7 indicates Chair Sargent called for the vote, but he was recused on that item so it would have been Vice Chair Davis.  Page 22 should read “if the total unit count was reduced.” September 23, 2013 minutes:  Page 20, “consider other development options.”  Page 21, should read “enhance” instead of “enhancing.”  Page 22, should say “direction” rather than “directly.”  Page 23, should say “one concern” rather than “once concern.” Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 2 V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. 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. 1. 847 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (THORNTON WEILER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT OUSSAMA MANNAA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Yie moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 748 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (MAXWELL BEAUMONT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GORLAT BAINS PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013 with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Maxwell Beaumont represented the applicant:  Made all the revisions and corrections that were outlined by the commissioners.  Windows – removed the shading from the exterior elevations.  Miscellaneous lines from the elevations that were noted have been removed.  Decking and railing at rear of building have been made consistent.  Incorporated some of the design elements from the house into the garage. Commission questions/comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 3  Design is much improved.  On the right side there is a new bay, but it is not clear how it will be supported. Maybe have corbels underneath it, or the contractor ends up building a foundation and it goes down to the ground rather than cantilevered. Doesn’t matter one way or the other, but want to be aware of it in case it is built down to the bottom. Commission should chime in if this is something that would matter to it. (Beaumont: Proposed to be a cantilever. Will be open underneath.)  There was a request from the Commission that stucco belly bands come back as an FYI. Some of the stucco belly bands can be puffy. Is this something that is typically requested to come back as an FYI? (Strohmeier: It is subjective.)  Usually expect the belly bands to be wood, but this application proposes stucco. There was also the option of stone. Is there a reason why it is not wood? (Beaumont: Wood would stand out too much, as a band going around the building. Would have a better transition if it was stucco with relief rather than wood trim.)  If using stucco for the belly band, should come back as an FYI.  Rather than seeing a detail, would be better to see a sample. The detail drawn out might not show it – it’s the material and how much like foam it looks, and the finish.  Window design looks good, and it is consistent all across.  In the past have we asked for a material sample as an FYI after approval? Before it is applied to the building. (Strohmeier: Yes. Typically we would want to put in as a condition of approval that the FYI for the material sample be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 October 7, 2013, sheets A3 and A4; and date stamped September 16, sheets A0 through A2; 2. that sample of the stucco mold band shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of the Building Permit. 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s August 17, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's December 7, 2012 and August 3, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s December 10, 2012 and August 10, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 6, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 2, 2012 memo 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; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 4 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. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 5 3. 832 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (CONSIDERED TWO- STORY AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE) AND A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (DONALD YU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARC MANISCALCO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. City Attorney Kane noted that a number of approvals are requested for this application. She advised that when the Commission has its discussion and if it makes motions, it should make sure that all aspects have been covered. There are a number of layered, separate sets of findings that need to be made. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Donald Yu represented the applicant, and Marc Maniscalco represented the property owner:  Has moved garage forward to increase usage of rear yard.  Added a stairway at the rear to provide access to the rear yard. Commission questions/comments:  In the garage why a separate wall next to the exterior wall of the existing house, instead of a single wall? (Yu: Don’t want to tear down the existing wall.)  Why leaving the bathroom window next to the garage if it is blocked? (Yu: The window is not blocked. It faces the pitched roof of the garage. It is high enough so it does not get blocked.)(Maniscalco: It is the only light in the bathroom.)  Much improved, and will be happy having access to back yard both through the house and the garage. Hopefully there will be a landscape plan for the backyard, though that’s not required. Would be helpful for the house as well as the view from California Drive.  Did the height of garage change from the previous set of plans? (Yu: The lot slopes downwards, so moving the garage forward moved it up. It’s about one foot difference.)  The frontage on California Drive does not look very good today. Any changes proposed to the wall along California Drive to make it more attractive? (Yu: No plans to change the retaining wall.)  Could there be vines on the retaining wall? (Maniscalco: Planning to change the fence, but the retaining wall is full concrete.) Might be able to grow something on it that might come over the fence.  Glad that the parking has been pulled in, but still has problems with variances pushing the residential use closer towards California Drive. California Drive should have vibrant retail at the pedestrian level.  Is there a landscape plan? (Yu: Staff said for a project of this scope it could be shown on the site plan. The site plan addresses what trees will be planted, and shows the difference between the concrete and grass. Staff said this would be sufficient.)  A full landscape plan is not required unless it is a new residence, but there is a requirement to have a certain size tree on the property, which may be existing. (Yu: Two Magnolia trees were added.)  The changes have made the project better, and there are justifications for the variances. The confluence of the issues come together to support the application, since it is a relatively minor application. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 6 Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion:  Concerned with pushing the residence out towards the back and adding a bedroom there, when instead the variances requests could be avoided by adding a second story towards the front. It would make it a denser and more appropriate massing on the residential side, as well as pushing it away from the commercial district on California Drive. Building up to the property line on California Drive would be justified if contributing to the commercial experience, and activating the retail and pedestrian level. Does not believe that the intent of the zoning is to have the back of all the houses pushed back towards California Drive. The easiest path is not always the best, and while the other path is harder it would be more in the spirit of the zoning. Doesn’t like the precedence. There are too many variances.  Does not disagree with wanting to encourage more vibrancy on California Drive. The limiting factor is the existing residential development that is there now. The turning point for this property will be more long-term. The limiting factor for the property is not just that there is only 16 feet for the rear yard, but that there is a house on it. The property would have to change as a whole – it’s more long- term.  By pulling garage back off property line, although it would not be deep the retaining wall could be moved in and develop that part of the property. Problem is it is a small lot with a house already on it that has some issues with side setbacks. Can support the side setback variance since it is an existing condition and not pushing it back very far. The attached garage needs to be accommodated because there needs to be a garage and there is nowhere to put it. A second story may be too much of a financial commitment for this property – in the long run this structure will probably be gone and developed as a multiunit potentially with commercial on the California Drive side. They have done what they can with it without “breaking the bank,” and there are a number of mitigating factors that they have worked with.  The Commission added to variances with the rear setback and stairs. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 2, 2013, sheets A1 through A6, BMP and GB1; 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 first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 23 and July 12, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's August 15, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 24, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's September 4, August 26 and July 18, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 17, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. 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 October 15, 2013 7 6. 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that 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: 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12. 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 Terrones. Discussion of Motion:  Side setback variance for addition: existing condition.  Side setback for garage: needs to accommodate a garage, and there is limited width available.  Rear setback and stair: accessing the back yard, which is a necessity with this property.  Rear setback for the second story addition: related to the slope of the lot.  Lot coverage: small lot, small house – only single family dwelling in an area comprised mostly of multiunit properties. Other properties have greater lot coverage.  Special Permit for attached garage: needs to be four feet away for a detached structure, but is not possible here to have a legal garage. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 8 Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent, Commissioner Davis dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 4. 824 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (GARY GEE, DESIGNER; JOHN BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Gary Gee represented the applicant and John Britton represented the property owner:  Submitted a letter with a list of the revisions. Commission questions/comments:  On the west elevation the roofline over the front door has changed. There had been a gable over the entry that tied in with the gable to the right. (Gee: Previously there was a “portal” entry. The Commission asked to consider creating more of a porch entry. Needed this roofline for the porch. Also previously the columns were wrapped in shingles, but now wood. Now that the covered porch is about 20 feet wide, if there was an angled roof it would be too prominent.)  Consider continuing the porch shed roof all the way across? (Gee: It does project further into the setback towards the street. The study is further back. Did not want to create a monolithic, strong architectural line in the front).  On the east elevation doors from the Master Bedroom, what is above door trim that is so wide and does not line up with the other windows? (Gee: It is a Juliet balcony type of door with a railing. The windows on the Family Room are recessed, not in same plane.) On top of the door it looks like there is a really wide piece of trim. Why not break up the trim or line the top of the door up with the windows? (Gee: Could layer the trim or break it up with shingle above.)  Downstairs study could become a bedroom eventually, so it would end up being a 5-bedroom house with a one-car garage. With a house this size, why not a 2-car garage? (Gee: It is set up to be a study off the entry rather than a bedroom, with a wide doorway from the entrance into the study. Could remove the door into the bathroom.)  Since it is a new house, suggest that all new garages be wired for charging stations for electric cars. Retrofitting would cost more later. (Gee: Could leave extra circuit breakers, then have a separate socket that could connect to those circuit breakers.) Suggest running a conduit from the service panel to the garage that would be capable of handling the circuit. It’s easier when everything is torn up – later you’d have to cut across the yard. (Gee: Could pull a conduit that would come from under the box on the side underground into the garage, and it could go to a subpanel that has enough breakers that could be filled in later for that purpose.) This has been discussed previously in a joint meeting but has not been codified.  On the front elevation, are the columns in same plane as the porch? It looks like the bottoms of the columns should be in plane with the bottom of the porch. (Gee: Correct, should be in same plane.)  On rear elevation the belly band along the top of the porch does not continue all the way across. It should frame the full porch opening. Could extend all the way across the elevation to the side, have an engaged pilaster at the edge of the opening, and then move the other column so it is centered between the second and third windows about halfway across the opening. (Gee: The belly band CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 9 could be brought around over the door. Columns could be brought inwards to express the belly band.) If revisiting the column placement, this is something we often see as an FYI. (Gee: Just depends on the cantilever of the belly band and the eaves at that location.)  In the previous meeting there was a comment that the 2 x 12 fascia in the front of the building was too clunky? (Gee: We layered it.) In the east elevation did the same thing, but there is a little bit on the left side that looks like it has not been changed. Just didn’t add the layer on the little piece of roof on the left, the rake fascia piece. (Gee: We can do that – just layered the same way)  Landscape and irrigation plan very detailed – good job. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 October 2, 2013, sheets A1.0- A4.0 and sheets L1.0 and IR1.0; 2. that the following revisions shall come back to the Planning Commission for review as an FYI: a. The rake trim on the east elevation be added to the small piece of roof for consistency. b. The door from the downstairs study to the adjacent bathroom shall be eliminated. c. The architect shall have the option to extend the belly band over the back porch and has the option to revisit the columns. d. The architect shall review the trim above the Juliet door on the rear elevation, either through building up the trim so it is not a wide piece, or adding shingles, or having a taller door. 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 2 and July 18, 2013 memos, the City Arborist's May 7 and August 15, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's May 24, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 6, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's May 2 and July 22, 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 10 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 Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:49 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 11 5. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. Vice Chair Davis noted that when she visited the site she met the contractor, and he mentioned that the stone subcontractor had been hired directly by the owner and the changes were a surprise to him. He also said that the canopy that was lower was because it tied into the floor plate where the structure was, and that the canopy fascia are planned to be metal. Commissioner DeMartini said that when he visited the site the owner and designer were there, and they talked briefly about design elements and some of the stonework. No other ex parte communications were reported. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Commission Comments/Questions:  The widows are very tinted, but in the design guidelines it says we do not want to have heavily tinted windows. It was not discussed, however. Is there a guideline, or something that needs to be written on the drawings? (Gardiner: The guidelines discourage it, though there is not a specific standard for amount of tinting. It’s directed more at mirrored glass or glass that is truly opaque.) (Strohmeier: A lot of the windows have paper, that could be generating some of that effect.)  On the material board that gets approved, we do not have purview over the colors. So what are they held to on a commercial building? Is it just the products? For example, if they showed a granite that was black and then they put a different granite in that was mauve, would that count as a change? What point do changes to the material palate count? (Strohmeier: The Commission does not approve color of materials. When looking at a materials sample board, that can change during construction but the material itself cannot change. As long as it is applied in the same manner and the same look, it will be approved, but color is not considered).  Landscape area in the parking lot is paved over and being used for the trash area. Is that OK? (Strohmeier: That is one of the changes being discussed. It was a change made during construction so was noted for the Commission to discuss.)  On A4.3 the two doors on the as-built revisions have stonework surrounding the doors, but in touring the site there was not any stonework around the doors. Confused whether the stone is going on at a later date or whether the stonework is done. (Strohmeier: Staff noted that as well. The conditions in the field is inconsistent with the drawings in that respect.)  Is there a landscaping requirement? (Strohmeier: No, there are not requirements for the amount of landscape area. We just require for final inspection that it is built as approved.)  It looks like they removed a tree. If they did that would it need to be replaced? (Strohmeier: Apparently the tree was not of a protected size, so they did not need a tree removal permit. They have added six minimum 24” box size new trees planted in the landscape planter. In the original building there were some shrubs and one or two trees in the planter, but now they have six landscape trees.) Marci Palatella represented the applicant as the owner.  Some of the things mentioned have answers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 12 Commission questions/comments:  Why did the changes happen? Specifically the stone. (Palatella: Had talked to staff about finishing off one or two corners and adding above the planter box a “wainscot.” Texted the stone contractor and things were fine until there was a misunderstanding on the California Drive side. The General Contractor was on vacation, and in fact he has been supervising the stone contractor. The stone installers accidentally went up to the belly band on one side. This was never the plan since they wanted symmetry. Had the designer draw up additional plans to add some other things. Stone contractor said this would take 1-2 days. Figured as long as coming in to apply, finish up what was talked about and draw a full set of plans. It took him much more than 1-2 days, and she was not here for part of it, but she told him to go ahead. Felt that as the building was progressing the stucco seemed to dominate. It looked like a big brown stucco box sitting there. The entry had a very nice stone surround, but rest of the building looked incomplete. This is why we proceeded with the over- the-counter change to add some more stone. Seemed the building was out of balance; the right side of building seemed extremely heavy but beautiful, but the left side looked like it was not finished. Decided to carry some of the stone around to other side of building.)  The front door configuration and the window above it changed. (Palatella: Something to do with ADA and the way the doors had to open. There is a 2% slope in front of door, but ultimately could not avoid replacing the entire sidewalk. Not sure when that happened.)  Why did belly band get skinnier and flatter? It was supposed to be built up to give it more of a profile. (Palatella: Changed it – it was one of the objections at the previous meeting, that the belly band was too Mediterranean. The Commission wanted it to be flatter and more square.)  The original proposal for the belly band was fluted, like a cornice, so the design was modified to be flatter as shown in the approved elevation. But now the belly band is less prominent – the windows eat into it, and then all the stone. (Palatella: The belly band is more prominent in person than is in the drawing or photo, but did not realize there was that much difference in proportion.)  Given the location, this is a gateway building. There will be a lot of scrutiny. People want this to be representative of a level of construction and design. None of the changes made it better – they diluted the design. It is one thing to add stone to define an element, but this like randomly wallpapering it. (Palatella: Have lived here a long time, and hated that building. Have had an office in Burlingame for 25 years, and thought the building was such an eyesore and an embarrassment for the town. That was one of the motivations to buy it. When compared to what was there, it is amazing, a dramatic improvement and enhancement to the neighborhood.)  The canopy around the corner being lowered seems awkward and unfortunate. Understands why it happened, but wishes there had been some more creative thinking or foresight to create structure where it was needed if that was the issue. (Palatella: There will be a bronze metal awning going over it.) It is much lower than what was approved. Previously it lined up with the other awning – it was a datum line, together with the cornice, belly band and overhangs. Now it is lower than the header height of the windows, and looks like a mistake. (Palatella: Would like to see it higher?) What was originally proposed, there was a rationale for it. (Palatella: Did not realize it had been lowered.)  The stone treatment is like the jewelry on the outfit, and then when there is too much it dilutes the impact that it has. Also stone will often naturally go into a change of profile, but now it feels like there are some transitions where it is not trimmed off. (Palatella: It is not finished. Did not want foam trim. Everything that looks like that will have a coating with a product called archistone. It feels and looks just like concrete, and will blend into stucco. It will be the stucco color, not the stone color.)  Adding any more stone? (Palatella: There is a doorway in the back that was stopped, that has the surround half-way around. The left and right sides have been done, but not the top.)  (Palatella: Other big issue was the two walls along parking lot. There were chain-link fences there. Having huge problem with people parking there – they open the chain link fences from the construction and park there all weekend. Have already had an attempted break-in where the door CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 13 was pried. Took down the chain link fence and put up two four-foot walls, and will have to put up gates to keep people out.)  (Palatella: Stopped everything else. The trim seen now is the awful gray foam, but it won’t look like that. The archistone will be added.)  Will any more stone veneer be added, or just the stone cap? (Palatella: Only part not complete is the trim pieces underneath the belly band, and the surround around the rear door. The trim around the windows will be the cast stone.)  Where was garbage area before? Looks like where it is now is right adjacent to the property line. (Palatella: It is the back of a garage. There was a small triangle with a tree in it, but had to rip it out because there were gas tanks underneath from a previous gas station. Proposing a fence with lattice to screen the garbage. Previously it was just a dumpster in the parking lot. Did not think it out until recently.) The concern from the neighbors during approval was the hours the trash would be taken out, not where it is located.  The stone is handsome but it has been spread around so much of the building it has lost its logic. In the original elevation the stone was providing a base and framing the entry. It had elegance and purpose and did what stone was expected to do with pillars and a base. Even if it was going to be a wainscot around the lower windows it still would have its purpose, acting as a foundation. Now it goes up, frames portions, has stucco, small pillars. It has lost its logic. Lost the original intent of the stone being a restrained, elegant application. Having a hard time seeing the logic for where the stone falls – don’t expect to see stone going up and framing around with stucco in the middle of it.  Stone is overdone at this point and does not have a real purpose. However, it is not up to the Commission to redesign the project. Perhaps best to send back to the architect to make it more cohesive. As it is now it is disjointed enough, it is not something that could be approved.  Should this just become a stone building?  Only problem with applying the stone on the entire building is that this particular stone is a flat stone so is typically used as a base or on a column.  The awnings are not done – once the metal is on those it will make that part more cohesive.  Maybe if it were reversed, with stone in more areas, stucco as an accent so there is some relief.  Although it is not our purview to talk about color, the color is not helping it. The red-brown is so dark next to the light yellow limestone color. If it were a cream color instead of the dark brown it would not look so patchy. But there still needs to be some logic to where the stone is applied, and the horizontal bands need to be redefined.  Has there been any feedback from neighbors? (Palatella: A lot of the property owners have come over and thanked them. Don’t disagree with the Commission on a couple of things, such as too much stone on California Drive. It was the contactor’s mistake and he did not charge for it, but it’s there. Contractor said that in order to fix it, would have to pull the stone off and re-stucco the wall.)  Can the stone contractor be made to pay for it since it was his mistake? (Palatella: Probably could. He might work out something. It was supposed to be wainscot, but there was miscommunication. Had thought of applying stone over the entire building but not sure if that is a fit.)  As the construction was going on it looked great, and much better than the old Comcast building. But then it changed, and wondered why do they keep adding more stone? Have not heard one commissioner say they like any of the changes from the previously approved project.  Garage door – commercial rather than residential.  Design does not look good. There were parking issues, but rather than issuing parking permits for the building a big wall was built. Canopy seems so low.  Better off to go back to the previously approved project? Does not see that any of the changes has helped the project. Understands it is not inexpensive to remove the stone from the building. Contractor is responsible for error. (Palatella: Did you see it before, when the stone had been put around the entrance and everything else was plain stucco? When it was built per the approved plans. Coming down Lorton Avenue towards Bellevue Avenue, it looked like a giant brown stucco box. Could see stone to the right, but that was it. It had no personality – it looked like we had just painted the old Comcast building brown.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 14  If came up with a different color that you like that worked with the stone, that might be the solution rather than adding more stone. (Palatella: The stucco is not painted – it is pigmented stucco and is told it should fade in the next year or two. The color is stronger but is said to fade 40-50%. Has had some of the same concerns.) Paint is a cheap fix.  The project keeps moving. Knows what the cost will be to remove stone. But concern about the amount of stone. Would be best to turn it back to the architect to see if he can come up with a solution. Can keep working on the inside, but suggest stopping work on the outside.  OK with the parking and the wall, and having a gate.  Real concern is stone all over the building. Can talk about the belly band again; not concerned about the garage door. Windows are not major change. Awning has been brought up and might be a concern. Landscaping on the front is better than what was there. If the neighbor on the back side does not have objection to garbage area, then it should not be a concern since it is interior to the lot. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Continuance to allow architect to propose a revised design.  Bring samples of the trim and any materials that were not on the plans to begin with. Or finish one small portion of the building with the window trim and the cap on the stone.  Look at the belly band again – try to find the horizontal datum lines that were in the original. They helped break up the vertical columns in front. Once they went away, there was not a unified language. Includes the canopies, the window head height, the belly band cornice.  Important for the commissioners to give a clear directive of what needs to happen so there is good communication between the Commission and the property owner.  Continue to a date certain. (Strohmeier: The cut-off for the next meeting is tomorrow, since this is a short week.)(Kane: It could be continued to a different date certain, as long as it is a named date.)(Gardiner: The first meeting in November would be November 12th. The cutoff date would be Wednesday, October 30th to get on the agenda for that meeting.)(Kane: Item can only be continued once without sending out a new public notice.) Vice Chair Davis reopened the public hearing. Marci Palatella represented spoke:  Will make it work. Vice Chair Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Davis moved to continue the application to a date certain (November 12, 2013), by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 15 Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Agenda Item 6 (1048 Balboa Avenue) as he lives within 500 feet of the property. 6. 1048 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (ANTHONY HO, LPMD ARCHITECTS, DESIGNER; MR. & MRS. WILSON CHENG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Mr. and Mrs. Cheng represented the applicant, and Anthony Ho was in attendance as the architect:  Old house, wanted to make it look better and build a second story.  Brought in sample window for Commission to see. Commission comments:  What are the existing windows in the front? (Mrs. Cheng: Existing windows are vinyl, so matching the existing.)  Understand using the vinyl windows given they match the existing windows, and not wanting to replace the existing windows.  Existing house is adobe style, but the whole fabric of the design changes with the second story addition. It doesn’t blend in well with the first floor. Not sure if the solution is to make the second floor look like the first floor, or potentially remodel some of the first floor rooflines to match up with the second floor. (Mrs. Cheng: Used Photoshop to see what adobe design would look like on top, but it was ugly and too boxy.) Not sure what the solution is.  Extending the chimney, it looks a bit skinny. Maybe it needs to be wider or change the shape from the base up. Will have a hard time making it that skinny and tall. If it is made a bit wider and continue with the recessed plaster portions on the way up, it would help the design.  From the Carmelita side the first floor is very boxy and does not relate to the addition. It is too abrupt; it looks like two different houses superimposed on top of each other. Same with the back – the first floor is squared off, but then there is a completely different roofline on the second story.  Front has tried to echo some of the shapes with the entry, but it is not working yet.  The window above the front door seems like it is the wrong proportion, should be smaller. Maybe a round window. The window as shown is too wide. (Mrs. Cheng: Can fix that, work with the window.)  Might want to put the bathroom where the master walk-in closet is instead. There would be a small window in the master closet, and the bathroom would be between Bedroom 2 and 3. (Mrs. Cheng: If the bathroom was swapped with the closet, would lose windows. Would not want skylights. Windows in the bathroom are important, especially with mold in the house.)  How is the entry archway being done? (Ho: The archway is original. Every six or eight inches there is a step, so there are three steps up. It is being preserved – being built in the existing style.)  Addition does not seem to blend. Not sure if the parapet needs to be echoed above, or put more tiles below. Reads like the addition is plopped inside with the parapet walls around it. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 16  Scale of entry piece is too large for the rest of the house. What was there before seemed more appropriately scaled. Maybe smaller so the primary opening is not so overwhelming.  The lines of the balcony popping out to the left of the entry don’t seem to fit with what else is going on with the design.  In front the walls are in plane so the wall behind the balcony is in plane with the wall below it. So is it just trim being built out there? (Ho: Correct.)  OK with keeping the vinyl windows. In the past we have approved projects where they replaced all the windows on the first floor with vinyl and then are doing a second story addition, and we have not required that all the windows be replaced.  Ultimately do want it to look like it is not an addition. Commend that the original house is being retained – like to see people remodeling rather than tearing down. Just needs more work done to integrate it. (Ho: We can improve the roofline between the first and second floor. Rather than have a flat roof we could have a sloped roof. Then it would like it is cascading.)  Could go the other way around: change the first floor to match second floor.  There are some nice elements in the parapet walls and in the edge details along the roof edge of the first floor, but if you took some of those elements from the first floor and put them up on the second floor you might find that you have something really nice there.  Don’t see this as a house that needs to have tile. It could have a flat roof and balconies, maybe some railing. (Mrs. Cheng: People told me not to have a flat roof. It would have a water problem. The roof now slopes only slightly, and the trees drop leaves. It is difficult in winter. That is why we want a pitched roof.) There will be the same problem with gutters. It’s all in the execution – if the roof is flat there needs to be more than one outlet, and there needs to be a maintenance plan that looks at the roof each year before winter sets in.  (Mrs. Cheng: The second floor setback/declining height requirement is the reason the second floor is set back. Would it be preferable to request a variance to extend the wall straight up? Only on the Carmelita side.) (Strohmeier: There is no declining height envelope on the exterior side, only the interior side setback. So it would only be one side.) Variances have been granted in some instances where it was part of the architectural style of the house, such as a Colonial or four-square. It depends on what the design is. (Strohmeier: It would be a Special Permit for declining height envelope, not a variance.) (Kane: This is not a pre-decision by the Commission. It would need to review the submittal along those lines. It is an early indicator of a willingness to entertain the discussion from one commissioner.)  If it turns out there will be changes to the first floor, would encourage seeing if a porch could be added. There is 100 square feet available outside the FAR maximum that can be used for porches. A lot of people walk in the neighborhood so a porch would be a great addition. Since the entry is being changed to face Balboa Avenue, it would be an opportunity to add a porch.  Could choose to not emphasize first story parapet detail if second story parapet is in plane. Just let the wall be one plane and then have the detail more at the top. Right now it looks like something got stacked on top of something else.  Agree with having the window in the front bathroom fill the space more, should be smaller.  Right now the first floor adds a lot of character to the neighborhood. So many of the other new homes are like a “cookie cutter.” (Mrs. Cheng: That is why we want to keep the first floor.)  Rear elevation looks a bit rough – there are so many windows on the first floor in the back, but none on the second floor. (Mrs. Cheng: There is a view of multiunits to the rear and it feels like there is no privacy. Concerned with having windows facing multiunits.)  Could there be transom (high) windows? It’s nice to have windows from two directions for light and cross ventilation. (Mrs. Cheng: The multiunit buildings are taller so could still look in.) Could have obscure glass. (Mr. Cheng: Thought since there were enough windows on the street side there would not need to be more on the back.) (Mrs. Cheng: It is something we can change.)  Windows on the second floor have less of a privacy issue of people looking in.  Neighborhood has fantastic landscaping, but there is a lot of hardscape proposed here. It looks like a driveway, except it’s not a driveway. It’s a lot of paving for a front yard. (Mrs. Cheng: Wants to CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 17 have a lawn in the back, but only a small sized lawn is allowed so decided to put all the lawn in the back. If rules could be waived, would like to have more lawn area. But if not will have pavers and plants and make it more like a fenced courtyard to go with the adobe/Spanish style.)  Could use low-water plants such as succulents, rosemary. (Mrs. Cheng: Son has allergies to lots of plants – doesn’t want a lot of flowering plants.) Maybe add a tree. (Mrs. Cheng: Can look at adding more trees.) If Mediterranean could add a feature such a fountain or a tree with a hardscape bench around it, so that the courtyard does not look so empty. Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  Has there been enough feedback, or does it need to go to a design review consultant?  We’ve been pretty clear and they seem receptive. It can be continued if there needs to be more direction. They understand the design options we’ve been talking about and it was a productive discussion. Commissioner Gaul 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 Vice Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Sargent absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. 7. 1378 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEOFF GIBSON, WINDER GIBSON ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KERMIT AND SARI MCCONNELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had an email discussion and conversation with the applicants about some of the design elements after having talked with neighbors. There were no other ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Geoff Gibson represented the applicant:  Sent to the project planner a survey of the heights of adjacent buildings. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 18  Originally tried to design house to be within the 30-foot height limit, but found it was hard to do with the upslope lot. Decided to apply for the Special Permit, but was concerned about adjacent heights so had surveyor check heights of adjacent buildings. Found that proposal is lower than both adjacent buildings, so while a special height permit is required it is well within context of the setting.  Design is in keeping with the declining height envelope, and supports the concept. Was a big inspiration in the massing, keeping the second floor well in from the sides and well back from the front.  It is a nice rear yard, so while there is a tall wall in the back it is not looming over any other houses and creates a nice indoor/outdoor relationship. Commission questions/comments:  Where is the high point of the neighbors? Is it a pitched roof? (Gibson: On the site plan the building at 2117 Hillside Drive has a fairly complicated roof pattern with a couple of different gabled roofs. The height measurement is to the ridgeline of the gabled roof. On the 1374 DeSoto Avenue neighbor, there are some sloped roofs but there is a large portion of flat roof at the rear. The flat roof lines up with the front gable of that house. The wall is about five feet away from our property so is an intense wall, but is fine. The client has spoken to that neighbor, as well as the neighbor across the street. They are both in support of the project.)  Have spoken with the neighbors at 1381 and 1374 DeSoto Avenue? (Gibson: Yes and has also tried to contact the neighbor that is adjacent to the left of the back yard at 2113 Hillside Drive. They have not been home but is interested in speaking with them in person.)  Compliment on the letter and the thoroughness of the application. The pictures, the renderings, being proactive with surveying, and reaching out to neighbors – this is the model applicant. (Gibson: Does not mean he does not expect to receive comments. Not trying to “sell it” but thinks it is helpful to understand where decisions came from.)  Neighbor to the back, on Vancouver Avenue – assuming they are far enough away? (Gibson: There are some very mature trees in the easement/alleyway. We can’t see their house from our house. They are both fairly deep lots.)  Initial thought it was hard to justify higher height, but all the neighbors are at similar heights. It is a Special Permit, not a Variance, so there is less of a hardship to prove. (Gibson: And it is only in a small portion of the overall floorplan, with the 10-foot ceiling to allow the clerestory windows.)  Will be good to clean up the existing stucco.  Likes application, has a quirkiness to it. Has a contemporary feel to it and it works OK. Cleans up some unfortunate things that were done to the house before. The massing is a little different but it works for this house, and can work in this neighborhood since it is a little eclectic.  In terms of these special permits we often look at these upsloping lots and try to determine the height of the house itself. If this was on a flat lot the height relative to the average top of curb along the front of the house it would not be any taller than a normal two-story house. This provides justification for the Special Permit because of the upsloping lot.  What is happening with the garage door? Is it being replaced? (Gibson: Was going to have a stained wood garage door to add a touch of warm tone on the front of the façade. After doing pricing, leaning towards keeping the existing garage door. But if a new wood door to go with the wood front door was a strong design element, could probably go for it. Would also be fine leaving the existing door, especially financially.) The way the front door and garage door is rendered is very striking on the rendering. If the garage door could be painted and have that feel to it, that could help.  The existing house has the metal railing on the front porch. Renderings have taken the “artists’ license” of not showing the railings, but they need to be there.  Will there be a new front door? (Gibson: Yes. Wanted to clean up the stucco, remove the foam trim, improve the garage door, and improve the access to the house. Right now there it is hard to get to the front door, you almost can’t tell that it is there. Wanted to turn the face of the house straight on CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 19 to the street and make a more inviting set of stairs up to the front door. More accessbile as a pedestrian, more inviting and direct.)  Nice approach with the stairs. Will need to add railings but having the stairs come down to the front, and in stages with the landings – it is sculpted nicely.  Really likes the design. Not making major changes to the front of the house, and the sloping lot justifies the Special Permit.  Fence around the property is falling down. The plans indicate repairs as needed. Not looking to replace, but some TLC and straightening, and replacing some of the lattice work. (Gibson: Will fix the fence before initiating the project.)  What are the thoughts with the front railing? (Gibson: It is drawn in the elevations but not shown on the renderings, Sheet A3.3. Want to coordinate the inside and outside railings. Might do a powder- coated steel with wood cap rail. Would go with the column. Don’t want it to be overly industrial, but also not overly wrought iron or Mediterranean either.) The column is rather delicate, so something not as chunky. (Gibson: Could almost get away with not having a railing there since the fall from the landing to the adjacent planter is under 30 inches, but still thinks there should be a railing.)  Likes that the existing garage has windows, whereas the rending shows a solid door. That would be an argument to keep the existing door.  Was there consideration of a porch in front since the entry is being changed? (Gibson: Did not want to make the porch bigger. Thought it would crowd out the adjacent window, which is not being changed. It is bigger than a landing, but it is not a porch. With the upslope lot do not get the same kind of pedestrian vibe.) Could sit with neighbors on the steps. It’s a huge walking neighborhood, people are out and about all the time. (Gibson: Wanted to have the little roof over the door, orienting the door so it could be seen directly from the street and making the landing a bit bigger than it needs to be so a little bench could be tucked in.)  Special Permit is not an instant ticket because it is on a slope. It is significant that the high point is in the back. If it was too far forward it would be too imposing on the street. The way it is done here is supportable. Public comments: Jim Schneider, 2109 Hillside Drive spoke on this item:  Back property line is adjacent to north property line of the subject property.  In the back looking at the extension, looks like the roofline will increase by 6 feet. There was a hip roof before so the roofline was down a couple of feet and it gave a perception of not being as high.  The extension is coming towards the back of the yard, coming out another 12 feet, so house is moving closer to his property and house – further enhances the tallness of the rear of the building.  Concern over privacy since there are a lot of windows on the back of the second story.  There is a tree on the property that is in line sight between that second floor and his property. Provides a certain amount of screening, but adding six feet will go above that. The floor and windows will be higher so there will be an easy view from that bank of windows into his yard.  Proposed landscape plan does not show the existing tree. There is not a reference to moving it or keeping it. It is the only screening from the back of the subject property and his. If tree is gone it is a clear view, but even with the tree it is not sufficient. Looks like it is a fast-growing tree so it is good, but the concern is it is not in the design.  While homes on either side of the subject property have similar roof lines or peaks, his does not. His is 15 feet from ground with flat roof. If theirs is at 25 or 26 feet, it is 10-12 feet above his yard looking down across the fences. Doesn’t have a second floor so not peering down on anybody.  Has not yet been contacted by architect or owner. Has not been around but has not had any conversations yet.  (Commissioner: Which windows concerned with?) Rear upstairs windows. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 20 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. There public hearing was reopened to allow comments from the applicant: Geoff Gibson:  Need to determine if the tree is on the property, or adjacent. Not planning to remove it if it is on the property.  New high point of the roof as shown on Sheet A3.1 is 120.46 feet above sea level proposed, and the current high point of the hip roof is 116.96 feet. The new highest point is 3½ feet above the existing highest point – but pushed back further. May be six feet above the eave line, but not 6 feet above the high point. Commission comments/questions:  Because the houses on Hillside Drive are set further back, their rear yards are smaller. Is there anything that can be done with planting to create a screen?  Develop a landscape plan more.  The project is helped because it has alleys on two sides of the property – the left and rear. Although the houses on Hillside Drive are pushed back further, there is a 10-foot easement as a buffer. (Gibson: Can do that. Both houses will want privacy.)  There are a lot of pavers on the landscape plan. Should look closely at what kinds of plantings to have along the fence to soften the fence line. (Gibson: Currently interviewing landscape firms, and intent is to fill out the landscape plan). Doesn’t need specific plant types, but needs to know that there will be planting areas, more than one tree, some screening trees, and break up the paved space. Instead of pavers maybe decomposed granite or some other type of softscape. It would soften the plan and help with the screening with the neighbors.  The high point of the second story is 17’-8” feet from the side property line, and 45’-7½“ from the rear property line. It is pushing back into the rear yard, but the high point is tucked into the middle of the house. The windows are facing to the rear, and one high transom window on the side. It is sculpted as nicely as it can be, but it is a sloping lot. Sari McConnell (property owner) spoke on the project:  Is a gardener, and loves the tree being discussed. Did not occur to her to put it on the plan.  If she had her druthers, would like to work on rear yard in the back first and do house second, but that would not be practical. Has been taking time to find the right person to create a lush back yard, which it does not currently have enough of. Does not mind being told to plant more trees – happy to do it. Commission comments/questions:  It is a more urgent issue now with the understanding that a better landscape plan needs to be submitted with some sensitivity to neighbor screening. Understanding that species might change when it comes down to the final selection, but knowing that you have ‘x’ sized box tree that is going to be put back there. Committing to something now so we can know what is being approved, and the neighbors can know what is being approved. Vice Chair Davis closed the public hearing.  Not a lot of comments on the design. Needs to work things out with the neighbor, communicating how it is going to look from his perspective. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 21  Developing the landscape plan. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  Encourage reaching out to the other neighbor that they have not been able to talk to so far. Their impact is even greater because they are closer. Vice Chair Davis 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 Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:39 p.m. 8. 21 PARK ROAD, ZONED BMU – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, 8- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (SAMIR SHARMA, APPLICANT; DANA DENARDI, PROPERTY OWNER; SDG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All commissioners noted that they had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he met with the president of the Homeowners’ Association of 33 Park Road (Unit 12), toured the unit, and also spoke with another resident of the complex. There were no other ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated October 15, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  There is no variance being requested, and no Special Permit for height required. However the staff report mentions that the applicant is utilizing the height incentive to increase building height by including the inclusionary Below Market Rate (BMR) unit, and also using the incentive to increase the number of compact parking stalls. However, it appears they are only providing two compact stalls when they are allowed to provide up to five, and the building is not 46 feet. (Gardiner: Correct. When a BMR unit is included the applicant may choose up to two bonuses. In this instance they have chosen compact parking spaces and increased building height. In theory they could provide a greater percentage of compact parking spaces than what has been provided – up to 50% of the total may be compact spaces. The height could go as high as 46 feet without a Conditional Use Permit. They have not gone beyond three stories but have taken some additional height for the parapets to have some architectural variety.)  Is the zero lot line for this neighborhood a new standard? (Gardiner: Yes, the zoning in much of downtown was amended with the Downtown Specific Plan in 2010, including setbacks and building heights. The thinking was that the areas closer to the middle of downtown could have a little more of the downtown character. This was a departure from earlier zoning standards. However, this was with the understanding that the neighborhood context would need to be considered for each project. The surroundings of this area include a variety, including former single family homes that have been converted to commercial uses, as well as some small office buildings that have been built up to the property lines or close by. It is not a “one size fits all” situation, so that is where the design guidelines are very important.) Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 22 Jeff Potts represented the applicant:  Presented rationale of how the design was developed.  Proposing a three story building – approximately 38 feet tall. Could have been a four story, 46-foot tall building. Wanted to keep in character with the neighboring three-story buildings.  Neighboring buildings are similar in height. They have somewhat flatter roofs without the parapets so may be a bit lower.  Went with Spanish style but with a modern, clean, contemporary feel to fit in with both the older and newer buildings around.  Focal point at the main entry.  Variety of massing on the front to break down the scale, provide human scale at the street. Bays extending out, decks pushed back into the building, and some trellis elements.  As a through lot, there are frontages on both sides. The rear elevation has movement from the property line and setback line cutting across it at an angle. Decks oriented to the street.  In the back are some of the C.3 requirements, landscape requirements, and an accessible area.  The south elevation is set back to provide light and ventilation, and the north side is basically a fire wall at the property line. The south side has some vertical elements, and then has decks recessed into the building to provide light, ventilation, and outdoor space for the residents.  The north elevation is a relatively flat wall. There are inset elements pushed in about 1 – 1½ feet. Idea is to get light into the interior hallway, and be able to do a planter element with some green vines growing up the side of the building.  Part of the thinking in pushing the building to the north side was concern that the adjacent neighbors would not want decks from the new building looking directly onto their decks and windows at a close setback. We thought it would be preferable to have a “green wall” and do the fire wall on that side, and then maintain the privacy of their decks and patios.  The site is 50-feet wide. The building proposed is 45’-6” feet wide. The minimum needed to make the parking work is 45 feet. There is only five feet to play with.  The Building Division requires a 5-foot walk down one side of the building for ADA requirements to access the El Camino Real sidewalk and the open space behind the building.  The trade-off is either have the 5-foot sidewalk going down the fenceline of the adjacent condominiums but having the balconies and windows facing, or come up with a “green wall” feature that satisfies that issue.  Regarding incentive for building height, originally had the building pushed down into the site and did not need the incentive. However it made the grading, drainage, and accessibility more complicated. Used a small portion of the additional height to go up from 35 to 38 feet tall.  Regarding incentive for compact parking spaces, although there could be additional compact spaces thought that if there are 8 units there should be at least 8 full-sized parking spaces. Having more compact spaces would not provide enough room to create another space. Commission questions/comments:  Provide a summary of why the minimum width would need to be 45 feet? Is it driven by the parking? (Potts: 20-foot deep parking stalls, 24-foot backup, and 6 inches of wall on each side. Right now the building is 45’-6” – there is about 4½ extra inches in the backup, and 1½ inches in the parking stalls.)  Are the parking stalls required to be 20 feet? (Stromeier: A standard parking stall in a residential complex is 20 feet, and a compact stall is 17 feet)(Potts: Cannot have all stalls be compact. Still needs the 24-foot backup. Will be using CMU for the first part of the wall so that if someone bumps their car into the wall they will not be damaging it.)  Are there possibilities for allowing some relief from the parking depth and backing depth requirements? (Gardiner: A variance could be requested for modifying the parking standard. However 20 feet is the standard for residential interior garages so findings would need to be made if CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 23 there was a deviation from that.)(Stromeier: For reference, the commercial standards have been changed to require only 18 feet depth for standard spaces and 17 feet for compact.)  They are not taking all of their compact spaces. Would that make a difference? (Gardiner: Half of the spaces would still need to be standard dimension, and that is what sets the overall dimension for the garage.)(Potts: On commercial spaces there is usually overhang such as over a planter or landscaping, but there is no overhang here because of the walls.)  Is there a diagonal parking solution? (Potts: No. With diagonal spaces you would have to back all the way out of the building, or drive all the way through to El Camino Real. Access is not allowed on El Camino Real.)  Seems that there could be some other considerations for the 24 feet backup since it is a garage that residents belong to. It is not a public parking garage.  Is there a scenario where only the upper stories are set back, to allow light to come down the side? (Potts: There is always a scenario that can be considered.)  Since all the decks and balconies are recessed, could it be shifted over and then have the walkway on the north side? (Potts: The side that is pushed to the property line becomes a fire wall. If the building was just moved over to the other property line, the balconies and decks could not be there since they would be on the property line.)  Likes the building and everything except the right (north) elevation. Regardless of what the neighbors have to say, the right elevation is currently a big blank wall. The rest of the building is beautifully drawn and scaled, but the right side wall is brutal. It is more like San Francisco, where it is built to the lot line and waiting for another building to come right up against it.  Cannot tell what the proposed materials are. Would like to have keynotes to indicate.  The explanation shows that the issues have been thought through. The scale has been balanced rather than just maxing out the building. Seems like it can be solved – the focus needs to be on that one side. (Potts: There is the possibility of “flipping” the building and having the decks on that side, putting the building 4’-6” further away. The decks would be inset, but they are still decks and will be used by people living there.)  There have been projects in the Trousdale area where in order to get the pro forma to work and the number of units there might be portions where the building might step up and become four stories. It would allow for some relief on that side, with an inset, courtyard, plantings and trees along that side so the neighbors are not looking at a long blank wall. There might be portions that come to the property line, but not all of it.  Considered having it as an open hallway but there would be people coming and going.  Appreciates the thought given to neighbors in designing the hallway, but it does not sound like they have actually met with the neighbors. The neighbors will be staring at a wall, and the one screening they currently have (shurbs/trees) would be cut down in the plan. Does not take long to meet, and the neighbors seem very reasonable.  Left side (south) elevation looks a bit like a motel. There is not a lot of variety. The front and the back elevations looks good, but the sides just duplicate the second and third floor. Hoping for something a little more special like was created on the front.  Not sure what a “green wall” would look like. How will things grown when there is zero setback, not a lot of light, who will water it, how will people get to the property to trim the plants?  Regarding the affordable housing requirement, typically the least desirable unit is designated as the affordable one. Here it is the smallest unit on the lowest floor. Request that this be revisited. If six of the eight units are 2 bedrooms, perhaps choose a 2 bedroom as the affordable unit.  It is a handsome building, but don’t think balcony to balcony is a good idea. Currently they are facing the sunny side, but if there are on the other side they will be on the cold side.  Suggest shading and sun studies. The design guidelines outline the days and times to see what the shade impact would be on the neighboring property.  Building does not have to stack wall on top of wall. The first floor with the parking could be up against the property line, but then the upper floors could be set back or cantilevered over a walkway. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 24 Could then do some of the planting and greenery being described. But having the wall on the property line wall does not look like it will work.  This is a good location for multiple units. Just needs to work the design to find a solution.  Ventilation plan for garage? (Potts: Expect it to be mechanically ventilated, rather than open.) Need to know the location of mechanical equipment, and some sound information from the manufacturers.  The letter and petition from the neighbors is proposing a minimum for 3 or 4 feet for a setback. They are not saying not to allow the project, they’re asking for some relief and articulation.  Will there be a garage door? (Potts: Proposing a gate pushed back into the garage, beyond the driveway and loading space. Only residents could get beyond gate, but the delivery parking is outside the gate.)  Likes the stair in the lobby. It is great to have access to those floors from the lobby. The owners can walk up to their units – they do not always have to use the elevator. Often the stairs are just designed just as an exit stair, but this has been detailed so that it is a nice stair going to the upper floors.  Looks like the access to the bike area is tight. If someone was parked in the last space, it would be difficult for someone with a bike to get in and out. (Potts: It is about 4 feet.) Public comments: Steve Kraus, 33 Park Road, spoke on this item:  President of the 16 unit Homeowners’ Association directly bordering the proposed project.  Have sent letters of concern and a signed petition.  Not against adding new homes on the block. The 21 Park is a good location for new homes.  Welcomes new homes and new neighbors, but the design is flawed. It puts too many people onto a very small lot, to the detriment of its neighbors.  Seems like the plans conceived without considering neighbors at 33 Park Road and the neighborhood.  33 Park Road was built in 1977, set back from the property line an average of about 10 feet. Constructing a three story flat right up to the property line would block almost all of the sunlight currently enjoyed. The eight units on the south side of 33 Park would go from receiving ample morning and early afternoon direct sunlight on our balconies, large sliding glass doors and kitchen windows to instead only receiving a few minutes of sunlight per day. Homes would become dark, cold and bleak.  Currently 21 Park Road has shrubbery growing 20-feet high at the fence. Plans to remove the shrubs and replace it with a long, hard flat wall seems like it will increase the noise coming from El Camino Real down the narrow sound wall. The wall as seen from Burlingame will not make a good statement about Burlingame.  Understands the smart goals of higher-density housing in the 21st century. Recently served on the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Citizens’ Advisory Committee and have advocated and supported public policy that encourages fewer cars. However this project has a very low parking spaces to bedrooms ratio – too low for the block.  Park Road between Peninsula and Bayswater Avenues is one of the main ways people enter downtown Burlingame. There is a large and well-attended church, an associated grade school, and a funeral home all within a block. There are times during weekdays and weekends when there is no parking on the block. Eight units with 14 bedrooms and only 11 parking spaces with no guest parking will negatively impact the already dense area and clog Park Road with more people trying to park.  The problems could easily be fixed with a redesign of the project. The developers could propose a design with progressive setbacks on the first, second, and third floors to give more light and break the solid wall. They could propose fewer units.  We look forward to the developers coming back with plans we could endorse. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 25 Mary Murphy, 33 Park Road, spoke regarding this item:  Realtor in Burlingame. Has been a Realtor for 30 years in San Mateo County.  Owns a unit at 33 Park Road. Has the largest unit, facing Park Road on the north side of the development.  Concerned about property values with proposed project.  Looks like they are squeezing as many units as they can into an 8,800 square foot lot.  If this was your home and someone was going to build a solid wall up to your back yard, how would you feel? Will hurt the property values of those units on the south side of the development.  The block is very noisy. Garbage trucks on Monday and Wednesday mornings at 6 a.m. because it is a commercial and residential area.  With eight units and 11 parking stalls, the ingress and egress from the building will be diabolical with the noise. No parking provided for guests. Most people have two cars.  This is not San Francisco. Want to enjoy a quality of life, which is why people pay the high prices to live here.  Developer wants to build eight units and maximize the return on investment, which is understandable, but need to revisit this.  On this block there is a funeral home, a gym, offices, apartment buildings, the 33 Park Road condominiums, a garage at the end of road. Then add an eight-unit building on 8,800 sq ft lot. Need to protect the values and quality of life, rethink the whole thing.  People on south side of the development do not want to wake up to brick wall. Not grateful that the building will not be 46 feet high.  Do not mind having neighbors and don’t mind having the lot be developed. But does not think it is a pretty building. Does not like the description “lesser of two evils.”  Why do they not need a Variance? (Vice Chair Davis: They are within the zoning standards. The zoning standards allow buildings to go to the side setbacks.)  Burlingame Avenue is not comparable – those are stores, retail. This is residential. Eli Sigal, 33 Park Road, spoke regarding this item:  Is a real estate developer – not in Burlingame, in other places.  Everybody has already mentioned the concerns.  Owns Unit 11. It is a middle unit. Behind the garage are rooms. Baby’s room is downstairs, but will be dark. If there is going to be a tall wall there will not be light. Right now the morning light is nice.  Having done development, just did a couple of buildings in Pacifica. Had proposed a project that would cover someone’s windows, and was turned down. Did not think it would be allowed in Burlingame, so surprised to see Commission considering it.  8,800 square feet, so not a very large lot. Appreciate what they are trying to do but need to consolidate.  Just finished a project himself, and by the end knew every single neighbor. Didn’t want to deal with this kind of situation – wanted to come in with something that the neighbors would support.  If put a wall in front and cars drive by, sound will bounce. Should figure this out before the application.  The side elevation looks like Motel 6. El Camino Real and Park Road look good, but not the sides.  Want to make sure noise is addressed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 26 Commission comments:  The architects have been given direction. Would like to see shading and sun study once the building design has changed.  There has been a clear message that the property line wall will not work.  Concern about the ventilation in the garage and the associated mechanical equipment. Wants manufacturer’s specifications on the amount of noise it will generate.  There are concerns about the amount of parking, but the project complies with the parking standards and the Commission can’t require more parking or fewer units.  There is a lot of traffic there. May not be able to sell units if the parking is not perceived to be adequate. May want to scale back on the number of units to have more parking per unit.  Alternatively, other projects have been allowed that have parking lifts to add additional supplemental parking. There is some height that would need to be added to the garage level – not a full story, but enough to allow the lifts.  Noise from El Camino Real – look at materials that may be more sound-absorbing for exterior, or if just the planting material would help.  Want to make sure construction from dust and noise is looked at, as mentioned in one of the letters.  Needs to see what the materials are. Assuming tile roof, stucco walls, simulated true divided lite windows. Are the awnings metal or canvas? Wood timbers or foam?  Need to consider the residents. People pay a lot of money to live here, so developers need to take neighbors into consideration. Parking is hard, maybe think of adding lifts or reducing units.  Also look at the noise coming from individual HVAC units. Commissioner Davis made a motion to Continue the item to a date uncertain when design revisions have been made. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None Vice Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to Continue the item on the Design Review Study Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 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 October 7, 2013:  None to report. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes October 15, 2013 27 FYI: 1444 Burlingame Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project.  Accepted. FYI: 3 Belvedere Court - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project.  Accepted. FYI: 60 Edwards Court – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project.  This item was pulled for a future public hearing. Items noted by commissioners: Provision of additional parking in landscape area; landscaping at front corner of building replaced with river rock; changes to building elevations. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary