Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.11.12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California November 12, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Davis called the November 12, 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: Commissioner Sargent Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli to approve the minutes of the October 28, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 2, Item 1 (1317 Drake Avenue); amend Condition #1 to add “and that the belly band shall be paint-grade wood.”  Page 4, Item 1 (1317 Drake Avenue); in discussion of the motion, replace “as included on the plans” with “the plans should indicate that the material will be wood.”  Page 4, Item 2 (1445 Cortez Avenue); should indicate that Commissioner DeMartini opened the public hearing.  Page 5, Item 2 (1445 Cortez Avenue); should indicate that Commissioner DeMartini called for a voice vote.  Page 13, Item 4 (860 Paloma Avenue); should indicate that the motion was to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar.  Page 14, Item 5 (1153 Bernal Avenue); should indicate that the motion was to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS There were no Consent Calendar Items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 2508 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ADD A LANDING AND STAIRWAY AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (BRIAN SWARTZ, APPLICANT; SETH BROOKSHIRE, PORRO CONSTRUCTED DESIGN, ARCHITECT; IRENE MOTOVILOFF, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the property owner; Commissioner Gaul met with the property owner’s sister, who provided access to the back yard. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Brian Swartz represented the applicant:  Basic convenience and safety issue to allow the homeowner to have ingress and egress from the rear of the house to the rear yard.  Is consistent with the neighboring houses. Commission comments:  How do you get to the back yard now? Go out the front door and around? (Swartz: Yes.)  Should note that the variance being requested is to exceed the 40% lot coverage, not the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The application erroneously refers to exceeding the FAR.  The staff report says it would be exempt since it is less than 100 square feet, but then it says it is 400 square feet. (Strohmeier: It was a typo. It would be a 49 square foot uncovered landing.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Variance is not only justified by the substandard lot size, but also to provide access to the rear yard. Commissioner Davis 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 30, 2013, sheets A-0 through A-4, S-1 and S-2, and that any changes to the footprint of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 3 3. 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; 4. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. 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 7:10 p.m. 2. 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 had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the property owners. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 12, 2013 with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Geoff Gibson represented the applicant:  Only issue last time was with the neighbor. Intention was always to keep the trees.  Will be doing more landscape work in the yard. Has just engaged a landscape architect, Michael Callan, to begin designing it. Will keep the trees and probably add more. Commission questions/comments:  Able to reach the neighbor at 2113 Hillside Drive? (Gibson: Tried several times, but have not been able to get in touch. Not sure if they are out of town, on sabbatical or something. Has knocked on the door and left messages.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 4  It’s a good project, and the neighbor issues have been resolved.  Unfortunate that the neighbor at 2113 Hillside Drive was not reachable since they would have had the biggest impact. But if they are not here to object, there is nothing holding up approval of the project. Commissioner Yie 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 4, 2013, sheets A0.0 through A3.5 and date stamped October 31, 2013, sheet L2.0; 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 September 25 and July 29, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's September 25 and August 15, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 31, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's August 5, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 29, 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; 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: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 5 11. 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; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. 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:  Ok accepting the landscape plan as it stands. The trees that were identified were the critical point with the adjacent neighbor. While the applicant has stated that they will do additional landscaping, that would not be a hold-up for the project. Whatever they decide to do would be above and beyond, but the point is we are accepting the landscape plan as submitted. 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 7:16 p.m. 3. 122 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DE NGUYEN, THE DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MR. & MRS. COSTAGLIO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he was not in attendance at the July 22, 2013 Design Review study meeting, but he had watched the video. Reference staff report dated November 12, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. De Nguyen represented the applicant:  Decided to go with a brand new house. New house is situated at the average setback, 20’-8”.  Was able to enlarge the house on the width and create a front porch that is bigger.  Removed the 6 x 6 posts by putting a single post in the front.  Simplified the wood trim around the windows and doors.  Removed the deck at the Master Bedroom at the rear to simplify the look of the elevation. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 6 Commission questions/comments:  Improvement from before, including the interior layout.  Is there a reason why the stone veneer is held off the ground? On the columns it does not go down to the deck level, and on the sides it is a few inches above the grade (Nguyen: It stops at the foundation.) It would look better if it went all the way down and overlapped. (Nguyen: It is for waterproofing. Eventually landscaping will cover the gap. The Building Code requires the gap to be 8 inches.) The sill plate needs to be a certain distance up, but not the stone veneer.  There are ways to detail the stone veneer without having the big gap. With hardscape paving at the bottom, can reduce the gap to 2 inches, or could take it all the way down and have a gap at a higher point with weep holes to allow the water to come out from behind the stone. With the gap it makes the stone look fake – does not look like the foundation of the house.  Happy to see the porch, and likes the changes to the front elevation.  Doors to the den make it look like another front door. Maybe change it to a window so the front door will be the prominent entry point. Would then allow there to be furniture on the porch – otherwise the size of the porch and the door swing would make it hard to have room for a bench. (Nguyen: Previously the commission has liked the doors to open to the porch. Can change it to the window, but thinks people will be able figure out which door is the front door. There will be a custom wood front door that highlights the main entrance, and the pathway leads to the front door. Willing to change it to windows however.)  The rear elevation looks a bit flat without the balcony. Maybe something to give it a little relief? Even a trellis over the French doors would help the elevation. (Nguyen: A trellis over the door would not be practical. Would look good but over time when growing vines, they will drip down over the doors. Not functional – wants to make sure everything is functional.) Do not have to grow things on a trellis – sometimes they are just for shade.  Maybe make a box window if there is enough square footage? (Nguyen: Could put a planter box under the three windows.)  As shown the rear French doors are exposed to the weather. A trellis or awning would not only help with the massing, but would help protect the doors.  In previous meeting asked for clarification on size of brackets. Still looks vague on new plans.  Clarify the construction hours – not an issue starting at 8:00 a.m.? (Nguyen: Not an issue.)  The existing property is not being maintained, does not look good. The leaves on the front yard are at least six inches deep.  On the trim should be at least 2 x 8 or 2 x 6 instead of 1 x 8 or a 1 x 6. It will last better that way. If it’s a 1 x will be too small, fall apart. Thicker wood will go with this style of house. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments:  There are a few things that need to be addressed, but they are just some details. Not sure it is worth holding up project.  Could bring the changes back as an FYI. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 7 November 1, 2013, sheets T1 through GN, Landscape Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that the following items will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI: - Sizes of the corbels and trim members; - French doors on the front be changed to a window; - Changes to the rear elevation; - Stone detail that addresses the base of the stone veneer. 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 26, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 21, 2013 and April 18, 2013, memos, the Parks Supervisor’s June 17, 2013 and April 25, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's April 30, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 28, 2013 and April 18, 2013 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 8 PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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 16. 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 Yie. 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 7:35 p.m. 4. 960 DAVID ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE STORAGE (KEVIN PETROVIC/FLIGHTCAR, APPLICANT; FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES D. VALENTI, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner Gaul mentioned that he had discussed the item with Sue Harris, who works on code enforcement in both Burlingame and Millbrae. He mentioned that on this same evening the Millbrae City Council is considering revocation of FlightCar’s Conditional Use Permit for its main operations, and questioned whether the Burlingame Planning Commission could consider the application for vehicle storage at 960 David Road given the uncertainty of the operations in Millbrae. City Attorney Kane responded that staff’s view is that this is a freestanding application requesting a limited approval and the Planning Commission should evaluate it on its own merits. The applicant is aware that the Planning Commission would be considering just the uses proposed in this application, and any violation of a permit (if granted) would be taken very seriously by this jurisdiction. Reference staff report dated November 12, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 9  Is the peak traffic period 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.? (Gardiner: Yes. When the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was prepared, these were determined to be the peak travel times. The condition applies to any business that involves moving vehicles.)  The site is in the drainage easement, under the high voltage lines. What other uses are allowed? (Gardiner: Use is highly restricted. Parking of operable vehicles is the predominant use. No structures are allowed. It is designed so if there is flooding, everything can be moved out.) Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Kevin Petrovic represented the applicant:  Proposing to use a small part of the parking lot, adjacent to the parking for other businesses. The lot is one large paved area divided into four parts, and three are being used by different parties.  Don’t expect to alter the site except for adding the required signs warning about the possibility of flooding.  How many cars will be stored? (Petrovic: There are 28 striped spaces. We would be within that limit. Do not believe they can put more there.)  What percentage of the fleet does that represent? (Petrovic: Do not have a fixed fleet – it varies. Does not believe the site will be used to capacity often, but occasionally it will.)  Rough idea – how many cars would be parked on a weekend? (Petrovic: Right now have between 90 to 120 cars at any given time at the San Francisco location. During the summer it was a bit higher because of leisure travel. We only make money when the cars are on the road being rented, so it is in our interest to have the least amount of cars parked possible.)  In the application it anticipates moving cars between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m. It’s the middle of night. (Petrovic: The operation is almost 24 hours a day. It is difficult to run an operation where you have people’s cars parked and not have their cars accessible to them if their flight happens to be late. Wants the ability to move cars around during those off-peak hours when we have staff on site waiting for people arriving. Would not impact traffic much, and would allow preparation of cars that are scheduled to go out the following morning.)  Worried about the neighbors across California Drive complaining about the noise at night. Have had problems with the party store making noise, can be clearly heard from the neighborhood. (Petrovic: Thinks the operations of the Coca Cola next door will far outweigh any noise that we would bring in given the size of their trucks versus our cars.)  Wherever main operation lands, the intent of this space is site vehicle storage. Assume if someone is arriving and needs their car back, need to plan accordingly to get the car during the off-peak hours so it is available wherever they are going to go to pick it up? (Petrovic: Inventory system shows where the car is stored, so when looking at the upcoming customers either renting or picking up the staff will be alerted if it needs to move the car. No customers will be coming to the site, only the staff will move the cars.)  Will need to keep it organized to only coming to get cars at off-peak hours. (Petrovic: Not practical to move cars during peak hours. Would take almost twice as long to do it.)  Concern about not having a definite location for the business. Fear is if Millbrae does not work, will land back here and be where they were several months ago. Would like to see the business established somewhere. Millbrae has had substantial costs from staff time, and concerned that might happen with Burlingame too. Burlingame staff spent a lot of time when the operation was here before. Understands that we are going to try to set down a set of rules and conditions, but track record does not follow that. (Petrovic: Even in Burlingame, initially there was confusion about what was the acceptable zoning and permitted uses. We have complied with requirements – were asked to move the operations off the site by July 31st and did that. A lot of the larger sites being considered are in Burlingame or South San Francisco, so want to make sure we are following the rules. When FlightCar left Burlingame July 31st, ended up at Millbrae prematurely. The Millbrae Planning Commission had approved a temporary structure for use on the site but the plan checkers CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 10 said they would not meet certain code requirements that would be required of a permanent building. Plans for a permanent building were submitted in September, and once the plans were submitted worked with the City to schedule the inspections quickly. Have done everything in their power to move the process along as quickly as possible. Not out to avoid complying with requirements to reduce costs. Believes will be able to continue operating in Millbrae. Issue of contention is City of Millbrae has a parking tax, but since parking is free should not be taxed. Site is on a one-year lease, already over half up. Already too small, so looking for larger sites. Other locations in progress.)  To staff, would there be any point of sale tax revenues for Burlingame? (Gardiner: Not for what is being proposed here. Should they move their operations to another site in Burlingame and conduct transactions, will need to address it at that point.)  To staff, no structures are allowed, but there are temporary structures there now. Would those no longer be allowed? (Gardiner: The existing structures would need to be removed. Only operable vehicles would be allowed. Any structures under consideration would need to be checked with the Building Division first.)  Parking other vehicles? Today there are car wash vans parked on the site. It would seem like there are multiple businesses operating from the site. Would this be conditioned so only FlightCar could use the spaces? (Kane: FlightCar as permit holder would be responsible for the uses on the site, and the uses would need to conform with the conditions the Commission imposes. One of them related to car washing has to do with stormwater discharge. The allocation of those spaces is somewhat up to FlightCar provided they comply with their conditions.) Would those other vehicles be subject to the peak and off-peak hours? (Kane: Yes.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  If all the conditions were adhered to would not have a problem, but has problem with how the business was conducted initially in Burlingame as well as how it’s being conducted now in Millbrae. Would like to see the business have a base. Afraid the business will transfer back here if they leave Millbrae. Commissioner Gaul moved to continue the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  In other areas of Burlingame we encourage property owners to have uses other than parking or rental cars that provide more benefit, but fewer options here. However, doesn’t see the benefits to the City as written in the Conditional Use application. It does not bring more vibrancy and activity to the street while maintaining the existing development, does not have transaction benefit. Doesn’t see an alternate benefit either. Could see if moving forward if it was a clean operation and they had a going concern and this was supporting that, but a problem because the main operation is up in the air.  They will find an alternate site that could handle their full volume, then would not need this site. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 11  The potential is for this to be a detrimental use if they do not have their main operation figured out. Would potentially be a code enforcement burden without any other benefit other than the tenancy of the property.  Continue to a date certain? (Kane: If continuing, would advise to a date certain. A short continuance for additional information to the Commission would allow it to see how this fits in with the business plan.)  Currently cannot meet finding (a) in the Findings for a Conditional Use Permit. Not hazardous or dangerous, but there is the issue of convenience to other properties in the vicinity. Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue to the November 25, 2013 meeting. The motion passed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). The action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 114 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JOE SABEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JULIE AND LONO BELLOMO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the property owner. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 12, 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. Joe Sabel represented the applicant:  Upgrade of the existing one-story home. Has tried to work with a lot of the existing materials and the fabric of the neighborhood, as well as introduce new materials.  Worked with the mass and bulk. Looked at maintaining light coming in to the side yards, and the articulation of the massing from the front.  Owners spent time reaching out to the neighbors, and contacted 6-8 of those adjacent. Received positive feedback on the initial design. Commission questions/comments:  It is a dramatic change. Care will need to be taken to make sure it is integrated well with the neighborhood.  Fascias at the gable ends – with the large base rafter at gable ends and the small-profile roof tiles, could end up looking a bit like a tract home, as opposed to a barrel tile that overlaps the fascia in the more traditional manner. (Sabel: That is the intention, to capture the “old school” look.) Could extend fascia below.  Is there a plan for the sill material, on the windows flanking the entry porch? (Sabel: Not foam. Would probably be painted wood, or stone if it fits into the budget.) Wood would be OK.  At the base of the entry columns it looks like there is a pedestal in the front elevation, but in the right elevation looks like it the column is not shown the same. The two drawings do not look like they are consistent. (Sabel: The intent is to introduce the stone element, as shown on the front elevation.)  Likes the detail with the deep-set front casement windows.  Detail on the upstairs deep-set window, on the plan does not show it thicker like it does on the lower walls in the Office and Living Room. Would the upstairs walls be thick as well to accommodate the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 12 deep-set windows? (Sabel: Yes, specifically in Bedroom #2 the front wall should be reflected as a deeper-set window.)  On the gable ends a clay attic vent detail may help.  Landscape plan with bigger trees at front helps.  During construction should be mindful that schools are nearby – school traffic in the mornings. (Sabel: Could have owners notify when heavier trucks are coming.)  Front window to right of front door is hidden behind the column. Maybe the window needs to shift to the right 6 inches or so. (Sabel: Initially had the fireplace unit engaged into the garage so the window was pushed back, but now pushed back to scale seating. Also it is a rare perspective moment, and will never see the house straight on.)  The Bedroom #3 bathroom window is not shown on the plan. (Sabel: Correct. Forgot to put it on the plan.) If didn’t want to do a window could do an inset tile treatment that is decorative from the outside, since there is a big window next to the bath tub right next to it. Could save money on waterproofing. If did a tile recess could make it taller, to fill more of the gable bump-out. (Sabel: Have considered a fixed window, sans frame. Inset tile aesthetic could be nice character to add.)  Could also allow a painted fiberglass window, for moisture.  Could do both – have a window in a recess.  Likes the fireplace at the rear with the French doors.  The front entry piece seems overscaled for the house. Maybe if the eave line lined up with the eave around it, it would still come up from that and be prominent from the streetfront. (Sabel: Face of the porch is lined up with the face of garage.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion:  It is fine-tuning a handsome design. Refinements and embellishments, not fixes. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 12, 2013 13  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 4, 2013:  None to report. FYI: 824 Linden Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Residential Design Review Project.  Accepted. Director’s Comments:  Planning Manager Gardiner mentioned that the next community workshop to review the proposed joint development at Parking Lot E will be on December 11, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame Recreation Center. It will be a publicly noticed meeting and all Planning Commissioners are invited to attend. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary