Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.04.14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the April 14, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Terrones Absent: Commissioners Sargent and Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Davis moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 1; third bullet from bottom of page: change “development” to “develop”.  Page 4; second bullet from top of page: change “distance” to “distant” and delete the second “delete” in the same line.  Page 8; second “Commission comments” section; first bullet: change “application” to “applicant”.  Page 8; second “Commission comments” section; third bullet; second line: insert “the” between “of” and “time”, and insert “they” after “time”.  Page 14; “Commissioner comments/questions”; second bullet; second sentence: replace “it” with “is”; insert a “.” After “tight”; replace “could we” with “If we”; and insert “the” between “push” and “whole”.  Page 16; comments from property owners; seventh bullet: insert “be” between “elevations” and “at” in the final line.  Page 17; comments from Ray and Barbara Forrest; third bullet: replace “other trees” with “the side”. Motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff spoke from the floor:  Is sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns regarding the project at 21 Park Road; particularly with respect to setbacks. It is not fair to structures that are already there.  The neighborhood is definitely a residential area as well as a commercial area. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 2  Encouraged the Commission to respect the wishes of the neighbors with regards to the side setback issue. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN – GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE FIRM AND PARKS & RECREATION STAFF WILL PRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN FOR PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT. STAFF CONTACT: MARGARET GLOMSTAD Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad introduced the team charged with presenting the master plan to the Commission. An overview of the Community Center Master Plan was provided. Planning Commission comments/questions: Commissioner Terrones:  How does the new proposed facility compare to the existing? (Response - 25,000 square feet versus 35,000 square feet. The two story option reduces the building footprint).  Likes the building in Option A because of the frontage on the street. Preserves land within the park by placing it closer to the street. (Response - the parking strategy includes providing a lush tree canopy over the parking.)  Prefers parking Option C with the partial subterranean parking under the building.  Encouraged placing parking underground where possible, and where the other related uses may benefit from being raised (e.g. tennis and basketball courts).  Having the basketball courts on the same level as the tennis courts could create conflict.  Should take the future of the baseball fields into account with respect to the location of the promenade.  A promenade along the baseball field to create greater vitality.  Evaluating the playground locations is challenging. Could lose the visibility of the playground by placing it further back on the property, though that location could enhance security. Commissioner DeMartini:  Was hoping to see an option that considered a retrofit of the existing building.  Feels parking Option C with the subterranean parking doesn’t work well with the use, more like shopping center parking. Would prefer parking underground, but is costly.  Has seen subterranean garages where parkland is placed atop the parking.  Have seen a couple of developments in the area with parking lifts; has this been considered as an option?  With respect to the tennis courts, do we see the use of four courts in the future, considering that this plan will not be developed immediately? Are there other uses that the tennis courts could be put to?  Landscaping is important with parking that is partially below grade.  When large parking lots are developed next to other uses, what is placed in the transition area? Commissioner Davis:  Having a landmark building would be beneficial to the City.  The building should be primary, with the parking secondary.  Will still see cars, so deemphasize the parking and emphasize the parking as much as possible.  Is open to the C option for parking strategy (raised courts).  Feels like the tennis and basketball courts need to be separated. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 3  Either promenade option could work; would be nice to have a space that creates as an experience as you move through it.  Likes the playground option further back into the site to provide more security for younger children.  Perhaps the play areas could be divided into spaces for older and younger children.  Is an ice-rink possible for inclusion? Commissioner Bandrapalli:  Agrees with all of the other commissioners’ comments.  Wants the community to be a place where children and their families can access everything that they need.  Perhaps a teen center.  Think about the future; what should the building look like?  Don’t be constrained by the budget now, think to the future.  Prefers the underground parking, with some surface parking.  Separate the tennis and basketball courts.  Having the park further into the parking would be safer for young children and would serve to emphasize the building.  Noted that the fitness center is on the second floor; how would active classes impact uses on the ground floor; consider reversing the arrangement. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff:  Wants the building to be subtlely placed in its environment.  The building should be more on the street.  Is there a compromise to placing the play yard back into the property versus on the street; balance this.  Has consideration been given to placing the play area where the courts are located?  Put the play area closer to where the Lion’s Club is located. Unknown speaker:  Suggested trying to make the building an environmentally sensitive building that can showcase sustainability strategies.  Look into the possibility of water recycling and rainwater use. How can these sources be used for heating and cooling.  Would prefer parking to be placed underground with EV charging stations. Donna Colson:  The cost of renovation of the existing building due to the types of renovations necessary would add significantly to the cost.  Want to consider adequate loads and provide sufficient, accommodating spaces for staff members working on the site. These modifications would be cost-prohibitive.  If a recreation center is to be provided, make it one that can serve the city for another 50 years.  Knows how difficult it is to raise funds for such a project. She and other committee members are willing to do the heavy lifting to assist in raising funds. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 4 Glenn Mendelsohn:  Agrees that the basketball and tennis courts should not be near one another.  Feels that raising the tennis courts and placing parking beneath makes a lot of sense and should be considered sooner rather than later. At San Mateo’s Central Park, there was not enough support under the tennis courts, so when the courts are resurfaced, adds to the weight and causes the courts to sag.  Would help to have a significant number of spaces under the courts.  If the active uses can be placed on the upper level in a manner that shields them from the uses below, then it may be possible.  Liked the meandering promenade.  Can see arguments in either direction for the playground locations; but leans toward setting the playground somewhat into the park.  The basketball courts still need to be away from the street. Carol Nowlin:  Would love to see improvements to the facility.  Was in the building during the earthquake, would cost $3 million to repair.  Not just providing parking for the tennis courts, but also serves the Lion’s Club.  Have the auditorium space facing the park. Casey:  The space within the recreation center is very important to effective teaching as well.  Storage is also a major consideration in the design. Need to have storage on site.  The playground should be set back into the site. Eric Storey:  Need to provide a drop off zone and extra wide sidewalks.  There needs to be a place within the park for dogs. A skate park is desirable. No action is required on this item. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE – STAFF CONTACT: BILL MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker provided a brief overview of proposed Title 21 – Historic Resource Preservation; a proposed amendment to the City’s Municipal Code that would implement a local historic preservation program consistent with the policy direction contained within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Any comment received will be incorporated into a public hearing draft that will be presented at a future meeting. Commission comments/questions:  Read the ordinance and feels it provides great incentives to property owners. How is information provided to subsequent to property owners? (Meeker – it is the existing property owner and realtor’s responsibility to disclose the historic status of the property and the presence of a Mills Act Contract.)  What does a property owner do if they buy a property that has been designated and doesn’t wish to have the property designated any longer? (Meeker – a procedure is outlined in the proposed CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 5 ordinance that would allow a property owner to request de-designation. In the event that a Mills Act Contract is present on the property, then the contract would be cancelled and would run the remainder of the ten year term, with property taxes escalating back up to market level.)  Why i s it necessary to provide a means of de-designating a property? (Meeker – with a voluntary program, there will always be a mechanism for de-designation.)  Is it only the owner of a property that receives the tax break? (Meeker – correct. The tax savings is intended to be funneled back into the ongoing maintenance and restoration of the property.)  What properties are involved? (Meeker – only those properties that lie within the area covered by the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The direction of the City Council in March 2013 was to only create a program for the Specific Plan area at this time. The City Council could choose to expand the program at any point in the future.)  Noted that the federal tax credit is available to properties built pre-1936, not only designated properties.  Provide more strengthening language for maintenance. Would prefer to have more specifics regarding maintenance of the properties. (Meeker – noted that for a Mills Act Contract, a plan needs to be prepared for the ongoing maintenance and restoration of the property.)  Would be nice to know ahead of time if an incentive is being requested for a property that appears before the Planning Commission. (Meeker – the impact of any incentive upon the resource is necessarily evaluated as part of the CEQA analysis for any project that appears before the Commission).  Felt that the parking waiver for single-family residences should be limited to only expansion of 50% of the existing floor area as an aggregate over time.  Can any property within the Downtown Specific Plan area be considered? (Meeker – yes. Any property owner that engages the services of an architectural historian that determines a non- inventoried property may have historic significance may also apply for designation.)  Encouraged including language for an incentive that provides relief from seeking approval of a variance. (Meeker – will look into adding additional language to address this matter that maintain the character of the property.)  Expressed concern that a property owner may replicate a non-historic condition that is not part of the historic fabric of the property. For example, if someone were to reinstall vinyl windows that are not consistent with the character, how would this be caught? (Meeker – a maintenance and restoration plan is required for a Mills Act Contract. That document could specify that any replacement of elements of the property must be historically correct.) Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff:  Thought that the proposed ordinance would only be available to those properties as potentially significant in the 2008 Inventory. Noted that staff indicated that the opportunity would exist for any property within the Downtown Specific Plan area.  Noted that the City of Dana Point has 93 properties on their inventory. Only nine commercial properties appear on the inventory. Only one property has been designated since long-term property owners already have reduced property taxes.  Consider increasing the percentage of fee reduction to something greater than 25%.  Include the two historic tree groves along El Camino Real and the CalTrain tracks in the reference to designated properties in the draft ordinance. No action was required on this item. This item concluded at 8:34 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 6 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. 3a. 144 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NED WHITE, MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JAY AND LISA KERSHNER, PROPERTY OW NERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 3b. 475 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JOEL SELCHER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 3c. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner DeMartini requested that Item 3c (1419 Carlos Avenue) be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Davis moved approval of Items 3a and 3b 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:36 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3c. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker suggested dispensing with the staff report as only one Commissioner and no members of the public requested that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Commission comments/questions:  Asked why the brick was removed from the front?  Noted that the window on the front right appears to be placed higher than necessary in the wall.  It was noted that the brick elements on the front helped to define a sense of “entry” for the home.  Also noted that the previously approved plans did not include the blank dormer on the left elevation. Jack McCarthy represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 7  Noted that the owner didn’t like the way the brick affected the massing of the building.  Will revise the window location on the right front.  Indicated that the design will revert back to the original design with the stone finishes. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. Motion carried 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 4. 1809 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE MAIN DWELLING (NADINE STOCKLIN & JONAH VAN ZANDT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHANN STOCKLIN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Nadine Stocklin and Jonah Van Zandt represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Clarified that raised planter with succulents will be provided on the brick area with no irrigation? (Stocklin - provided to neighbor. Her father spoke to the neighbor and he still doesn’t like the plan including the brick. If the brick can be retained they will not be concerned about erosion in that area. Van Zandt: doesn’t believe that the succulents are a concern of the neighbor, but he is not present.  Will the old driveway be removed? (Stocklin: yes.)  Noted that the large Juniper on the plan was gated off, not necessary. (Stocklin: could the interior gate be removed?) Commissioner: yes.  With respect to the landscape plan section, dimensions aren’t provided. Planter will be 18-inches wide, and are leaving 10 to 12 inches of brick in front of the planter box? (Stocklin: only six inches is remaining.) The brick can be used as a place to stand when tending the plants.  Clarified that they are removing the remainder of the brick up to the new driveway. Calling for additional cactus and rock garden in the area where the brick is removed. Satisfied that vehicles will not park in the area of the planter. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 8  Indicated that most interior fence and gates can be removed. 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 and date stamped April 1, 2014, sheets 1 through 6. The innermost wooden fence and gate that lie perpendicular to the property line may be removed; 2. that the accessory structure shall only include a garage, as shown on the plan date stamped April 1, 2014, and shall not be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; 3. that if the detached garage is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 22, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s October 23, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's October 22, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:56 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 9 5. 74 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BALMORE HERNANDEZ, AZUL WORKS INC., APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Balmore Hernandez represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Believes the project looks better at the lower height; it now appears more like a two story home.  Was expecting one roof form with the roof connected in a more traditional manner. Looks like two separate structures connected by the strong vertical element where the entry is placed.  Was also expecting the plate height to be reduced.  Likes the changes that have been made. Was pleased to see a different design.  Feels the differing rooflines are “quirky”.  No huge issue with the plate height.  Feels that the roof line needs to be addressed.  Could extend the gable over to the front-facing gable to make it look complete.  The right hand corner over the garage was previously a hipped roof, now it is a shed roof, why? (Hernandez – the eaves on the front and side do not line up).  Have changed the windows in the great room; there were previously four smaller windows. (Hernandez - aesthetically the other window forms did not work. Also revised to respect the neighbors’ privacy.)  Feels the windows aren’t aligned properly. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 3, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A7.1, LS.1 and L-1; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 10 2. that a revised design extending the roofline from the main living area, across the entry and to the garage shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI item, prior to issuance of a 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 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 Building Division’s May 10 and October 3, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s May 10 and October 1, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s May 24, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s May 13, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s May 13, 2013 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 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, 2013 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 11 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 DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 6. 1514 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SECOND STORY DECK AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KENNY MOY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OW NER; DALE ANDERSON, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he met with the property owner and contractor. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had visited the property and met with the contractor. Commissioner Bandrapalli noted that she had met with the property owner. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Kenny Mo and Elaine Ko represented the applicants. Commission comments/questions:  Changes that have been made are fine.  Appreciates the neighborhood outreach that has been done. Public comments:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 12 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones 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 March 20, 2014, sheets T-1.1 and A0.1 through A2.2; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the property owner shall plan two trees along the rear of the property as shown on sheet A0.3, date stamped March 20, 2014; 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 Building Division’s February 27, 2014 and January 30, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s February 4, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s February 3, 2014 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 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, 2013 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 April 14, 2014 13 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. 7. 2532 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ROY AND CECILIA PARKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini, Davis and Bandrapalli noted that they had met with the property owner at 2538 Hayward Drive and observed the story poles. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Randy Grange and Roy Parker represented the applicant:  Is impossible to completely eliminate the view impact.  Is a difficult lot to build on.  There are only three places where one can add onto the house.  The addition is intended to enhance the master bedroom.  Couldn’t process as a minor modification because a wall extension is not proposed.  When the neighbor’s home was added onto it created privacy issues. Also created the situation where the view is impacted.  The owner indicated that he was raised in the house. An addition was placed atop of the garage in the 70s.  Almost every house in the neighborhood has been completely rebuilt.  All the changes in the area; additions and tree growth, have eliminated the view from the property except for a small view of South San Francisco. Has lost privacy in his yard.  The neighbor’s addition has created the views from that property. To see the Bay view from that house, you need to stand close to the window to see a small portion of the Bay.  The master bedroom is too small for the family’s needs. Will be a master bathroom and closet in the addition.  Houses in the neighborhood are quite large. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 14 Commission comments/questions:  Sympathizes with the issue. The view ordinance doesn’t necessarily prevent any alteration to the views, but tries to prevent total blockage.  Recognizes the fact that other neighbors have added on, and have gained protected views.  If the photos are accurate, then there is a substantial view blockage that must be protected in some way. (Grange: provided photos from other angles.)  Is also asking for a variance. Can see the logic of the request for the variance. However, the view ordinance is triggered because of the location of the addition.  Is also adding an uncovered deck. One could make an argument that a master bath could be added in the vicinity of the deck off of the living room. Public comments: Shannon Casey:  Willing to work with the neighbor to reach a solution. Had the view previously before the house was renovated. From those windows, the distant view was in-tact. The story poles were helpful. Requested revised story poles when the project is redesigned. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commissioner comments/questions:  The argument for the variance has been successfully made. However, protection of the neighbor’s view may warrant a more significant variance. Commissioner Davis moved to continue the matter to permit the applicant to work more closely with the neighbor to address view impacts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:52 p.m. Vice-Chair Davis called for a recess at 9:52 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:57 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1709 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LIQUAN AND GE LIN SUN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 15 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. James Chu, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Appreciates bringing the scale down. What style was envisioned? (Chu: farmhouse.)  Design guidelines encourage incorporating the second floor into the roof form.  Some of the neighborhood homes do have a saltbox form, or have gambrel roofs. The second story is not incorporated well enough.  Not certain that the design fits within Ray Park.  Concerned about the metal roof design. Other homes are of a warmer design; no cold metal roofs.  Thinks the low, sloping roof works well with the neighborhood. Immediate neighbors include two- story homes that are not necessarily ranch-style.  Agrees that the metal roof doesn’t fit with the neighborhood, but feels the general design could work.  There are a lot of houses with a combination of wood siding and stucco.  Perhaps use wood siding on the porch.  Likes the design; agrees with suggestions by other Commissioners.  Perhaps simplify the design to fit better with the neighborhood. Public comments: Steve Besozzi:  Mostly smaller ranch homes exist within the neighborhood.  The proposed home is the size of something you would find in Easton Addition.  The home would appear out of character and scale with the neighborhood.  Appreciates the effort that was taken with the design.  Concerned about windows that look into his living room.  Feels the roof does not fit within the neighborhood. Is there a chance for requiring story poles? (Commissioner: story poles are typically not required in this area. There are other ways to explore shade and shadow impacts.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments/questions:  Likes the porch element, but the design isn’t cohesive enough.  Doesn’t feel the change in the roof material is enough.  The applicant is not asking for special consideration of any type.  The height is approximately 25 feet, five inches and is significantly below the height limit.  Consider a different roofing material and perhaps add siding to better integrate with the neighborhood.  Could see the project moving forward on the action calendar.  Look at window placement to protect privacy of neighbor to the left. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 16  Look at providing better screening between the neighbors, perhaps with landscaping in the side yard area to soften the fence. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action not appealable. This item concluded at 10:22 p.m. 9. 1514 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ATHENA WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Believes the project is fine, but would help to move the garage back perhaps another foot to foot and one-half.  The mix of hip and gabled roofs does not work.  The columns are too classic in appearance.  The porch roof is too high.  Strive for a more “Craftsman” expression.  Okay with the attached garage. Understands the desire to retain the back yard.  Doesn’t feel the columns fit with the neighborhood.  Noted that the planting strip in front of the house needs some attention, is overgrown. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 17 This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:32 p.m. 10. 2501 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NIMA AND ELLE PARIVAR, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GRANT LEE, MARTINKOVIC MILFOR ARCHTIECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to share. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Grant Lee and Nima and Elle Parivar represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Needs a landing at the revised entry.  What will the planting plan be for the Hillside Drive side of the home? Existing planting is near the foundation. Is there a landscape plan? (Lee – no intention of moving any large plants and trees. Will carry the same theme.)  The house has a very high base; encouraged planting materials that will conceal this feature.  Concerned that the stairway can’t be built as shown due to the grade change. Need to look at the stairway, perhaps keep the corner approach that transitions into the stairs the will face Castillo. Make entry stairs more gracious.  Explore landscape solutions to soften the appearance of the house due to the elevation changes. Need more detail on the landscape plan. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 18 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 11. 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) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Requested clarification of the lot coverage calculation. (Gardiner – deferred to the applicant.) Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Jeff Potts represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions:  Likes the changes that have been made so far.  Did the applicant meet with the neighbors after the second redesign? (Potts - no, did not meet with them again.)  Should have used the time since February to meet with the neighbors to determine if the changes were acceptable to them.  One of the biggest issues was to reduce the height of the wall next to the neighboring condominium development.  Needed to make more significant changes since the prior meeting.  The neighbors will still be staring at a significant wall area.  The building may need to be pulled back further from the property line.  Would expect that the BMR unit should be representative of the majority of the unit mix.  Feels there is a landscape solution that presently exists. The existing hedge could be incorporated into the design to maintain the hedge. This would likely maintain the experience that the neighbors currently have.  The hedge provides substantial screening for the neighbors.  The character of the architecture is not the issue; it is the massing of the building.  There isn’t enough greenery on the neighbors’ side of the property. Public comments: Mary Murphy:  Doesn’t live on the side where the project is to be built.  Is a realtor. Feels that values on the south side of her project will be negatively affected. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 19  The changes made to the project are like putting lipstick on a pig.  Eight units are too many for the lot. There is not enough parking provided. The project will destroy the neighborhood. Steve Krause:  President of the HOA for 33 Park Road.  The developer didn’t do much to work out the issues. Met once in December and pointed out that there were still problems.  Told the developer that they didn’t want them building on the property line. Have submitted objections to the project to the Planning Commission.  This one block of Park Road is the most diverse block in town. There are about 40-50 residents living on the block along with businesses.  A run-of-the-mill development is not appropriate in Burlingame.  The project is too close to the street.  The architect and developer need to try harder to conceive a better project for the property.  Developer’s profits should not come at the detriment of the quality of life of the neighbors. Eli Sigal:  Residents have given their time to the developer. The developer should come back to the Commission easily with a revised design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that no motion is required regarding this item. The applicant should take the Comments from the Commission and public and revise the project accordingly. Additionally, the hearing was a scoping hearing to identify issues to be evaluated in the environmental document for the project. The revised project, and the accompanying environmental document, will be placed on the Commission’s regular action calendar when ready. This item concluded at 11:30 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 February 3, 2014:  The appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project 1433 Floribunda Avenue was continued until the April 21, 2014 City Council meeting.  The City Council upheld the appeal of FlightCar and granted a conditional use permit to FlightCar for the use of 960 David Road as a vehicle storage location. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014 20 XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff DeMartini, Secretary