Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.02.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 9, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and GumPresent5 - Yie, and SargentAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.January 26, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the January 26, 2015 minutes as reflected in the amended draft made available to the Commisson and public at the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: When an application is received for an as -built approval of features incorporated into a project and members of the public are concerned about the items, the Commission should deny the as -built items. If the applciant wishes to appeal the Commission's decision, then they would need to pay the appeal fee. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1811 Adrian Road, zoned RR - Application for Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permits for use, floor area ratio and building height and Parking Variance for a self storage use within an existing commercial building (Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage Inc., applicant; Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc ., designer; Public Storage Inc ., property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Community Development Director Meeker provided a brief overview of the request. Questions of Staff: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there precedent for having non -auto uses within the district? (Meeker - the auto overlay zone was established with the adoption of the North Burlingame /Rollins Road Specific Plan to entice relocation of auto-sales uses to Adrian Road. However, most dealers in Burlingame own the properties on which the dealerships exist, so there is no impetus for them to relocate. Tesla and the BMW Service Center are the only two similar businesses that have located within the overlay zone since adoption of the plan.) >Requested clarification regarding the building height. (Meeker - will need to clarify with the applicant.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage Inc. represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >How many employees will be present on the site? (Fitzpatrick - there will be three employees on site.) >How tall is the tower addition to the building? (Fitzpatrick - initially the element was designed to be 42-feet, eight-inches tall, but has been lowered to 37-feet.) >Has a revenue analysis been prepared? (Fitzpatrick - tenants don't pay sales tax, therefore there isn't a lot of revenue generated for the City.) >Feels that the existing rolling -grass frontage fits with the vintage of the building, but encouraged a more drought-tolerant approach. (Fitzpatrick - Will look at this.) >What drives the 37-foot height for the tower; why not use the 35-foot limit? Need to justify a bit more with the architect. (Fitzpatrick - If they can lower to 35-feet will do so. Will check with the architect.) Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Feels the parking analysis is adequate. >Has the greater problem with the use than any other aspect of the application. No justification for taking what could be a big asset within the neighborhood (auto sales and service) and converting it to a lesser use. Doesn't feel that there is much to justify the storage expansion. >Concerned for the lack of a generation of revenue from this type of use. Disagrees that there is lack of demand for property for auto sales and service. Quoted revenue from sales tax for auto sales in the first quarter as received from the City's Finance Department. >The use is a disservice to the policies of the Specific Plan. >Have there been other inquiries relative to the property? (Meeker - no.) >Requested additional information from the property owner regarding the length of time that the property has been vacant. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2313 Poppy Drive - zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation and a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope (Jonathan James, William Wood Architects, applicant and architect; Edward Cho, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Edward Cho represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Would like to see the drawings with the porch. (Cho - provided copies of the plan with the porch.) >Appreciates the applicant looking at a design with a porch. Not a deal breaker if it isn't provided. Is a handsome design even without the porch. >Architect has done a nice job with the design. >Noted that there are several other homes on the block without porches; design keeps with the neighborhood. Public Comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Still feels that the design is missing something without the porch, but can live with the original design. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the project with the conditions included in the staff report. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - b.1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Negative Declaration and Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Jim and Pei Lu, property owners ) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Not a fan of the glued-on stone; but it is not a deal breaker. Public Comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >None. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the project with the conditions included in the staff report. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - c.1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concerned that the applicant isn't going to live in the house, but very little has changed in the design. Is very much like another home in the neighborhood. (Robertson - the owner has her idea of what she wants. Has tried to convince her, but has hit a brick wall. The neighbors also like the current design.) >It is all well and good that the home is liked by the neighbors, but the Commission is looking at the broader neighborhood context. >Frustrated that the owner wouldn't consider any of the changes requested by the Commission . (Robertson - the client knows that the other similar home is popular and well -liked, so she is afraid to change the design. She wants to be assured that she has a winning house.) >Any new house in Burlingame is a "winning" house; they all sell." The argument for the design is that "everyone else likes it". (Robertson - satisfied the next door neighbors. Since the comparable house on Costa Rica was approved, then believes that this home would be approvable.) >Feels the argument is a bit specious that the Commission approved the similar design on Costa Rica. The charge of the Commission is to avoid creating "cookie-cutter" neighborhoods. >Are getting to the point where the homes that are being torn down are more charming, not the dilapidated structures. >Doesn't feel the design fits in on Howard Avenue where homes typically have porches. >Still concerned with regard to moving the driveway from one side to another. Concerned that the neighbor wasn't anticipating such a change. The Engineering Division only recalls a few situations where changes in the driveway location have been approved. (Robertson - felt that it wasn't pleasing to have two driveways placed side-by-side.) Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: Agrees with the Commission's points. Has watched the drastic changes to the community over her 38-years of residency. The Commission evolves and has ensured that neighborhoods don't become "cookie-cutter ". The developer always sells the property and has no real need to contribute to what is the community of Burlingame. Suggests not approving the design and send it back for review, or ask the property owner come and discuss her position. Steve Schmidt, neighbor: The existing house has no driveway going by the neighbor. The applicant is just picking a side because there is currently no driveway running along the property line; this is a non -issue. Is comfortable with the design; is not a "cookie-cutter" design. Noted that the creek does rise up to three to four feet above the existing ground. Believes that they will have water at the rear of the house on occasion because of problems with the stormwater system on El Camino Real. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Was offended and annoyed by the response from the applicant. The applicant clearly has no interest in considering the Commission's suggestions. Sees no reason to approve or continue the item; suggested denying without prejudice. >Noted that the comparable house on Costa Rica has a stone base that works its way around the entry and helps to define the entry. Believes the designer is capable of refining the design to enhance the entry. >The character of the street demands a porch. Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - d.818 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Kevin Lake, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: None. Property Visits: All had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Asked for an explanation of why some windows have divided lights and others don't. (Gann - the owner only wanted to do the divided lights at the front, but may be willing to run them down the side as well.) Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is okay with not providing divided lights on all windows. The designer makes a good point that only the front of the house is visible. The other changes that have been made improve the project. >Adding the brackets under the bays is nice. Nice project. >Also satisfied with the changes. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the project with the conditions contained in the staff report. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - e.1448 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Peyling Yap, applicant and property owner; Jeff Chow, designer) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item as he has a financial interest in a property located within 500-feet of the subject site . He left the City Council Chambers. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Terrones noted he had a conversation with the contractor for the project when visiting the site. Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >How frequently has the Commission approved changes that are made during construction? (Meeker - staff doesn't keep statistics, however, it is largely dependent upon the quality of the changes and how they fit with the design.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Evans and Peyling Yap represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >What happened that caused the changes? Is the contractor still involved in the project? (Evans - Trusted the contractor to build what was agreed upon. Is a new developer, thought the changes were so small that they just slipped by him. Have sold the property and are moving to another in Burlingame.) >Were the changes shown on the construction plans? (Meeker - the staff would have confirmed that the construction drawings conformed to the Planning Commission approved plans before the permit was issued. Evans - is the last collaboration with this contractor that made the changes.) >Have put the Commission in a difficult position, though it is understood that the applicant is not a professional developer. >The house is pretty nice. >Feels the sliding windows on the sides are a downgrade to what was approved, not typical of a high-end house. (Yap - didn't notice the changes from what was shown on the drawings. Are aluminum-clad wood windows.) >Who was the builder? (Evans - Patrick Law was the contractor.) >Could be helpful to have the designer work with the applicant to better resolve the changes. (Evans - the home sale is pending. Concerned about losing the sale as a result of delays.) >The Commission has to ask if the revised design is one that would have been approved previously . Would have focused on the proportion of the high brow over the front porch; wouldn't have been approvable. (Evans - would continuing the shingle look down the front element solve the problem?) Perhaps. The columns on the porch are also "spindly". Perhaps the trellis over the windows on the front could work if a proper scale. >Wants to see the revised design before taking final action. Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: Whatever action the Commission takes will not be punitive. Whatever good or bad luck the applicant has with the contractor, it is not the fault of the Commission. Looking at the front of the structure, it looks like the plate line has changed over the front windows. Suggests that the front should be brought back to the original design. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The first floor roof replacement at the front is the most problematic change. The porch roof and /or columns and perhaps changes within the gable need to be revised. The other option is to go back to Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what was originally approved. >Agrees that the front element is most problematic. The roof pitch on the porch does not match the pitch of the primary roof. Continuing shingles down the rectangular element below the roof would be unlike other elements on the structure. A trellis over the front window may help to bring down the scale of the front of the house. >The application could be sent to a designer reviewer, or the applicant could choose to meet with a design reviewer. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to approve the design changes outlined in the January 28, 2015 letter from ICE Design Inc. with the exception of item 1 under "Elevations" relative to the roof elements above the front porch and the living room window. These elements shall either be re-built in accordance with the approved plans, or an acceptable alternative design shall be presented the Planning Commission for approval. With this direction, the request is continued to the February 23, 2015 Planning Commission agenda. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum4 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - Recused:DeMartini1 - f.1217 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing storefront (Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. Ex-Parte Communications: None. Property Visits: All had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Asked if future signage was proposed would it be approved by staff or the Commission? (Meeker - by staff if it complies with the sign standards in the Municipal Code. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Likes what has been done to restore the original transom. Has the layout of the transom been played out all the way across the building? (Meyer - has investigated the existing transoms to ensure that the pattern will work.) >Requested clarification regarding what is happening with the middle tenant space. (Meyer - noted that there will be no design changes on the outside of the building, with the exception of removal of the sign and the backing.) >Would prefer that the design incorporate the additional grids within the transom windows. (Meyer - are gambling that the other two tenant spaces will eventually be changed to match the restored transom window pattern. Trying to be more consistent with the existing window pattern knowing that the upper floor windows are not likely to change.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing Commission Discussion: >Nice project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the project with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - g.1260 California Drive - zoned Unclassified- Application for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage and new fence for Rector Motors at the corner of California Drive and Broadway (E. James Hannay, Rector Motor Car Co ., applicant; City and County of San Francisco- Public Utilities Commission and San Mateo County Transportation Authority, property owners) (209 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner DeMartini spoke to the owners of Potpourri and Nuts for Candy. Commissioners Bandrapalli and Terrones spoke to owner of Nuts for Candy. Property Visits: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report. Community Development Director Meeker reminded the Commission that the only issue before the Commission is the use of the property for vehicle storage. The City doesn't own the property and has no control over the tenancy of the property. Noted that in July of last year the City Council indicated that it did not oppose use of the lot by Rector, as very few vehicles were parked at the location. At the October, 2014 Broadway Community Meeting the Council indicated a willingness to work with the business community regarding parking concerns. He further indicated that the opportunity exists for parking on Broadway to be evaluated early in the General Plan update process. Questions of Staff: >Requested clarification regarding the non -scaled plans that have been submitted. (Barber - indicated that the plans before the Commission are the only plans available currently.) >Requested clarification regarding the ownership configuration of the property. (Meeker - explained that the half of the site closest to the railroad tracks is owned by Caltrain, the remaining half adjacent to California Drive is owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission/SFPUC). >How was the revenue from parking collected? (Kane - noted the existence of revocable permits for parking that existed from the early 1900s. They are revocable permits that have not been actively revoked, but leasing the property to another entity could be considered a revocation. Parking revenue came to the City was not shared with the property owners.) >Does Rector pay for the use of the space? (Meeker - will need to ask the applicant.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Craig Mucci represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Who is parking on the property from Rector now? (Mucci - employees have been parking at the Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes location currently. Eventually hope to relieve congestion on the main dealership site by parking service vehicles at the location.) >Counted seventeen cars on the property recently; are they paying for parking there currently? (Mucci - with the new agreement, the employees would not be parking at the location.) >Requested clarification regarding the placement of the fence. Will there be a sidewalk adjacent to the fence? (Mucci - is intended only to be a storage area with no pedestrian activity. Barber - noted the presence of a pedestrian gate at Broadway to prevent people from walking outside the fence along California Drive to exit the area.) >Will there be cars parked on the northern end of the site outside of the leased area? (Kane - the Public Works Department controls that portion of the site.) >Noted that with the approval of renovations for the primary dealership site, it was stated that there would not be the need to store vehicles at other locations in town; what changed? (Mucci - the business model changed to require additional space. Are currently leasing a couple of spaces for vehicles. Are trying to get service vehicles off of the street.) >Is the storage for new vehicles and/or service vehicles? (Mucci - yes.) >Noted that ten to fifteen vehicles per day will be moved at the site. (Mucci - had prior experience moving vehicles through the congested area.) >Wants to be certain that the lot will not be a site for storage of inoperable vehicles. (Mucci - will be strictly used for storage of mechanical service vehicles.) >Would Rector be open to sharing the space with the City for public parking? (Mucci - yes.) Public Comments: John Kevranian, Broadway Business Improvement District: Referenced his written communication to the Commission related to this matter. Is happy to hear that the applicant may be willing to work with the business community. The business community was not involved in the discussion in July 2014 regarding the disposition of Parking Lot T. The business community would like to use Parking Lot T for long -term employee parking. Would like the item to be continued to permit discussions to occur with the stakeholders. Knew nothing about the negotiations between the two public entities and the applicant. Did not receive a public notice of this meeting. Is in opposition of the application. Will not benefit the business community. The community needs more parking given the new development that is occurring. Will eliminate 100 spaces. Want to negotiate a deal that benefits all. Ross Bruce, 1169 Broadway, representing the Broadway Business Improvement District: This lot has been underutilized in the past, but there have been a lot of changes on Broadway. Hope to relocate the employee parking to Lot T. Would like to find a way to work with Rector and possibly split the lot with Rector with the northern half being used by Rector. This would allow the remainder to be used for parking. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue: Agrees with the Broadway representative that Rector has been a great neighbor, but wants to have some coordination. Noted that the Transportation Safety and Parking Commission has not been involved in the discussions. How did the City become able to use the site for parking? Suggested that a portion of Parking Lot O be considered for Rector's storage. The Broadway lot is used for commuter drop-off. There will be no parking for new restaurants and the area is used on Tuesday evenings for Off-the-Grid. Where is the new inventory off -loaded? Referenced the Mayor's response to the Broadway business community's letter. Discussed "complete" street designs. Take no action. Bob Schneider, 1120 Capuchino Avenue: Supports the Broadway commercial district. Interested in the long -term effects of parking upon the merchants. Has a continuing problem with employee parking in front of his home. Making Lot T Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes available to employees could be a viable solution to a lot of problems related to parking. When Off-the-Grid was approved, thought that the parking was to be used as overflow for that event. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The City has a tenuous control over the property, though understands the concerns expressed by the Broadway business community. >Doesn't see a means of requiring Caltrain and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to retain the property for parking. >Has a problem with a roughly 500-foot long, six-foot tall spike-topped fence along California Drive where none exists currently. There will be no walkway between the fence and the public right-of-way. >It would be great to have conversations with the property owner to try to determine a solution. >If the plan moves forward, wants to see a scaled drawing with more detail of the fencing and demonstration of how the use will not be an inconvenience to the neighborhood. >Is a tricky issue. Part of the concern is that there wasn't discussion with the City, the business community and neighbors regarding this matter. The very successful auto dealership wants to continue to thrive in the City. >The lease has been accepted by the property owners. >Need to reach out to the employees to compel them to park at Lot T. >Need to provide a better explanation of how the use will not be injurious and detrimental to the neighborhood and the community, or to public health, safety and convenience. What will happen when new restaurants come into Broadway. >Would like for Rector to engage with the neighborhood to get over the hurdle about not becoming an inconvenience to the neighborhood and the community. >There is no answer to the questions today; hopefully there can be a quick solution. Doesn't want the dealership to go anywhere else. >Supports Rector in its need for a place to store vehicles. Would like to see discussions occur between Rector and the business community. >Open to sharing the space. >Should also look at pedestrian safety along California Drive. >When the lease is up and the Broadway Station opens again, then there will be a need for parking . Hopefully, someone with the City is exploring options for parking in the area. >Continue with the request that there be additional study re: coordination and cooperation with the City and the business community to achieve some shared use of the property. >Wants to see a scaled drawing that may provide a walkway along the outer perimeter of the property. (Kane - the City in no way controls the terms of leases on the property. Cannot mandate any changes to the leases. Public Works would frown upon creating an informal sidewalk that is not ADA compliant.) >If the application can be made more pedestrian friendly it may be considered; cannot be approved as it stands. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to continue the item until the next regular meeting of February 23, 2015. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY The Commission took a break from 10:08 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. a.225 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition to Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Sinhad and Medina Begic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. Ex-Parte Communications: None. Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the project. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Likes the front porch. >Would there be potential to provide screening trees along the right side of the property to block views into the neighbors' yard? (Geurse - will look at ideas to provide screening and discuss with the homeowner.) >Any thought to providing a turnaround for cars at the garage? (Geurse - would eliminate the area desired for a future pool.) >With respect to screening trees on the left side, is there a way to mitigate the view from the second floor deck? (Geurse - will review.) >On Page A4 will the color be stain grade or satin grade for the rails and columns. (Geurse - stain grade.) >Will vinyl clad windows be installed? (Geurse - will install aluminum clad windows.) >Feels that there may be a need for story poles to indicate where the second floor decks will be . (Geurse - the three bedrooms upstairs are for the three children. The deck is intended to be more recreational space in the warm months.) >Need to reach out to the neighbors to see how to make the design work with minimal impacts. >The front window looks so small; was a larger window considered? (Geurse - can look at a larger window. Didn't want to make it too wide so as not to make that facade look too wide.) >Likes the treatment at the front of the house. >The windows look very small on the left elevation. >A bit concerned about the second floor deck. This project appears to move the social activity area to the side of the house where it may impact the adjacent neighbor more. Why does it stretch along the front of the recreation room? (Geurse - is serving as a roof element that helps with the transition between roof forms.) >Look at the second floor deck design to see if the large, side-lot exposure can be reduced. Public Comments: Margaret Farney, resident on Clarendon Road: The deck seems out of place in the neighborhood; it is way too large and is off of a recreation room . Could be a lot of people on the deck or no one on the deck. The applicant has a large yard for the kids to play in. Would also like a bit more landscaping; is a large addition. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >There are plenty of other ways to configure the second floor deck. >Some landscaping will serve to mitigate viewing issues on both sides. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for consideration. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, and Gum4 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.1364 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage (Nenad Vukic Tr, applicant and property owners; Behravesh & Associates Architecture, architect) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. Ex-Parte Communications: None. Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Ben Behravesh represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >With respect to the declining height envelope; the two gables on the right side appear to be the same height, but are inconsistent in their representation on the elevations. (Behravesh - will check it.) >The peaked roof is blocking a portion of the view from the adjacent property. (Behravesh - the only other option would be to place a flat roof on the top. Have tried to be very sensitive to the homes on either side.) >Is the band below the bay window on the front going to be installed? (Behravesh - yes.) >Clarified that the seat walls flanking the porch will be made higher. Will a guard rail be provided? Add to the drawing. >Handsome addition. >Has the applicant reviewed the neighbor's (Riddle's) letter? Look at these items before reappearing before the Commission. >Why are the divided lights being removed? (Behravesh - are not opposed to keeping the divided light windows.) >Requested clarification regarding the landscape plan. Encouraged preparation of a landscape plan that takes into account the size of the house. >Appears very massive; is there a way to reduce the roof height? >Feels that part of the north elevation appears busy, but the remainder lacks detail. >Likes the porte cochere approach to the new garage. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Likes the rear elevation with the large bay window with the roof folding over it. >Ensure that the drawings are consistent. >When the gables are revisited, look at the fascias to ensure that they are consistent. Public Comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Could be a very interesting house if it is done properly. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for consideration. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - c.1504 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a new two-story single family dwelling with a basement and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Joseph and Shannon Paley, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Gum spoke to the left and right side neighbors. Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the project. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapallli opened the public hearing. Randy Grange and the project's landscape architect represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Will water from the basement be pumped to the street, or will it be waterproofed? (Grange - the basement will be waterproofed.) >Will the shingles be painted or natural? (Grange - they will be stained.) >Will ivy really be installed in the front as shown? (Landscape - will be a variegated version that is low water usage.) >Did the applicant speak with the neighbors? (Grange - yes) >It was noted that the attached garage works in this instance given the precedent and pattern set by existing neighborhood development. Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Could be brought back on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - d.1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp ., applicant and owner) (35 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: None. Property Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the project. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Shahram Zomorrodi represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Noted that there will be concerns regarding views from adjacent residents; therefore, story poles will likely be required. >There is a lot of mass in the design, but it appears top -heavy. Is there a reason why the floor plates are ten and nine feet; this pushes up the proportions. Are right at the maximum thirty foot height. Must the floors be that tall? (Zomorrodi - like the design as it is.) Consider looking at reducing height. >The bay over the front entry appears too heavy. >There seems to be very little variation in the size of the windows. On the left and right elevations, the windows look like they were bought out of a catalog. >The vertical batten finish seems to appear for no particular reason; appears a bit random. >Have they talked to the neighbors about the relocation of the driveway? (Zomorrodi - had to move it because it wouldn't work with the slope.) >On the left elevation, confused by the three doors. Is there any way to change one door out so it looks less like a townhouse? >Divided light windows could help the design. >The railings appear very industrial; review this element. >Include larger species trees in the landscape plan at the front. Talk with the City Arborist regarding the tree choices. >Will the applicant live in the house? (Zomorrodi - yes.) Reminded him that he must live in one of the units. >Reduce the height for the neighbor to the left and across the street. >Could the entire house be dropped in elevation? (Zomorrodi - are building a new foundation.) >Is Hardy plank siding desired? (Zomorrodi - lasts a long time and is low maintenance.) Not typically used in this neighborhood. >The walk-in closet and loft spaces on the second floor add a lot of volume on the second floor that Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes may impact views. >Verify the garage elevations are accurate given the slope of the lot. (Zomorrodi - will be a retaining wall.) Need to show the retaining wall on the plan. If there is a stair leading to the garage, need to show it on the plan as well. >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Zomorrodi - sent notices and walked door to door.) >Concerned that the stairs and the walls adjacent to the garage are accurate. Is it possible to get two cars into the garage? Public Comments: Cecelia, neighbor across the street: Looks very massive as designed. Will block the skyline view from her property and block natural light in her home. Suggested sinking the house a bit. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >A good candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie, and Sargent2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones noted the recent meeting of the Neighborhood Design Guidelines Subcommittee with respect to Modern and Contemporary architectural styles. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications There were no Commission Communications. b.City Council regular meeting February 2, 2015 The City Council adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance and the revised Circulation Element. Further, it introduced an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance lifing the limitations on the number of food establishments within the Broadway Commercial District and also received a briefing of the outcome of the October 18, 2014 Broadway Community Meeting. c.FYI: 1545 Los Montes Drive - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project Accepted. d.FYI: 1321 Paloma Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. Commissioner Terrones recused. Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e.FYI: 2747 Burlingview Drive - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. Commissioner Terrones recused. f.FYI: 1011 Morrell Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 9, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 19, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015