Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.04.28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 28, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the April 28, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Doug Bell Civil Engineer III. MINUTES Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of April 14, 2014 was delayed until May 12, 2014. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 808 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STORAGE FOR A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (TORIN KNORR, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ROBERT BOSSCHART, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker provided a brief overview of the application.  Has the right side neighbor been contacted by the applicant.  Is a good project; may wish to simplify the window design.  Clarify whether or not this is conditioned space.  Conditions to prohibit non-permitted uses. This item will be set for the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 2 2. 1300 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (PILATES AND BARRE STUDIO) IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (BRIAN SWARTZ, APPLICANT; SETH BROOKSHIRE, DESIGNER; ERVIN EPSTEIN, JR. ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the application.  Feels is a good application. Will bring life to the street.  The design is nicely detailed at the front.  Feels the parking study is believable. Could employees be directed to park in Parking Lot R?  Hope a lot of people will walk to the facility.  Have there been any issues with parking at the Dailey Method on Oak Grove Avenue (a similar use)? (Hurin – will review.)  Approved a similar studio on Chapin Avenue recently; what is that experience. (Hurin – the use is not yet open.)  On the Tuesday evening of the parking study, was Off-the-Grid open? What was the impact on parking?  Only concern is potential impacts on parking on Friday nights. What are the hours on Friday evenings? Could the use conflict with the restaurant uses if the hours aren’t limited on that evening?  Likes the project, just concerned about the adequacy of the parking.  Not a lot of students take fitness classes on Friday evenings. This item will be set for the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 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 All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke to residents of 1801 Ray Drive and 1715 Ray Drive. Commissioner DeMartini met with the resident at 1705 Ray Drive. Chair Sargent indicated that he had reviewed the video from the prior discussion and had a discussion with the project architect. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 3 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments:  What is the existing fence height? (Chu – believes it to be six feet. Can add one foot of lattice at the top of the fence.  Was there ever thought to planting something other than vines on the fence to provide additional screening? (Chu – a tree would create foundation problems due to the proximity to the structure. Believes the reduction in the window size also addresses privacy concerns.  The neighbor’s concern regarding the Laurel tree is likely related to blocking light. Will the Magnolia tree even fit within the front area? (Chu – that tree is a street tree.)  Could the Laurel tree be moved, or another species selected? (Chu – yes, could choose another form of tree to reduce neighbor impacts.)  Likes the design transformation.  Clarified the column design. (Chu – four separate square posts, not a fluted column.)  The original chimney cap was oversized before, nowappears undersized. (Chu – is a direct vent fireplace. Can look at this element.) Public comments: Susie O’Halleron, 1713 Ray Drive:  Feels the house is too large for the lot.  The neighbor gets light cut off to his property.  The home doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Have significantly reduced the height.  There are other two story houses in the area that do not have massing that works as well as this project. Commissioner Sargent 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 16, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and L.2; and that the windows shall be aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites; 2. that the applicant shall revisit the scale proposed for the Laurel tree and verify the canopy/scale of the Magnolia tree, as well as the species of the proposed replacement tree; this information shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI and approved, in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 4 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s March 14, 2014 and February 18, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s March 17, 2014 and February 19, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s February 24, 2014 and December 4, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s February 18, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s February 26, 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 5 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  This is a vast improvement that fits well into the neighborhood.  There will be more second story additions in Ray Park in the future.  There are a lot of two-story homes in the area that are much more massive than what is proposed. Is a well done project for this size lot. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. 4. 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. Chair Sargent noted that he had reviewed the recording of the proceedings from the last discussion of the item. Reference staff report dated April 28, 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:  Feels the plants in the front exceed what would normally be allowed within the front setback. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Noted that the front porch light is oversized and may be a drafting error.  Would be helpful to have the adjacent structures shown on the site plan or survey.  Need to clean up the property and reduce the height of the bush in front. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 6  Was hoping to see the planting strip cleaned up; encouraged looking at this feature and cleaning it up as well.  With respect to the front columns, thought that there would be more of a revised design. (Chu – needed something to support the porch roof, thought that enclosed walls would look out of scale with the house.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Likes the changes that have been made. More in scale with the neighborhood. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 14, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, GP, and Boundary Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or envelope of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the applicant shall revisit the landscape plan and look at options for a fence or other form of landscaping within the front yard; this information shall be presented to the Planning Division and approved in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project; 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 floor, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division’s January 31 and March 28, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s April 4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s February 5, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's February 3, 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that if the structure is demolished at a later date the special permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 7 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; 10. 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; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that 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; 13. 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; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 15. 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. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. 5. 1529 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JOHN AND CHERIE MCGEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the owners and spoke about the tree in the rear yard. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 8 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Likes the changes that have been made.  The stone looks striking.  Have the neighbors seen the revised plans? (Grange – neighbors were notified and didn’t respond.)  Is concerned about removing the large Magnolia tree. Met with the applicant; the concern about the tree is the impact of the roots. Suggested having an arborist review the tree and determine if the roots can be cut back and the tree will still survive. (Grange – the tree is in the middle of the patio. The Beautification Commission has already issued the permit for removal.)  There is a small building in the rear corner of the site; what is it? Will it be removed? (Grange – is a storage shed and will be removed.)  Wanted the gate moved back since parking is so bad on the street. (Grange – meant to make the change, but forgot to do it.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Nice project, but feels that the second floor element should be integrated better. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: Move the gate to permit two cars. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 9, 2014, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0 and L2.0, PW.1, and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that the gate at the driveway shall be moved into the property so that two vehicles may be parked on the driveway in front of the gate when it is closed; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s March 10, 2014 and January 15, 2014 memos, the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 9 Parks Division’s March 5, 2014 and January 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s February 4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s January 21, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s March 7 and January 16, 2014 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that prior to a issuance of building permit for demolition on the site, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department for the protected-size Magnolia Tree on site; the construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet showing the approved Tree Removal Permit; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. 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; 15. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 10 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; 16. 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 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Sargent moved to adopt the Negative Declaration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the Negative Declaration. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Items 6 (2747 Burlingview Drive) and 7 (4 La Mesa Court) due to a business relationship and a quasi-business relationship, respectively. He left the City Council Chambers. 6. 2747 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY HOUSE (RICHARD TERRONES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; BURLINGVIEW LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie noted that she had a conversation with the son of the uphill neighbor. Commissioners Sargent and DeMartini met with the neighbors at 2753 Burlingview Drive. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 11 Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Did the applicant take the opportunity to visit the uphill neighbor, particularly the lower level bedroom? (Furlong – recognizes that there are some impacts from that area. Have kept the home to one story and have lowered the roofline while still maintaining the design.)  Have any sight-line studies been reviewed? Is it known where there would be no view impacts? (Furlong – doesn’t have an exact number regarding how much lower the roofline would need to be.)  Believes the lowered roofline looks more subtle. Public comments: Beth Napier, 2753 Burlingview Drive:  Noted that their view is gone from the master bedroom window.  Asked for the roof to be sloped from the other direction, would preserve more light.  Provide photos that show the impact upon the view from the master bedroom.  Have discussed the impacts upon the tree. The applicant should be responsible for removal if it is damaged and needs to be removed. The developer needs to take financial responsibility for any damages from the tree.  Are selling their home. Will close on May 27, 2014. Requested that the Commission defer action until the new owner is involved.  Feels that the rear extension of the home is not needed. Make it a four bedroom home. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Is the applicant amenable to the conditions expressed by the neighbor? (Furlong – doubts it.)  Likes the changes that have been made. The changes help to preserve the neighbor’s upper floor view.  Believes that the issue of the view from the bedroom needs to be addressed. Not certain that the code permits such a significant impact to the bedroom. Perhaps the overhang could be reduced.  Asked for clarification regarding the degree of view impacts that may be allowed in the hillside area. (Meeker – indicated that view impacts must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Distant views, particularly of the Bay, are to be preserved from living spaces. The code does not imply that there can be no impacts upon views.)  Tends to look at views from common areas, not so much from bedrooms.  The applicant has done quite a bit to address the view issues.  Doesn’t feel that the view from the bedroom would be preserved by reducing the eaves. Thinks it would require a significant redesign. Public hearing was reopened to permit questions of the applicant. Further Commission comments:  Have studies of different alternatives been explored? (Furlong – have conducted some studies. The client wanted a “butterfly roof” house.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 12  Has a measurement been made to determine how much of a change would be required to preserve the bedroom view? (Furlong – don’t have a survey of the height of the bedroom on the lower level. May be able to reduce the overhangs somewhat.)  Would have appreciated the applicant having explored how much of a design revision would be necessary and whether that would ruin the design of the home.  Would be good to have the analysis made of what would be needed to further reduce view impacts. Public hearing closed. More Commission comments:  Wonders what the new buyers have seen.  Would like to see further analysis of the view impact and what would be needed to preserve the lower level bedroom view.  Feels like the applicant has conducted considerable analysis into view impacts.  The design is below the maximums allowed for the lot.  In most respects, the view is good or improved.  May be just deferring without any potential for significant changes that preserve the view.  Feels the study should be done, but need to be prepared to make a decision at that point.  Should the Commission place as much emphasis upon views from non-common areas versus common areas?  Doesn’t feel it is appropriate that each room should be treated equally.  Don’t usually get held up on views from a bedroom area.  The bedroom is on a lower level that is below grade.  The garage fits in with the neighborhood and the home design.  The transom windows are not a primary viewing area. Commissioner Sargent 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 7, 2014, sheets A0.0, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1a, A4.1b, A4.2a, A4.2b, L1.1, L1.2 and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map and date stamped March 20, 2014, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.3 and A5.1through A6, L-1 and L-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 28, 2014 and February 6, 2014, and November 19, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s November 25, 2013, and March 26, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 4, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 10, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s November 25, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 13 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or 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, and the Arborist Report date stamped March 21, 2014; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 14 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-0-1 (Commissioners DeMartini and Bandrapalli dissenting, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 7 (4 La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 7. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE- HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he had had a brief email exchange with the residents of 6 La Mesa Court. Commissioner Yie noted that she met with the neighbors on both sides of the project site. Commissioner DeMartini stated that he met with the applicant and architect, as well as with the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court. Reference staff report dated April 24, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty- eight (38) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Is staff comfortable with the findings of the light analysis? (Hurin – yes.)  What level of detail is provided in the light analysis? (Hurin – the applicant will respond.) Acting Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant.  The visual simulation was completed with Photo Shop; it was not a scientific analysis.  Some of the trees were removed from the simulation.  Summarized the changes to the project.  Attempted to preserve views from 2 La Mesa Court.  Tried to address all concerns expressed by the neighbors.  The massing for the home is currently similar to the home at 6 La Mesa Court. Commission comments:  Likes the redesign. Likes the materials.  Is the glare perceived as an issue? (Raduenz – could place a film or bronze the glass. But doesn’t believe it will be an issue.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 15  Was the width of the building expanded? (Raduenz – lost five feet off the back, so widened the home to pick up the lost space. Are well within the setbacks on the sides. Thought that was the best way to handle the changes.)  Believes there are anti-reflective coatings that could be used.  The renderings show very large pieces of glass that would be difficult to obtain. (Raduenz – have reduced the windows somewhat by expanding the width of the stone units.)  Have windows been added? (Raduenz – have added a window at a bedroom on the lower right.)  Likes the way the pool was handled. (Raduenz – included it in the square footage of the home. It lowers the buildable footprint.)  Can the home shifted back towards 2 La Mesa Court? (Raduenz – may be able to shift it over one foot more, but is concerned about impacting other trees on the lot.)  Is almost double the required setback from the side property line. How far is the home from 6 La Mesa Court? (Raduenz – around 20 feet away.)  Is Oak tree 20 near 6 La Mesa Court being removed? (Raduenz – yes.)  What type of tree is proposed to be replanted? How quickly will they provide screening? (Raduenz – will be Laurels that do not carry diseases that affect the Oak trees. Not certain what the maximum height will be and how quickly they will provide screening.)  Is the applicant confident that the metal panels will not “oil can”? (Raduenz – will be installed with mitigation to prevent this effect.) Wants to be certain that the metal finish does not appear cheap.  Was surprised that the home was pushed out two feet. Without this the project may have still been approvable. As designed, all of the light is blocked into the kitchen.  With respect to Oak tree 20, is shown in the wrong place. Missed an opportunity to provide better screening. (Raduenz – feels that the applicant has given a lot and now needs to take a bit. Willing to work around the tree if it causes a delay to the project. Have completely preserved the views from 2 La Mesa Court.)  Is the applicant willing to reduce the width of the house by two feet near 6 La Mesa? (Raduenz – that would be the maximum that they would be able to change.) Public comments: Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane:  Still concerned about the night views. The applicant’s illustrations still show trees that will be removed during the construction.  Feels the wall-to-wall expanses of glass will cause significant light impacts.  Doesn’t see where the glazing has been reduced.  Feel there have been no concessions made. Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane:  Shares many of the same concerns as the prior speaker.  The height and mass of the proposed home will project further into Mills Canyon than any other house and will have a negative impact upon views.  His view was one of the primary things that made the house attractive when they bought it.  Windows will create a great amount of reflection.  The changes that have been made are insufficient.  The design review criteria call for an avoidance of large glass surfaces.  House not consistent with the neighborhood design guidelines. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 16 Mark Intieri, 2 La Mesa Court:  Is satisfied with the story poles where they exist now.  The view impacts have not been completely mitigated.  The living room view is clear.  The dining room view has 50% occlusion of the views. Are willing to accept that as a compromise. Concerned that a change in the width of the home could further impact two significant Oak trees, and further impact the dining room view and also impact the living room view. Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court:  Further changes in the project plans have further impacted their property.  Moving the house closer to their property has completely blocked natural sunlight in primary living areas of their home.  The window placement has been changed, so now there are significantly more situations where there are views into their house.  There are only four windows to avoid on their house.  Window areas have been increased in area and further exacerbate impacts upon their property.  Oaks 20 and 21 are being lost on their side of the property. Other replanted trees will not reach the growth of the existing trees.  The project is too large for its environment. There is no room for mitigation of impacts.  Does not support the latest changes. Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court:  The primary issue with the project is the elevated rear yard. The yard is 10-feet above their pool elevation and only seven feet from the property line. The shift in the location of the home created more of an impact.  Concerned with the removal of the trees.  The project does not meet the design guidelines. Chris Awoyinka (applicant), 4 La Mesa Court:  One of the key design features of the house is to provide direct access to the terrace area.  They have made numerous concessions to the neighbors.  Have erected story poles twice.  Have provided expert opinions regarding the condition of the Oak trees, though the experts say that the trees are dying. Nine of the ten Oak trees are being saved.  Have moved the home five feet closer to the curb.  Moved the property to the west to save more Oak trees.  Are within the setback requirements.  Nothing seems to be enough. Additional Commission comments:  There is a very large window in the den on the upper level. (Raduenz – the window is frosted up to six feet.)  Was helpful that the Forrest’s windows are shown on the plans. (Raduenz – the two homes are not parallel to one another.)  Mentioned that the home may be rotated a bit? What direction? (Raduenz – clockwise a bit but must be conscious of the trees. Willing to move one foot out of the entry.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 17  Is there a response to the neighbors across the canyon regarding glare? (Raduenz – will choose non-glare glass and will send samples to the neighbors.)  Is the lighting impact illustration accurate? (Raduenz – there are trees in the area that are taller than the story poles.)  Noted that with modern architecture, the can lighting in the ceilings will only illuminate the floors and will not illuminate the walls. There will also be furnishings in the house and window dressings.  Not all of the lights will be on at all times.  Need to be more analytical about the lighting impacts.  What is the lighting scheme for the house? (Raduenz – can lights with white walls.)  Will there be window treatments? (Raduenz – there will be motion sensors and automatic shades.)  Is a difficult site; is this the correct house for the site?  Has heard no supportive arguments for the house.  Feels that for the neighbors, the best solution would be no house.  How can the homeowners meet their needs?  The lot is buildable; the project meets all of the requirements.  The guidelines are more about what is appropriate for the area. There is no predominant style within this neighborhood.  Believes the bronze panels help it blend in better with the neighborhood.  There is almost no place for the home to go.  Is hearing that if the home is made a bit narrower it may be approvable.  Seems clear that there will be another meeting where changes will need to be considered.  There doesn’t seem to be clarity regarding the changes that the applicant is willing to make.  Would be beneficial for the architect to view the site from the properties on La Mesa Lane. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner DeMartini moved to continue the matter to the May 12, 2014 regular meeting, with direction to the applicant as outlined in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  Adjust the elevation of the patio – look at lowering it a few feet, find a way to narrow the house, would like to see a two foot reduction, save the trees on both sides and notch out the terrace to accommodate Oak tree #20. Acting Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Terrones and Sargent recused). The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 18 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1139 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARC AND SUE WORRALL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he had met with the property owner at the site. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Sue Worrall and Una Kinsella represented the applicant.  Will meet with the neighbors that submitted the letter.  Will protect the Oak tree.  Believes that the other tree referenced by the neighbor lies on another neighbor’s property. Commission comments:  Have the plans been presented to the neighbors? (Kinsella – hasn’t been a formal meeting, but have discussed with neighbors.)  Wishes the porch could be a bit deeper. (Kinsella – can look at pulling the porch forward further as far as it can be done.) The existing stoop has nice character to it.  Massing is handled nicely.  Didn’t see a lot of clapboard and stucco materials in the neighborhood. Be certain to look at the area where the materials meet and resolve them correctly.  From the rear, the second story appears too much like an addition. (Kinsella – will look at this feature.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 19 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:43 p.m. 9. 1534 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RYAN MORRIS, VIOTTI ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHERYL TAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (37 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Ray Viotti and Ryan Morris represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Concerned with some of the proportions. Have other options been looked at, particularly on the larger windows that seem to overpower the second story.  If the overhangs were a bit longer, it may help the building appear more horizontal, rather than a tower.  The porch needs to be reworked to enhance its prominence.  The second floor looks better from the rear than from the front.  Will the Oak tree in the rear yard remain? (Viotti – yes.)  Consider a wooden garage door. Public comments: Wayne Cho, 1538 Los Altos Drive:  Concerned regarding the three windows along the left side. Encouraged reducing their size to preserve his privacy. (Viotti – have considered view blockage issues and have spoken to the neighbors.) Public hearing closed. Additional Commission comments:  Should install story poles.  Concerned that story poles may not be needed as no neighbors have expressed concerns.  Could be a candidate for a design review consultant.  Is this style appropriate for the neighborhood? Majority of the homes are bungalows or split-level ranches or a variant of Shingle-Style Craftsman.  The neighborhood appears to be evolving in terms of architectural style.  A design reviewer could assist in refining details and simplifying the design. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 20  Concerned about what is considered to be the neighborhood and how the design fits. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 10. 2020 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J.D. ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ANTHONY AND THERESA CAPRINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Is there any feedback from the applicant regarding the change necessitated by the lack of ability to request a variance from side-yard setback requirements? How will it change the design? (Meeker – in light of the amount that the property exceeds the maximum FAR, the code seems to imply, and has been interpreted by staff to disallow the expansion of a non-conformity into the setbacks where the project exceeds standards in other aspects. The applicant is aware of the interpretation, but staff does not know the reaction.)  Doesn’t the code permit an existing non-conforming setback to be continued under certain circumstances? (Meeker – yes, but only in instances where the property has not exceeded the maximum FAR allowed for the lot.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Terri Caprini and Hector Estipona represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The Commission has previously considered and approved project that will exceed the FAR by converting existing attic space to living space. The attic areas in this project already contribute to the mass and bulk of the property despite the attic being walled shut, and the applicant now proposes increasing the mass and bulk by adding an addition. Having a hard time with justifying the variance.  Did the applicant look into using the space in the attic, rather than constructing the addition? (Caprini – Thought they couldn’t use the attic space because they would need to add dormers.) Public comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 21  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Have considered other projects where square footage is removed to permit additions in other areas on properties that exceed FAR.  Agreed with staff’s interpretation that it is inappropriate to consider a variance from setback requirements in instances where the addition proposed continues to cause the property to exceed FAR restrictions.  Requested that the applicant consider other options, including using the existing attic space for additional floor area, and revise the project without the variance request, then present the item to the Commission following revisions. Direction was provided to the applicant; no action was taken by the Commission. This item concluded at 10:29 p.m. 11. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (108 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had met with the owner of the property. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Are the tall, skinny windows being retained? (Robertson – they’re being reused elsewhere on the structure. Have taken a Japanese eclectic approach.)  Requested more information regarding the seventeen foot high window on the front. (Robertson – have emphasized the location of the window with the tall trim pieces. A Japanese Maple tree is to be planted in front of the area.)  Feels that the spindly trim pieces on the front elevation do not fit well with the design, they weaken the design, though the window is a nice element. Will the elements be proud of the wall? (Robertson – yes, with stucco behind.)  How will a six-foot high and six-foot wide window work in a bedroom, particularly relative to privacy? (Robertson – is a copy of what is there currently. Blinds will cover the window. It is not one that will typically be used for viewing.)  Feels the tall, spindly trim element on the front elevation is out of proportion.  Believes that there are a lot of charming elements in the design. The loggia windows work nicely with the space. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 22  The tall trim pieces on the front gable will frame the Japanese Maple tree, but nothing else. There is no window in that area. Believes it may be an appropriate element in that area. As an alternative, could perhaps install a “slot” type window down the middle of the gable, it might capture some of the charm and details of the original house.  Agrees that this element of the design should be revisited and integrated better.  On the south elevation, there is a large, broad gable; perhaps revisit the design in this area to reduce the amount of stucco and add character to the design that is consistent with the initial home design.  Noted that on the south elevation, the windows framing the French doors do not have the same framing as the door, consider making these elements consistent. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 12. 325 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (NICK ROGERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHRIST SPAULDING, ARCHITECT) (43 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Nick Rogers represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Beautiful house.  Plans call for a left hand driveway back to the bark play area; it appears to already be there. (Rogers – will be paved or integrate it with the proposed semi-circular driveway.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 23  The design keeps with the historic architectural character.  Is concerned about the semi-circular drive; appears to be out of character with the neighborhood. Would be odd to see a car parked within the semi-circular drive in front of the house.  What is the reasoning for the semi-circular driveway? (Rogers – there is a house on Pepper that has a similar configuration. Can attempt to lessen the impact by the use of cobblestones or pavers.)  Discussion of estate wall.  Have the neighbors been consulted? (Rogers – site is posted with notice of the plans)  Was a detached garage considered? (Rogers – considered, but would take away much of the rear yard.)  What is the purpose of the roll-up door in the rear of the garage? (Rogers – ease of access for children’s bicycles and toys.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:  People have a tendency of building front walls up to the sidewalk, rather than at the front property line. Creates a problem if there is no room for sidewalk repairs and/or additions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Can the circular driveway be approved? (Hurin/Kane – if used for circulation and not parking, then it is approvable.)  Feels the attached garage positively affects the proportions of the project.  Approval would be based on the analysis of the Page and Turnbull historical evaluation. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. 13. 1545 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEORGE NOVITSKIY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS SADLAK AND MEE KWONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 24  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. George Novitskiy represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Feels the attached garage fits with the neighborhood.  Doesn’t support the request for greater height, particularly with the 9-foot plate height on the second floor. Would be easier to support with an eight-foot plate height on the second floor.  Does the structure step back as it rises up the hillside? (Novitskiy – yes.)  The façade will be very imposing with the height as proposed.  Is there something that could be done on the left side; it appears that the second floor sits atop the first floor? Is a massive wall for the neighbor to view. (Novitskiy – there is an architectural feature that projects out to separate the two floors.)  Concerned with the lack of landscaping on the site, particularly within the rear yard.  Feels the plate heights could be adjusted to help the style appear more horizontal.  Requested clarification regarding whether or not the guard rail continues on the front elevation.  Is the area near the L-shaped stairway open to below? Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.  Need story poles.  Bring down the plate heights.  Believes the project may benefit by consultation with a design review consultant.  The design is appropriate for the neighborhood.  Believes it could be a very nice project, particularly if it is made to appear to be more horizontal.  Look at massing and window placement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 11:33 p.m. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 14 (1600 Trousdale Drive) due to a long-term business relationship with the project architect. He left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 25 14. 1600 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND AMENDMENT TO THE TW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 124-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (JOEL I. ROOS, PACIFIC UNION DEVELOPMENT CO., APPLICANT; GABRIEL FONSECA, SMITHGROUPJJR, ARCHITECT; PENINSULA HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  How can this project be built when Sunrise is not yet completed? (Meeker – each project must be considered on its own merits.)  Why is this project different from the Sunrise project? (Meeker – is the same type of project.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Dr. Lawrence Kopell, PHCD and the project architect represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Has the traffic analysis been completed for the project? (Meeker – will include more analysis in the environmental analysis for the project.)  Is there a LEED goal identified for the project? (Project Architect – not yet. Anticipate meeting some of the LEED requirements.)  Feels is a great project. Not concerned regarding approving another assisted living facility in the area.  Is there a likelihood that affordable units will be provided as part of the facility? (Kopell – will have eight to ten units that are below market. Will be rental units.)  If some of the units are affordable, then how does that relate to the City’s inclusionary policies? (Meeker – at this point, staff’s determination is that the inclusionary policies do not apply to the project. Will research this further.)  Has any consideration been given to using rooftops for open space? (Project Architect – have a memory care garden on the Trousdale side of the project, but the potential also exists for other portions of the project.)  Is concerned about the design; feels it looks cold and institutional. Doesn’t feel that it looks residential.  There isn’t a lot of landscaping on the property. There is no sense of arrival at the property.  Feels the west elevation has no life to it.  Is too similar on every floor.  Would like to see balconies opening onto courtyard. Public comments: Dennis Zell, Treasurer of the Peninsula Health Care District:  Held public meetings in advance of the presentation this evening.  Are very sensitive to the residents of Burlingame.  The inside of the building has a lot to do with the outside design of the building.  This project needs to move forward to ensure its profitability. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 26  The hospital is across the street; the design blends with the style of that building.  Feels the architecture is appropriate for the north Burlingame area. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:  Was present at the meetings where the zoning standards for the area were created.  Wants to know the difference between a house in a residential neighborhood that is licensed to provide assisted living services and this project. Feels that those units are inclusionary units.  The project is primarily an apartment building with additional services.  Reconsider whether or not the project fits into the inclusionary requirements.  Would rather remain in Burlingame than to move to another community for such care.  Perhaps choose a tree that grows a bit larger with something deciduous as a means of enhancing the landscaping for the project. Additional Commission comments:  Likes the design and color scheme. Compliments the hospital.  Could perhaps use some work to reduce its block appearance.  Most concerned about traffic and noise impacts due to hospital and other uses in the area.  Feels that the finished project will appear better in real life than in the rendering.  Feels the massing is handled nicely.  Agrees with the public comments requesting representation of the proposed street trees at maturity to determine their scale relative to the building. Perhaps larger trees could be used to soften the building. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission action is not required for this item at this time. Comments received will inform the analysis in the environmental analysis for the project as well as the overall project design. This item concluded at 12:23 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 April 21, 2014:  Noted that the appellant of the Planning Commission’s action regarding the project at 1433 Floribunda Avenue withdrew the appeal just prior to the April 21st City Council meeting. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014 27 XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary