Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.02.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 23, 2015 CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A a.Approval of the Closed Session Agenda b.Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time. c.Adjournment into Closed Session d.Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and (d) (4): One Case 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:09 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and GumPresent6 - TerronesAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners Yie and Sargent abstained because they were absent from the February 9, 2015 meeting. Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, and Gum4 - Absent:Terrones1 - Abstain:Yie, and Sargent2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA None. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.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 Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.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 (continued from February 9, 2015 Planning Commission meeting) Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Sargent was absent from the last meeting but watched the video so is familiar with the application. Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jeff Chow and Peyling Yap represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Made right choices in making changes. >Great improvement but disappointing that this happened. Commission spent a lot of time refining the design originally. Not sure this would have been approved in its current form. Is very tall for the neighborhood, with abnormally high first floor plate height. Changes that were made on the fly exacerbate the shortcomings. >Bulked out trellis adds interest. >When presented with three options and one is a "winner" makes it easier to make a choice. >Isn't there a framing certification and roof ridge survey? (Hurin: Typically yes, but in this instance the original approval did not include an increase in roof ridge height so a roof ridge height was not ordered.) >Shared with neighbors? (Chow: Reception at open house was favorable.) Public comments: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes None. Commission discussion: >Would not have approved this at this height. Other applicants are able to follow approvals without trouble. >This kind of egregious issue seems rare. It is a framing issue, whereas typically the issues are with finishes. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, and Gum4 - Nay:Sargent1 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - b.1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Minerva Abad represented the applicant, and Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang represented the property owners. Commissioner comments/questions: >Windows on rear elevation shown dark - is this a treatment? (Abad: No, printing error.) >Shows process has worked, is a better result. Public comments: >None. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners ) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioners Gum and Sargent met with neighbor across the street . Commissioner DeMartini previously met with the neighbors at 1551 and 1554 Los Montes Drive, and before this meeting had a brief email exchange about the story poles. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Farnaz Khadiv represented the applicant, and Jiries Hanhan represented the property owner: >Raised garage 1 foot instead of 2 feet. >Instead of going up from garage level, steps down 2 feet. Clears view from across the street. Commission comments: >Great improvements. >Has eliminated view impacts. House hugs topography. >Design review consultant letter mentioned a more horizontal garage door, entry doors, and landscaping. (Khadiv: Garage door was originally vertical, has been changed to have horizontal doors . Front entry doors have been matched in same style, following horizontal pattern.) >Painted window frames? (Khadiv: No. They will be anodized.) >Plate heights not shown on some of the plans. Need to be added to Sheet A -4.2. Also show plate heights on right-side elevation. >What will driveway slope be? (Khadiv: Not sure, but will be less steep than currently.) >Appreciated talking to neighbors. Public comments: Craig Ho, 1551 Los Montes spoke on this application: >Supports project. No view impacts. Commission discussion: >Can support Special Permit on left side because of site topography. >Landscape plan as FYI. Drafting changes on Sheet A-4.2. >Special Permit for attached garage fits pattern of neighborhood. Steep topography would make it difficult to have a rear garage. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following amendments: >An FYI will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review prior to issuance of a Building Permit to address the following items: (1) A Landscape Plan to be submitted for review; Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and (2) drafting errors on Sheet A-4.2 to be corrected. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - d.1541 Adrian Road, zoned RR – Application for Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for changes to an existing commercial recreation facility (Robert Edwards/GoKart Racer, applicant; Frank Edwards Co ., Inc., property owner) (15 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Have there been any code enforcement complaints against this business? (Hurin: In reviewing the Planning file, did not find any code enforcement items .)(Kane: Anecdotally not aware of any complaints, but would need to review files to be certain.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Marshall Hydorn represented the applicant: >GoKart does not need the 20 off-site parking at all, based on experience and the parking study . Would prefer to have those additional spaces removed from the CUP completely. Commissioner questions: >Where do employees park? (Hydorn: On site, particularly on southern end. Sometimes in front or northern section.) How many would there be in a busy time? (Hydorn: Does not know. Has not seen much use of parking in their lots. Majority of business is after-hours.) >There is a parking problem in the area, but not related to this particular business. Customers from neighboring businesses may be parking in Go -Kart parking lot. Recommends Go -Kart have signage to designate its on-site parking. >Wants to reduce from 43 off-site to zero? (Hydorn: Yes. The business does not need any off -site parking.)(Kane: Would need to re -notice the item since it would be a different project .)(Hydorn: Will keep application as is.) >If neighboring business needs additional parking in future, could approach Go -Kart and amend permits. Public comment: >None. Commission comments: >11 years of experience has shown there is not a need for the existing amount of off -site parking. Further supported by the parking study. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - e.960 David Road, zoned RR – Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage within the drainage right -of-way (Matt Mefford, Tesla Motors, applicant and designer; Frank Edwards Company, Inc ., property owner) (20 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Matthew Mefford represented the applicant: Commission questions/comments: >None. Public comments: >None. Commission discussion: >A good use of the property. Conditions in staff report are applicable. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - f.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 with the owner of Nuts for Candy and the owner of Potpourri. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Craig Mucci represented the applicant: Commission comments/questions: >Do other Rector lots have fences? (Mucci: The lot on Cadillac Way has a fence.) Why is it necessary here? (Mucci: Security. Also in last meeting there was concern about pedestrian safety. Has changed plans to have pedestrian gate. Aesthetically wants to make the property to look better.) >Would applicant still consider splitting space? (Mucci: Needs the property as business the grows . Concerned with shared liability with insurance.) >Investigated other lots? (Mucci: Yes.) >Does not understand liability issue. >Did applicant meet with Broadway merchants? (Mucci: Yes exchanged an email. Needs lot to support growth of dealership.) >Dealership had previously been granted a variance for reduced parking, but now needing overflow parking. (Mucci: Wants to relieve congestion on Cadillac Way. By the time inventory, service and carryover was considered, the existing facility was at capacity.) >Will employees park in the lot, or is this purely for storage? How many employees? (Mucci: 72 employees.) Is there a possibility to have employees park during the day and have Broadway merchants use the lot at night? (Mucci: The logistics of putting the new car storage and some of the long-term service vehicles there would make that difficult.) >If this is meant to relieve the congestion on Cadillac Way, would this just be moving the traffic to California Drive? California Drive is narrow with lots of traffic. Concerned with traffic backing up. (Mucci: At peak periods could be faster to turn right onto California Drive and access the dealership via Rollins Road.) >There would be a total of between 10 and 15 vehicles moved to and from the site in a day - does that include both to and from? (Mucci: Yes.) >Is there a flooding problem on the site? (Mucci: Not aware of.) >Will there be a temptation to have For Sale signs on cars? (Mucci: Will not do that.) >Concern of overpass and electrification of Caltrain in future. The lot may need to be used by Caltrain in the future. Has that been taken into consideration, given construction of the fence? (Mucci: Intent is to utilize the lot for 5 years.) Public comment: None. Commission discussion: >The concept of having the lot be shared between Rector employees and Broadway patrons sounds interesting. Can the City condition this? (Kane: No. Rector has a lease with its own terms. They may consider that, but we don ’t know what terms they would be able to offer. It would in effect be a sublet back to the City or a merchant group. They can consider it but it cannot be required since it would be changing the terms of a lease that they have with third parties. That cannot be done through a CUP.) >Sharing the lot would only work if there was not a fence. >Shared use proposal sounds reasonable, and understands parking on Broadway can be challenging, but even when it ’s busy never thinks of parking in Lot T, even during day. Would be even worse at night. >In 5 years can decide whether lot would be needed for other purposes. >There had been discussions of valet parking for Broadway. Thought the lot could be used for that at night. Caltrain lot could also be used for this purpose. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >No evidence that there is demand for this lot for parking besides what is in this application. >Broadway parking needs to be considered holistically, not piecemeal. >Concerned about traffic, but vehicles could not be moved between 7-9 am and 4-7 pm as a condition to mitigate potential traffic impacts. >How to enforce conditions of CUP if there is violation? (Kane: If any holder of a CUP violates its conditions the CUP may be revoked.) > Would restrictions on hours not work for employee parking? Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing. >Would employees park in the lot or would it just be inventory? (Mucci: A combination. New car inventory would probably only be moved once per week.) >Would the hours in the Conditions of Approval work for employee parking? (Mucci: Some shifts start as late as 11 am. Most employees will be there before 7 since the facility opens at 7:30.) >Could set the hours at 7:30-9:30 to accommodate employees but still control for traffic. >Could 5 spaces be allocated for other businesses? (Mucci: Yes, provided it does not infringe on insurance liability.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Commission discussion: >If approved, there is no motivation to investigate anything further. Wants more investigation, or changing of timing to accommodate employees. (Kane: Other Caltrain lots are not on the table as an alternate location. Cannot impose terms that would be contrary to the leases in place.) >Is envisioning solutions to a problem that does not currently exist. CUP is for 5 years, if conditions change can be revisited at that time. >Concerned with traffic congestion and safety. >Anticipated to only have 10-15 cars being moved per day. Traffic will be higher if it is a public parking lot. >Does not see proposed use is injurious to properties or uses in the vicinity. Is in keeping with the use, and is a lot the City does not control. >If congestion is the concern, this proposal will limit congestion more than anything else that has been discussed in relation to this lot. >Amend Condition #4 to restrict moving cars between 7:30-9:30 am to allow potential for employees to utilize the lot. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, indicating a 4-2-0-1 vote in favor of the application. Chair Bandrapalli took a roll call vote on the motion. Through the roll call vote, the motion failed by the following vote: Sargent – Aye Yie – Aye Loftis – Aye Bandrapalli – Nay DeMartini – Nay Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Gum – Nay (Kane: A commissioner changed his vote between the voice vote and roll call. The motion fails, but it is unusual for a commissioner to change his vote in this manner. Would require research to determine validity of the final roll-call vote.) Commission discussion: >Concerned employees would be parking in the lot during the restricted hours. >If employees parked in this lot, inventory could be where employees currently park, closer to showroom. >Applicant did not request to use this lot for employees. Commission should not be trying to determine what the applicant wants. >There will be more traffic if employees use the lot rather than inventory. >Concern over impacts on the neighborhood and the neighboring businesses. >Sharing the lot between employees and Broadway businesses would address community needs and also serve the needs of the business, but would create congestion. >(Kane: The lot is not available for the public. It has been leased to a private party. Commission needs to decide whether the use as proposed can meet the findings of a CUP. The lot would not revert to the City if the CUP is not approved without the termination of existing leases.) >The lease is held by Rector, but they could possibly be sublet to Broadway merchants. (Kane: Commission cannot require an agreement between the applicant and another party, or require changes to lease terms. If the use pattern were substantially changed might need to come back to the Planning Commission for amendment.) Commissioner Loftis made a motion to approve the application with the amended conditions that the use would be for vehicle storage only, with no intensification of use or employee parking, and no more than 15 vehicle movements per day. Commission discussion: >Definition of vehicle storage? Does that include employee parking? (Gardiner: Typically the nature of vehicles is not differentiated. Vehicle storage refers to vehicles being parked in a parking lot. The application is to store vehicles, with conditions of when those vehicles could move in and out of the lot .) (Kane: The impacts on the neighborhood are related to the numbers of trips and times of trips, not who is driving the vehicle.) >Would still like to see some shared use of the lot. Commissioner Loftis withdrew his motion. A condition that the parking lot be shared cannot be imposed by the Commission. Commission discussion: >Could stipulate that vehicles not utilize the Broadway /California Drive intersection, and instead go around the block. (Gardiner: The 7-9 am and 4-7 pm condition is a standard peak hour definition that has been applied to other projects as well. It would be difficult to enforce turning movements or who is driving the vehicles, but the time restrictions would be easier to enforce and are related to peak traffic.) >Unclear whether item can be continued. (Ordinarily when a vote is taken, it is the action. The irregularity here is that a roll -call was called immediately after the voice vote and one of the votes changed, so it is unclear which is the effective vote. Item may be held until a formal legal opinion can be issued.) Commissioner Sargent moved that the item be held until a formal legal opinion can be rendered. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to hold the item until a formal legal opinion can be rendered. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.712 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, Side Setback Variance and Parking Variances for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Rahul Verma and Monali Sheth, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: DeMartini met with the property owners. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor to the left, and a gentleman across the street. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that an email in support of the project was received after publication of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is the 11'-6" side setback dimension the first floor or second floor? (Hurin: 11'-6" is the proposed side setback to the addition, on the right side of the house.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant, and Rahul Verma represented the property owner: >Likes the charm and qualities of the house. >Requesting variance to extend wall 4 feet along the same line as the original home. >Fireplace and bookcases in Living Room intrude into garage, so makes the garage substandard. >Wanting to retain as much of existing house, rather than rebuild. >Massing pulled back so not right on street. Commission questions/comments: >Driveway and garage are both too small. Needs to have some functional parking on the lot. Is garage not usable at all? (Verma: Can get a car into the garage but can't open the doors because it is too narrow.)(Wehmeyer: It has been this way since the house was built. The depth is not an issue, it can be lengthened, but the width impacts the interior fireplace and bookcases.) >Is right-side wall of the garage at the setback already? (Wehmeyer: Left is constrained by bookcases, right is at setback.) >Look at 1813 Ray Drive application as an example. This also has a layer -cake effect, looks like an addition. 1813 Ray Drive application made changes such as window sizes that made a big difference. >Proportions of front entry gable end seem odd, feels too vertical. Perhaps lower it, maybe have sidelites rather than the chandelier to provide human scale. Columns are very tall and stretch further down than they should - typically they only extend down to the landing and then have a base. >Consider shifting massing to integrate it better. The contrast is not as dramatic as the 1813 Ray Drive application was at first however. >Would like to have at least one of the parking areas be conforming. Could push the laundry room wall back to make the garage conforming in length. (Wehmeyer: Has looked at it, can move the back wall to make it conforming. Driveway is just one foot too short.) >Garage is conforming in width, so bookcases do not need to be removed. >Short driveway causes bumper to be close to sidewalk. If back wall of garage is pushed back, Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes perhaps push front wall back too to lengthen driveway. Driveway is more likely to be used for parking than garage. (Hurin: 18-foot length is for existing conditions only. Once walls are touched and part of work, would need to conform to standard 20-foot depth. Otherwise will still need to request a variance .) (Wehmeyer: Can push front garage wall back to get 18-foot driveway, and rear wall to extend length of the garage.) >Opportunity to mitigate shading and declining height envelope for neighbor to right? (Wehmeyer: Pushing massing back will help avoid shading.) >Chimney is being removed, but wants to retain fireplace? (Wehmeyer: Yes, for aesthetics.) >Shared plans with neighbors? (Wehmeyer: Has talked to neighbors to left and right, still needs to talk to rear neighbor.) Public comments: Leslie Reisfeld spoke on this item: >Glad to hear the discussion about having the parking work. Parking issues on the street. >Encouraging neighbors to talk about what they are doing is good for the community. Commission questions/discussion: >Question whether there is a need to move the laundry room wall in as well as move the front of the garage in. >Design challenge to have parking spaces be closer to conforming. Parking is tight on street, so this would make it more possible to have two cars parked on site. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - b.1336 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer; Dan and Michele Tatos, property owners) ( 61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1333 and 1341 Laguna Avenue, and the neighbor to the left. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Setback. (Hurin: 11'6" is measured to addition at rear of house, but it is the right-side setback.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant: >Owners wanted a contemporary house, but neighborhood preference is for traditional homes so it looks traditional on the outside. >Wants to retain "lumpy" stucco from first floor. >Large roof over existing house, with shed dormers to limit amount of stucco on second floor. >No changes to landscaping. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission questions: >Have neighbors seen plans? Concern over rear balcony. (Robertson: Has shown plans to all neighbors in the vicinity, has not received any negative comments. Homeowner has support letters.) >Additional trees seem close to the sidewalk, will end up needing to replace sidewalks. (Robertson: Wants a "redwood grotto" look. Closest tree is 8 feet from sidewalk.) >Seems top-heavy - should lower plate height of second story to 8 feet. >Entry area is narrow, then there is a massive roof above. Could widen entry to create more of a base. >Roof pitch of dormers looks flat. >Red roof doesn't seem to fit with preference for contemporary style (Robertson: Owners like the red roof.) >Design seems confused. >Existing house holds together, but new design does not seem to improve it. >The roof is massive, looks like a lot of roof area, and a lot of glazing - doesn't feel in proportion. A lot of glass on north elevation. >There is no articulation. It is a two-story plane with a lot of glazing. Public comment: >None. Commission discussion: >Would benefit from consultation with a design review consultant. >It is a challenging design problem. >Constraints are creating a tension between what is being retained and what is being added. >Focus on: amount of glazing in proportion to house, entry porch (original entry works better with gabled roof rather than shed roof), roof structure, plate height, and upstairs balcony. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - c.115 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new two -story single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; JNL Occidental LLP, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission comments/questions: >Neighbor to right has a porch facing this property. Is there an opportunity to provide additional space, or some type of screening trees? Might need more space than what has been allotted. (Chu: Can look into it.) >Well massed, but front elevation is so symmetrical compared to the side elevations. >Curved round element on the front above the door is distracting. >Side elevations are really good, rear elevation is acceptable. >Terrific porch. >Driveway is very long because of deep lot. Consider turnaround so doesn't have to back out. >Special Permit is requested in order to allow symmetry - not sure. >Existing house has asbestos tile siding - precautions should be taken during demolition. >Right and left elevations fit Burlingame Park, but front elevation looks like Easton Addition. Would rather see design approach from sides also applied to the front. Front does not fit into neighborhood. >Width is 50 feet wide, which is more typical of Easton Addition. Public comments: Mike Ortiz, neighbor at 117 Occidental Avenue, spoke on this item: >Appreciates comment about the side porch. It is highly used and concerned new house might block use of side porch. >Front looks massive, without much depth or setback. >Special attention to demolition. >Concerned with whether there needs to be a variance and encroachment into the declining height envelope given the size of the lot. Mark Henderson, 112 Pepper Avenue, spoke on this item: >Burlingame Park has not had as many large two -story houses as other parts of Burlingame. Will change character of neighborhood over time. >Existing house is a tear-down, but concerned with privacy. >Has English laurel hedge that has done well but would be in area that would look directly into the house. Chu: >Special Permit does not create more floor area - it is an encroachment into the declining height envelope. >Will work with neighbor on privacy. >There is a wide distance between the house to the right. Can have some landscaping for privacy. Commission discussion: >Having the garage on the right side will add distance and privacy compared to existing house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - d.1906 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, a basement, and declining height envelope (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Sargent had a brief text conversation with the contractor, and Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors to the left and behind. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report and noted that a received -after communication had been received. Questions of Staff: >How does the tree removal permit factor in to the process? (Kane: The Planning Commission has jurisdiction when it is part of a development application.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal represented the applicant, and Frank Wong represented the property owner: >Would prefer not to take down trees, but they are infected with bark beetles so will die regardless . Neighbor has asked to retain existing tree to the left, and while it does not have bark beetle is concerned with how far it is leaning. Concerned with pine canker. >Owners are willing to work with neighbors to left on landscaping. >Property is not conducive to a 2-car garage at back since it narrows to back, and rises. >Special Permits for basement height, and door to basement. >Property slopes up the hill, so is one of the reasons for the flat roof. Did not want to apply for a variance for the height of the house. Commission questions/comments: >How does flat roof fit into the neighborhood? (Deal: Would need a Special Permit or Variance to have a roof high enough to have a pitch. Suspects it would need to be higher than 36 feet. Style of house is what owners are looking for. Has a lot of articulation, is not a box. Has cascaded it up the hill.) >Not sure the desire to avoid a Special Permit or Variance is justification to have a flat roof. >Can support the front garage since the neighboring house will have one too, but does not think the style of the house fits into the neighborhood. Plate heights should be reduced to 8 feet, otherwise it looks like a ship. Choice of materials, wide fascias, big overhang, skinny columns. House does not fit location. >Could be a nice house - is articulated well, massed well. >Columns look skinny, and tubed steel and glass rail seems cold. >Details are critical with this type of architecture. Examples provided in neighbor's letter have the type of details that could allow the house to fit into the neighborhood. >Street has a very woodsy, serene quality. Material choices are important. >Lot sloping up furthers need for plate height to come down. (Deal: Typically with an 8'-1" plate height there is a sloped roof above which creates more mass. With flat roof there is not roof mass above so plate height could be higher .) >Proportions of overhang and columns - columns look to spindly compared to the big overhangs . (Deal: Overhangs are only 24 inches. But can have thicker columns.) >Would look better with wood. Does not specify whether it is stained or painted. (Deal: Rendering shows hardiplank, but was intended to be wood.) >There has not been tree maintenance, and construction equipment has been in carport for a long time. (Wong: Had initially thought would be using construction equipment sooner. Arborist report did not think trees were worth saving.) >Should look at landscape plan more critically. Having trees on perimeter does not seem to fit the pattern of the neighborhood. (Deal: According to the City Arborist, pine trees in this area are not doing well because of pine canker and bark beetle infestation. Trees cannot be saved.) >Landscape plan needs to help house fit into the neighborhood. Should take extra step to fit better into neighborhood, not just trees on perimeter. The example on Drake Avenue has landscaping that fits Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the neighborhood. (Wong: Has been talking with neighbor about trying to keep tree to the left.) >Look and feel of the house does not fit in with the neighborhood. Landscaping seems spartan. >Left side elevation has a blank face of stucco – maybe a small window or something to break up the space. >Window patterns on the Drake Avenue example make the house fit much better for Easton Addition. >Siding on left side terminates arbitrarily. (Deal: Is supposed to give the impression of wrapping around, but doesn ’t want to have the wood continue all the way across. Would prefer to remove it rather than add more.) >Vertical volume void near Bedroom #1 does not continue all the way up – vertical volume is broken up by the horizontal line. Instead could have volumes with wood all the way to the top, or stucco all the way up. Articulating the volume all the way up could be beneficial to the house. >A window across from the washer /dryer will add natural light and break up the expanse of windowless wall. Could also have a window in the entry of the bedroom. Public comment: Resident, 1320 Drake Avenue, spoke on this application: >Can move the construction equipment. >Trees have been there but are not in good condition. House to the right has problems with pine needles in the gutters, and the grass is dying. Commission discussion: >Applicant should look at material choices, muntin patterns, second floor plate heights, landscaping, and composition of materials horizontally and vertically. >Special Permit - will improve the articulation of the house. >Design of the house has good bones and may be improved, but not sure it fits into the neighborhood. >Needs a more organic feel to fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - e.226 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a food establishment and Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial building (Nick Swinmurn, applicant: Remy's Quality Construction, Inc., designer; S.L. Griffiths Inc., property owner) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: None. Visits to Property: All had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that a received -after letter had been submitted. Questions of Staff: >Businesses that did not take credits, and instead took the assessments, could do the same thing? (Hurin: Yes) >Does the City have a position on this? (Hurin: No. Parking for restaurant space on the ground floor is Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes not required. While some properties with spaces paid the assessment rather than take the credit and continued to maintain the spaces for their own use, those paces could be removed if the assessment had been paid originally.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Nick Swinmurn represented the applicant, and Remy Sijbrant of Remy's Quality Construction represented the contractor: >Committed to establishing businesses in Burlingame. >Hoping Nachoria will be a good addition to Burlingame. Commission questions/comments: >Is there an easement for the use of Radio Shack in the back that needs to be maintained? (Swinmurn: Does not know.) >Needs to fix parking diagrams on plan - not consistent locations and numbers on the plan sheets . (Swinmurn: Not changing any of the parking in the back.) >Why close at 10:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays? (Swinmurn: Primarily a restaurant; 10:00 seems to be when things close down. After 10:00 attracts a different crowd.) >Likes indoor/outdoor seating. A bit nervous about cinderblock wall - should be matched to the slump block of the building, which gives it some texture. >Accessible path of travel shown in the drive aisle, will need to be striped. (Hurin: The required accessible path of travel is provided through the interior of the space. The site plan is mislabeled - it is a path of travel for exiting, but not accessibility.) >Could the front windows be movable? (Swinmurn: The current windows can be opened. They are single-hung.) >What would a typical occupancy be, versus maximum? (Swinmurn: 109 maximum, 78 average) >Consideration of entry from Lorton rather than corner? Would be entering off the driveway, and the seating is right alongside the drive aisle. Maybe some planter boxes or something to make it a bit softer . (Swinmurn: Kept entry where it exists today. There is a block wall between the seating and driveway. It will be a decorating challenge.) >Cafe seating in front? (Swinmurn: Secondary application for sidewalk seating on the Lorton side will be submitted.) Ron Karp spoke on this item, as property manager and leasing agent: >As Downtown property owner supports the project. Will bring something different to Lorton Avenue. >Door already exists and is reinforced. >Will have sidewalk seating under different permit. >Will verify easement - does not believe there is an easement. >Radio Shack space will become something else in the future. Commission discussion: >The softening of the edge will happen once people start using the seating. Hanging plants coming down from the awning, etc. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 February 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications None. b.City Council regular meeting February 17, 2015 No report. c.FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. d.FYI: 60 Edwards Court - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:54 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 23, 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 March 5, 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