Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.03.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 9, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent6 - YieAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Approval of the minutes of February 23, 2015 was deferred until the meeting of March 23, 2015. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT a.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 City Attorney Kane summarized the contents of her memorandum to the Planning Commission of March 5, 2015. She noted that the roll call vote of the Planning Commission regarding 1260 California Drive is the deciding vote. Since the roll call vote was a tied vote, the end result is that the motion failed and the project is considered denied by the Planning Commission. The appeal period regarding the Commission's action commences immediately and runs for a period of ten calendar days until 5 p.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2015. A member of the City Council may also choose to call the item up for consideration by the full City Council within that same time period. Council Member Brownrigg has already informed the City Attorney that he will call up the item for City Council consideration. The item will be considered by the City Council on April 6, 2015. 7. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for a new 268-unit residential apartment building and 22-unit residential condominium project (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Stucker Family Trust and Oscar F. Person Testamentary Trust, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Maureen Brooks Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the item and introduced Special Project Planner Maureen Brooks, and the consultant team from David Powers Associates (John Schwarz). The hearing is an opportunity to provide public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); the comment period concludes on April 3, 2015. Oral and written comments on the DEIR may be received during this evening's hearing, and written comments on the DEIR will be accepted through April 3, 2015. John Schwarz, David Powers and Associates provided an overview of the EIR process and touched upon the main purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where we are in the process and the purpose of the hearing this evening. Noted that there are no significant unavoidable impacts idenfied in the DEIR. Main issues include: hazards/hazardous materials, traffic /circulation and noise and air quality. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: Patrick Callahan, 921 Linden Avenue: submitted written comments. The fencing to the south which is what affects me, seems to be a little bit of a conflict between the documents and the drawings, drawings show eight feet, document says six or seven, what type of material, that kind of thing, I'm sure the neighbors on Toyon would be more astute about what they want to see behind their house. The construction impacts relative to trucking, if there's 27,000 cubic yards, that's a lot of truckloads of dirt out of there, and I understand that the truck route plans don't come until later in the process, but I would be very interested in how the trucking is going to be handled, where they go, how will they get in and out. Looking at how many workers they are anticipating on the site, and the building looks like it takes most of the site, so where is everybody going to park when they come to work, there will be a lot of guys, we already have some impact from the existing operations, we have fewer people I believe. And then the setting relative to along the south border, there's a landscape berm or landscape area there, looking at the drawings, I can't tell how big the trees are or what species they are, that kind of thing, obviously I'm concerned about how the height of the building relative to the existing residential and what kind of barriers we can put up so if we have an option to put in larger trees, like they were talking about on Carolan and Rollins, I think that would be a good idea, something that maybe grows a little faster than others, hopefully not deciduous too, so that it remains a barrier during the winter. And then, just the visual impacts, looking at the massing of the project, the building just seems a lot larger compared to the rest of the area, with Northpark, and the residential, I know that the condos or the townhomes are put in there to try and help that, but when you go down both sides, if you're going to put that new wall up along the freeway, you're going to end up with almost a tunnel affect, it feels like to me, and the building, even though it says it steps back, only parts of it step back and it feels like a high wall, if it was me I'd be asking to push things down, maybe put it down another level underground, if that ’s the case, keep that same height or take a floor out, the spatial requirements and all that, some of the documents as I see in here on Page 95, talk about two four-story buildings compared to each other, but it's really a five and a half story building because it's above grade because of the garage. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes In the Complete Streets, I'm just concerned about what that looks like, I don't have any documents to show me what that looks like, what's going to happen, maybe I can comment on that at another time. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission comments/questions: >A little bit concerned about traffic. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that I'm not entirely sure what all the terminology means. But the sense that I get from looking at it, on page 36, we have been talking a lot in the last few weeks about the California intersection, and the California intersection looks like it has extremely, well it's not extreme, very long traffic delays, and the other end that I find hard to believe is the Carolan and Oak Grove intersection, which is a particularly bad intersection, it's a three-way intersection, you can't tell when the traffic is coming across the tracks there, but that's not even good now, so I can't believe it's going to be okay later, and I can't believe that it doesn't change given that those two directions out to Broadway and the other direction to the primary street which would be Oak Grove I think, I can't believe there's not a lot more traffic than that, so I would think there needs to be some clarification of the traffic, I know that I've seen this happen in other EIRs, the methodologies are not well understood by lay people, and even as a professional, they're not easy to understand, but those two ends of Carolan I think are quite difficult. It's a tough place to put a lot of new traffic because it's up against the railroad tracks in both directions and that's I think part of the problem with every one of those intersections through there, they are against the tracks, and making the turns onto the streets and across the tracks is quite challenging. The thing that I can see in here that concerns me the most is the traffic, and I'd like to see some clarification and maybe further study, I'm not sure what to ask for precisely. I guess probably clarification and I don't know what we do to mitigate these problems, the very long traffic delays at California, I'm not sure what can be done to fix that, but that's my comments. >On Page 19, they talk about the groundwater management plan and, if long -term dewatering is required, the means and methods to extract, treat and dispose of ground water also shall be presented. I guess I would like a little bit more information about when would a neighborhood expect to see something like that, obviously, they ’ve talked about contaminated soil, there hasn't been a lot of talk about contamination in the ground water, which wouldn't shock me, and I think the neighborhood needs to understand completely exactly what's going to happen. >On Page 21, they talk about the cut that they need to make and they say: “prior to beginning the excavation, the soil in the planned excavation area will be characterized to determine the appropriate disposal options and to allow for excavation and off -haul without first stockpiling on site .” And then, the next page says that if there's impacted soils, they will be stockpiled on site, so I guess my question is are they assuming if it's clean, which I can't imagine if they're already talking about spills on the property, I think that needs to be clear. It also says if soils exhibiting evidence of environmental impact are identified, the excavation shall be advanced to a greater depth, and lateral dimension as appropriate, except we have neighbors on both sides, some are residential neighbors, so I think that neighborhood would like to know exactly what kind of excavation is going to be done. I know there are already questions about property lines, so I think that would be helpful. >Page 27, Alternative Land Use, they talk about an office plan and the first paragraph, they say the existing General Plan and Zoning designations on the site allow for a variety of uses, and so they picked an office plan. And then in the next paragraph, they say an alternative land use of office on the site would not be consistent with the City's General Plan, so I guess my question is why are we picking a land use that they say in the first paragraph is consistent and yet in the second paragraph it's not. >The Alternative Design with Setbacks, I guess I'd like to know why they picked that particular option . I think it was mentioned a little bit this evening already by one of the residents about impacts to an established community, the sound wall to me has a rather significant impact, and I would like that addressed in a few ways, one of which obviously would be noise and I think it's important to take into account that while the freeway is there, I feel that the City is somewhat open in that part of town, and you can see right into Burlingame and once you put a sound wall up, I think you do have an impact. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In 2.1.2.3, Population and Housing Impacts, they talk about, "the project site however is identified in the City's General Plan for multifamily residential development, for these reasons, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area." I guess I question that, it sounds like we're inducing substantial population growth in the area. One of my concerns, if you go to the Housing Element, I guess there are two Housing Elements, one at the time of their original submittal and one is the current one, but at the time of the original submittal, those particular parcels are identified as 185 units, and then in the new Housing Element, the total max is 212, in the document it says a realistic total would be 80% of that total max, but because of the project already being submitted, 290 is input and so to me, if you compare it to what the applicant had already submitted, than sure, 290 equals 290, but if you compare it to the actual numbers in the Housing Element, I think there is substantial population growth. >On Page 22, the City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance, they talk about the project requiring a special permit prior to exceed 30 feet in height, when we're talking about the townhouse portion, but then they say the proposed apartments would not exceed the 75-foot height limit. I don't think that's accurate, I think the 75 feet is with a Conditional Use Permit, and I believe the height limit is 35 feet, so I think they should be consistent with what they've described as the other portion of the parcel. I think it's a little bit misleading to tell somebody that the height limit is 75 feet when really it's not. >The traffic, I would agree completely with Commissioner Loftis, I was actually a little bit surprised to see the numbers, I budget at times in rush hour about 15 minutes to get off the freeway and to get all the way down Broadway and to see numbers that I'm only delayed 30 seconds at certain intersections, I've sat there through lights, and multiple lights, so I think they really need to take a look at that, one of their comments on Page 40 was " the addition of project traffic at a particular intersection would increase average delay per vehicle by only 4/10 of a second, and to me that ’s hardly anything. We're talking about potentially 290 units and perhaps they know more than me but I question this, I really want to understand the impacts of the interchange project and the Carolan road diet. >Also on Page 40, Study Intersection No. 7, Carolan Avenue and Broadway, they say the baseline condition is 42.8 on the average delay, the Baseline Plus Project is 42.6, it goes down, and yet their increase in their table shows it went up by 0.5, so perhaps it's just a typo, but it has to be addressed and also a couple of the intersections actually go down, which I would like to understand exactly how that is going to happen. It sounds like perhaps Burlingame Point is taken into account in this, but I want to make sure that is the case, because it's obviously a very significant project and a project that's been in the news quite recently as potentially starting construction soon. >Page 44, in the middle of the project they did a survey of four different apartment projects, it says during the week of the parking survey, the existing apartment complexes were 90 to 95 per cent occupied, I guess I'd like that broken out per apartment building, I'm shocked that there is a 90 per cent occupied apartment building in the Bay Area right now. One of these was recent construction, so I just want to make sure that they're talking about stabilized apartments in their analysis. >Odors, the gentleman spoke recently that perhaps it doesn't affect the neighbors, and it's not a big enough impact, but the concern obviously is there is a driveway so close to the backs of these people's houses now that I would want that identified a little bit. >On Page 126, the groundwater impacts, they talk about referring to Appendix I, and in Appendix I on the first page, it says that the building will consist of four stories of wood frame residential units. It's actually five stories. And in the next page it talks about an elevation of 4.4 feet from the finished floor of the garage, it's actually 4.9 feet. I think the four stories and five stories, I question whether we're talking about the same project quite honestly because based on the dates on this, I think they were looking at a different plan because there's no mistaking that this project is five stories. So if that's the case then obviously I think this whole section needs to be corrected and updated. >On Page 132, it talks about exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes involving flooding. On the following page, on sea level rise impacts, they talk about a sea level rise, and they say that it's not anticipated that the proposed project would be significantly impacted, but they only focus on the residential units, they don't focus on the subterranean parking spaces, so it's impacting a building, and clearly the building could be impacted, and I don't know where all these people would park then, if their garage is flooded. >Page 136, we talk about the water supply in Burlingame, and we talk about 2010 – 2011, and also 2012 – 2013, we haven't seen 2013 – 2014, and I'm curious if we've taken into account some of the rather significant projects that are proposed in this City. We obviously heard about a rather large one this weekend, we know about one that's going to break ground soon on the other side of the freeway, and it's easy to say we'll have plenty of water but I guess I'd like to see the analysis that takes into account all the buildings that we know of on the development process in the pipeline, so hopefully we can do that. >2.14.2.3, Impacts to Schools, Page 154, I just need to read this paragraph because it's stunning . "The project proposes 290 new residential units that would generate school -aged children. The proposed project (if approved) is anticipated to be constructed and occupied in 2019. The capacity of the local schools (Roosevelt Elementary School, Burlingame Intermediate School, and Burlingame Highs School) in 2019 cannot be determined at this time. If the local elementary, middle, and high schools are at capacity at the time the project is constructed and occupied, project –generated students may need to attend another school within the Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union High School District ." It's rather cavalier to take an impact to the schools which to me drives this community. If we don't have good schools in Burlingame, there are plenty of other places to live, and to me, to take one paragraph and say it's not a problem, if there is a problem, we'll just send them somewhere else. To me, that's entirely not acceptable. I think we need to look at every single school, we often see numbers from schools in their estimates in the future, and I think we need to do that. I mean we can't have, we already have overcrowded schools, if you take Roosevelt, kids are in portables right now, and to get those portables, they took over their playfield. So part of that playfield is gone and now the kids are in portables, so we're going to put more kids there potentially. We need to study that and study it in depth before we start approving projects that harm our schools and then suddenly Burlingame's not the town that we thought it is. >The impact to parks, on Page 155, is also rather vague. It just says there won't be an impact to our parks. How do you decide that. >In the list of cumulative projects, on Page 159, talks about 60 Edwards Court, Tennis Facility, not yet constructed, it's well under construction. I think there's a tour tomorrow of it, and Trousdale, I think this list needs to be updated and perhaps updated with projects that have come by recently. >The only question I have at this time is that the consultant mentioned other projects, in particular the Broadway interchange, if we could get some clarification or answer to whether or not because it's still sort of in the idea stage, whether or not the potential grade separation at Broadway and California needs to be considered, and if not, then not, but at least some statements that we could have in the record in response, I think that would be helpful. >I reflect the concerns that the gentleman mentioned about the property line along the Toyon properties. I remember that there was some concern about the property line as defined by the Carolan project to the affect that it would actually take out a couple of trees of those folks that live on Toyon. That was expressed to me by the folks there that live on Toyon, so I have some concern about that and it would be nice to have a clarification as to that property line and if that would be a concern or not. My other concern is one of a pedestrian nature, and that is pedestrian traffic moving to and from. I think on the west side, it's not a problem, there seems to be plenty of sidewalk space, most of the traffic would probably go downtown. But for those that want to go out to the park and out towards the Bay, that one section of sidewalk is very narrow, and it is encroached upon by the chain link fence and by the ivy and other things that are appurtenant to those properties along that side, so maybe we could look at that a little more closely, and see what kind of pedestrian traffic is anticipated to flow in that direction. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >On the driveway on the south, I guess I'd like that looked at a little bit more closely, I think in some regards that new transition to the houses on Toyon would be an improvement to what's there, because it's already a parking lot, but I think the use pattern is going to change, now with this residential use, a lot of the vehicle traffic will be at night and will impact those houses in a way that they are not impacted now so I just want to make sure that is taken into account. >Concerned about the parking, I realize the project meets the City requirement, but on condo projects, larger projects like this, we often have projects that exceed the parking minimum, so I just want to look at those numbers more closely. >Commented on one of the proposed mitigation measures for interior noise that was brought up by the applicant, particularly the vinyl windows, and on just about every project we have in the City, applicants are told that vinyl windows aren't allowed in the City, and I usually don't do research outside of what's presented in our documents, but I made one call to a window supplier, a national window supplier, and he told me that an aluminum clad window could meet that STC requirement that's being proposed in the EIR, so I think that's going to need to be looked at more closely, and I think there's going to need to be a lot more justification in the documents to get that approved, or at least to make it approvable. >Concurred with all the comments made by fellow commissioners. I just want to reiterate that traffic is the major concern. We really need to take a closer look at that. Because Carolan is a narrow street, and we have one public school, BHS, we have so many seniors, juniors driving to school, and my daughter goes to BHS so I drive every day and it is really hard, it takes me almost five minutes just waiting for the stop light, and sometimes have to miss a couple of red lights. So that's something we really need to take a look at. And also for construction workers, where are they going to park, on Carolan or some other, what streets are they going to park, what's the plan for that, and if you have big trucks coming along, what route are they going to take, maybe take that into consideration, and again, thinking about schools, Commissioner DeMartini talked about what is the enrollment, need to look at that, how many children can each school take, all the schools are already filled up, so Hoover is opening in 2016, but even then, we need to do a study and see, because we need to ensure Burlingame, we brag about our schools, Burlingame has the best schools in the County, and we need to continue to maintain that. The schools are what drive our real estate prices so we want to make sure we provide all the kids the best education in our City. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.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) (XX noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin No ex-parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the property location. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Remy Sijbrant represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Wouldn't it be helpful if the area adjacent to the outdoor dining area and in front of the door were striped for no parking? (Sijbrant - don't intend any parking at the location and are agreeable to striping it as no parking. Kane - need to be certain that the Public Works Department is amenable to the striping.) >Clarified that the existing frame and awning are what is referred to in the plans. >Also clarified that the existing awning frame will be covered with new canvas. Public comments: There were no public comments. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the request with an additional condition requiring that the installation of no-parking striping be installed adjacent to the outdoor dining area, if acceptable to the Public Works Department. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Yie1 - b.1846 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit for retail alcohol sales associated with an existing business (Jeffrey Meisel, applicant; 1846 Rollins Road LLC, property owners) (15 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner De Martini noted that he had had an e -mail exchange with the City's Police Chief. Chair Bandrapalli indicated that she had had a conversation with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Has the use already been approved by the City Council? (Meeker - the City Council adopted a finding of public convenience and necessity which provides the ABC with the ability to consider the application. The Commission must still consider the land-use question.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Meisel represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Noticed that the business is not open on the weekends. (Meisel - doesn't see that there will be a large number of public members visiting the property, but if the demand is demonstrated, then the hours may e increased.) >Is it the expectation that most of the employees will be parking on the street? (Meisel - doesn't forsee parking issues given that there will be very little foot traffic given that the primary business is on-line. Also, the business is in close proximity to the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Facility.) >The building is one of the most meticulous buildings in town. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there any way to quantify how many people are likely to visit the site during the upcoming years? (Meisel - have had about two requests out of one-thousand orders to date.) >Question regarding amplified music? (Meisel - will be music from the computer playing inside, but not outside.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the request as submitted, with conditions. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Yie1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.149 Pepper Ave - zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing accessory structure (Jeff Alan Guard, JAG Architecture, architect and applicant; Jill and Derek Johnson, property owners (40 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right. DeMartini met with the property owner. All Commissioners had visited the property. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding the shower in the basement. >When would the porte-cochere be required to be relocated? (Meeker - only if the vertical supports were removed, then they would need to be replaced at a code-compliant location.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jeff Gard represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Feels that the front elevation does not work well with the exsting architecture. (Gard - the owners like the modern interior of the house and the rear of the house. Wanted to create a more harmonious design with the rear of the house. Trying to tie it into the garden a bit better.) >The design makes the house function better, but it doesn't tie into the existing architecture of the house. Sylistically, the new addition doesn't fit with the building - looks like the front was chopped off the building and a new addition placed on the home. (Gard - this is essentially what is being done. Iit was added to previously. Met with the neighbors who seemed to understand the intent of the design.) >Confirmed that the plan for the garage is to reconvert it back to a garage as it is currently being used as a playroom. (Gard - yes, it is the intent.) >Why haven't divided light's been provided, they are common in the neighborhood? >Understands that the point of providing artificial turf in the front yard as a play area, but is out of Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes character with the rest of the neighborhood which is characterized by lush landscaping. (Gard - is open to negotiation. Is part of the low water-usage landscape plan.) >Also concerned about the artificial turf. >How does the three foot wall better integrate the yard into the neighborhood? Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Though the front addition is handsome, it is incongruous with the rest of the structure; doesn't integrate with the side elevations. >The addition on the front needs to better integrate with the existing structure. >Is a good candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to remand the project to a designer reviewer. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Yie1 - b.2209 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Briggs McDonald, bmod Office of Design, applicant and architect; Ann Stephens and Keith Bol, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors to the right and left of the site. All Commissioners had visited the property. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Briggs McDonald represented the applicant. Commission comments/questtions: >Noted that the first floor setback variance is commonly approved, but sees no justification for the second floor setback variance. (McDonald - the wall itself is pushed back to the required setback, only structural fins project into the setback.) >Feels the additions do not integrate. The second floor addition is too high and the proposed setback is too impactful upon the neighbor. >This design has a problem with appearing like a layer cake; is especially apparent in the side elevation. Design looks top heavy. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The abrupt transition to smooth stucco above the vertical siding first floor is problematic. >Need to look at the massing and better integrate the first and second floor. >Feels that the design doesn't fit into the neighborhood; how does it fit? (McDonald - doesn't fit with the neighborhood, but neither does the existing house with it's mid -century design. The roof design in particular is out of character with the neighborhood, but the scale is similar.) >The existing house's inconsistency with the neighborhood is more subtle than the proposed design. >Could perhaps lower the plate height to reduce the apparent height. >Have specific, style-compatible windows been selected? (McDonald - yes, are attempting to conform with the existing windows.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (McDonald - yes, with some.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is always difficult to integrate a second story addition to a mid -century modern architectural style . There may be better means of integrating the scale and materials; may wish to soften the massing of the stucco addition. >Good candidate for design review. >Is more concerned with the right side setback; wants the first floor moved back and the second floor to comply with the declining height envelope. >Need more justification in support of the second floor side setback variance. Continuation of an existing first floor condition has been granted before. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the project to a design reviewer. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Yie1 - c.1549 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; James and Luciana Witherspoon, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Chair Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion of the Agenda Item 10c (1549 Meadow Lane) since she lives within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers Commissioner Gum spoke to the owners on the right side of the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and James and Melissa Witherspoon represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Requested clarification of the garage dimensions. (Witherspoon - noted that the measurement of the interior of the garage is 22-feet; it is only 16-feet in the area of the furnace.) >Doesn't see as much detail on the side elevations as on the front. Could there be another architectural element added on the side with the fireplace? (Deal - the existing fireplace will be replaced with a new fireplace. The owner has a lot of items be be stored along that wall, so a window isn't desired in that area. Witherspoon - there are also neighbor's bedrooms in that area.) >Generally a pretty good design, but is bothered that the integration of the second floor addition needs to be improved. Perhaps consider bringing the scale down by eliminating the bump out and using a different finishing material within the gable of the second story. (Deal - tried several different approaches in this area, and this was the one that was selected.) >Feels the muntin pattern on the existing windows should be continued on the upper floor. >Concerned regarding a stack of rocks against a large tree in the front yard. Concerned that the tree may be killed. (Witherspoon - the rocks will be reduced when some are distributed to the neighbors, or distributed on the site.) >Clarified that if the windows on the ground floor are not replaced, will eliminate the muntin pattern on all windows. (Deal - this is correct. Witherspoon - very unlikely that the grids will be retained.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Massing is pretty typical for the style that predominates the neighborhood. >Agrees that the front gable element could be brought back down a bit. >Fits in with the neighborhood. >Windows may need to come back as an FYI if necessary. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie1 - Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Recused:Bandrapalli1 - d.1901 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for height for a major renovation and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, with detached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Edward Ted McMahon and Grace Han, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Chair Bandrapalli returned to the dais. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10d (1901 Hillside Drive) as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He also indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10e (12 Vista Lane) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers and the meeting. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Fits in very well with the neighborhood, perhaps better than the existing home. >Has made a good argument for the additional height given the method of measuring the height on the lot. >Is a beautiful house. >Is there a concern that the existing garage is out of character? (Davis - is intended to be a phased project with the garage being changed in the future. She had encouraged the owners to consider revisions at the same time as the additions.) >Would be great if the garage could be modified. >Is concerned about the two different coatings on the driveway apron. >Call out the plant materials, etc. on the landscape plan. >Why are the existing trees being removed in the front? (Davis - want to install more of a canopy-type tree that may be a bit taller and provide more of a layered effect.) >It looks like at least one of the trees in the easement next to the garage may be dead. >Not sure if the house actually fits on the lot, and why should the height be increased? (Davis - there is precedent where the structure height as measured from the top of curb exaggerates the height. If measured from existing grade, falls within the height limit. Existing floor is six -feet, nine-inches above the top of curb.) Public comments: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Bring back on consent calendar. >The special permit request, based upon the measurement from the top of curb. >Staff may wish to point out the difficulty with measuring height for non-flat lots. >Have required height reductions in other circumstances, but the design in this instance also supports the special permit. Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for Commission consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie1 - Recused:Sargent1 - e.12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner ) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10e as he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Gum noted that he had conversations with the property owners to the left and right of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Was any thought given to pushing back the garage in an effort to reduce the impact upon the declining height envelope? (Furlong - the garage is pushed back as far as possible and already includes a 12% slope for the driveway. Will need to mitigate water issues.) >Has any thought been given to reducing parapet heights and plate heights in order to reduce mass along the left side? (Furlong - these elements were pushed down from what they were in the prior design, but can look at further reductions.) Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there potential to step back the second story on the site to further reduce neighbor impacts? (Furlong - unable to make further changes in this area as it would eliminate a bedroom. The story poles have been installed and convey the impact of the height.) >Have there been any complaints received after installation of the story poles? Has the applicant reached out to the neighbor on Hillside? (Furlong - haven't consulted with that neighbor at this time.) >Expressed concern about the impact of the construction debris upon the tree that is to be saved. Is there the potential to retain a third stem of the tree? (Furlong - noted that there will be an arborist on site during construction to assist in preserving it.) >Shares concerns expressed regarding the plate heights. >Not certain that the proposed design fits on the street. May fit into the neighborhood, but needs to adjust plate heights. >Look aggressively at reducing the plate height. >Should save as much of the tree as possible. Public comments: Neighbor at 2874 Hillside Drive: met with the applicant in advance of erection of the story poles. Is concerned about the height of the garage. Will vehicle lifts be installed? Arthur Thomas, 16 Vista Lane: referenced the letter that he submitted in advance of the hearing. Is concerned about shadows upon his neighboring property as well as plate heights and the potential loss of the heritage tree. Eilieen Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane: Opposed to the Modern architecture; doesn't fit in with the other homes on the street. Concerned about the mass and bulk of the home. Feels property values in the area will be negatively impacted. Concerned that the tree will eventually die. Concerned about the location of the pool on the property; particularly about the safety from a structural perspective given that it will be built on landfill. There are already drainage problems on the street. The noise from the pool equipment is also a concern. Feels that a full CEQA review should be required. Michelle Menendez, 23 Vista Lane: Doesn't feel that the architecture fits into the neighborhood. The height and massing are a concern. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Installing a gable roof on the home would make it appear larger. >Cannot prevent improvement of the property. >Lower the plate heights. >Development of the property will likely enhance property values. >The design of the home properly steps down the hillside. >Expressed concern about blockage of open space on the neighboring property to the left. >Concerned about the stability of the property. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Keep as much of the tree as possible. >The declining height envelope request is completely driven by the slope of the lot. >Is a nice piece of modern architecture. >The project is not approvable today. >Need a clear demonstration of view impacts upon neighboring properties. >Could consider moving the garage further south and lower plate heights to address neighbor's concerns. >A color rendering would be helpful. Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the project on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for Commission consideration0\. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum5 - Absent:Yie1 - Recused:Terrones1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. There were no Commissioner's reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that on March 2, 2015 the City Council approved a finding of public convenience and necessity for on-site sale of alcoholic beverages at 1846 Rollins Road. a.FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue - review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commissioner Terrones requested that this matter be scheduled for a public hearing in order to permit consideration of the changes to the front porch and the elimination of the kitchen window. b.FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. c.FYI: 2020 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 13. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 March 9, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 9, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015