Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.05.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, May 26, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.May 11, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Minutes of May 11, 2015, as submitted . The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair De Martini noted that Agenda Item 8c (1853 El Camino Real) would be moved to precede Agenda Item 8a (1008-1028 Carolan Avenue/1007-1025 Rollins Road). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - a.1644 Lassen Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing one -story house with an attached garage (John Matthews, Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes applicant and architect; John and Anna Fogelsong, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber b.1528 Hoover Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for a One -Year Extension of a previously approved design review project (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer; Jacqueline and James Haggarty, property owners) Staff Contact : Erika Lewit (This item was continued from the May 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.) Commissioner Loftis recused on this item since he resides within 500-feet of the subject site. c.1405 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing storefront (Jovis Hung, applicant: Matt Bradley, Oculus Inc., designer; On The Avenue LLC, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS c.1853 El Camino Real, zoned C-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a children’s tutoring center (class use) in an existing retail space at the Burlingame Plaza (Yinzhi Yuan, applicant; Musich 2 LLC, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Yinzhi Yuan represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Likes the application, thinks its a great spot for the use. >Can bike racks be installed for those children that may ride to the location from the neighborhood? (Yuan - has received approval from the landlord to do so; likely around six bicycle spaces.) Public comments: Steve Musich, property owner: >Suggests that six bicycle parking spaces is sufficient. >Is a great use for the area. >Supports the use. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the request with the additional condition that a bicycle rack for six bicycles shall be added at the location. Chair DeMartini called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for multi -family use and building height, Special Permits for vehicular access within the 20-ft. setback adjacent to the south property line & for building height within 100 ft. of the south property line, Demolition Permit Exception, and Fence Height Exception for a new 268-unit residential apartment building and 22-unit residential condominium project (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; SummerHill Apartment Communities; Stucker Family Trust and Oscar F. Person Testamentary Trust, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones and Gum noted that they had an e-mail exchange with Elaine Breeze. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he had a telephone conversation with Ms. Breeze. Chair DeMartini noted that he had met with the applicant and toured the property some time ago. Planning Manager Gardiner presented an overview of the staff report. John Schwarz, David J. Powers & Associates, provided an overview of the findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Questions of staff/environmental consultant: >Page 13 - massing and height; conclusion was that the change in visual character would not be a significant impact. Also noted that the proposed project is only slightly taller than the adjacent project . At what point does the height become a significant issue? (Schwarz - under the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] are concerned with impacts to scenic viewsheds, visual resources . The type of infill development that would occur under the City's land -use policies would typically not result in a significant impact.) Noted that the staff provided information that this project would be 55% taller than the adjacent multi -family project (North Park Apartments). Not clear what should be considered significant. The height difference between the two projects jumps out. >Is it fair to say that per CEQA, if a project were exceeding a City standard, then would it rise to a level of significance? (Schwarz - not typically if the change is ten to fifteen feet; will vary.) >The height, massing, etc. is something that is more the purview of the Commission as part of design review? (Schwarz - yes.) >Page 30 - requested information regarding occupancy of other buildings cited in the analysis, questioned what is considered full -occupancy? Was looking for some consistency in this information . Were there special conditions that existed to show the occupancy per building. Could certainly get the specific information regarding the survey of buildings. (Schwarz - Can certainly get the specific information requested, but does not have it with him at this time. Gardiner - the parking study contains the full information.) >Which Housing Element applies? Requested clarification regarding references in the EIR . (Gardiner - was submitted under the former element, but a new element was adopted during processing . State law requires that the latest element numbers would apply. Noted that the zoning and other land-use policies did not change from one Housing Element to another.) >Requested an explanation of growth -inducing impacts. (Schwarz - the classic growth -inducing scenario is a situation where utility infrastructure is expanded to provide the opportunity to develop properties that were not previously developed. Development of this site could possibly encourage development of other properties in the area, but doesn't feel that this is likely.) >Sea-Level Rise - assuming that impacts upon underground parking are not analyzed; if we experience sea-level rise that causes the parking to be unusable, is that scenario evaluated per CEQA? (Schwarz - difficult to speculate on what the impact could be under that scenario. Only livable areas are evaluated. Most flooding issues are typically shorter term and will ultimately be rectified.) >Sea-level rise will occur incrementally. If sea -level rises to the point that this project's garages are Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes flooded, there will be many larger issues that must be faced other than impacts upon parking for this project. The impacts will be other greater impacts upon the entire community. >The Bay Area must evaluate sea -level rise on a more global basis. (Schwarz - many Bayfront cities are looking at measures to minimize impacts from sea-level rise on a broader basis.) >Should we not be planning projects with subterranean garages due to potential impact from sea-level rise? Doesn't hear this from the community. (Meeker - the General Plan update will look at the broader, more global impacts of sea-level rise.) >Park Impacts - concern about impact upon Alpine Park. Perhaps there are improvements that can be made on-site to minimize this impact. (Schwarz - will need to defer to the applicant on on -site improvements. The project will pay park impact fees.) >The EIR is saying that there are no significant, unavoidable impacts due to the project under CEQA . (Schwarz - that is correct.) >Noted that the parking and traffic patterns may change due to the change from non -residential to residential usage and due to the roadway improvements in the area. The level of service in the area may improve in spite of this project being introduced into the area. (Schwarz - correct.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Elaine Breeze, Summerhill Apartment Communities and Alex Seidel, Seidel Architects; presented an overview of the project. Questions of developer team: >Is there an estimate of the school impact fee? (Breeze - $1,020,000.) >A couple of years into the project, what should one expect to see relative to the fencing and trees? (Breeze - tree specimens are quite large (36-inch box), there will be ground cover plantings and stormwater mitigation installed. Will install the wall per the neighbors' request.) >Explain what the rents would be today for the moderate incomes. (Gardiner - rents are set by the housing management company employed by the City. Meeker - moderate income units have rents based upon 120% of the median household income for the San Mateo County area, taking into account family size. You cannot exceed 30% of monthly income for the household. Breeze - based upon 2014 numbers, the rents would be around $2,100 for a one-bedroom and $2,600 for a two-bedroom unit.) >Clarified that Summerhill doesn't set the rents for the affordable units. (Meeker - that is correct.) >With respect to the community room - keep in mind that once the new community center is built for the City, the rent rates wouldn't be tied to the rates of the existing facility. >Asked where the existing tenants on the property will be going; the auto uses are among the top tax generators in the City? Is there anything the City may need to do to keep them within the community? (Breeze - can't speak to all tenant's circumstances, but clarified that Hyundai is required to leave due to a franchise agreement.) >With respect to the eight foot high wall - is the applicant still working on receiving total agreement as only eight residents have provided letters of support. (Breeze - doesn't include the entire group as some members already have eight foot walls. Want to receive an approval to allow construction of an eight foot wall on all properties if deemed necessary.) >What if some of the owners don't wish to have an eight foot wall, but only want a seven foot wall? (Breeze - will commit to eight feet as long as there is an aesthetically pleasing design.) >What measures are being taken to conserve water in the apartment development? (Breeze - the City of Burlingame has strict requirements for meeting CalGreen requirements. Sub-meter hot and cold water. Tankless water heating is to be provided in the townhouse units. The landscape design includes smart irrigation systems. The City requires the estimation of a water use budget for the landscaping and requires conformance.) >Will the new eight foot wall be built to match the existing wall? (Breeze - will not match, but will construct a very simple wall with a simple texture that will blend well.) >Could the wall be installed prior to construction on the rest of the site? (Breeze - intend to install a protective fence during demolition, followed by installation of the new fence thereafter. Landscaping will be installed later.) >Property line change - asked for elaboration of the measures being taken to mitigate the changes . Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Breeze - met with affected neighbors. Will re -establish the fence line based upon the survey, but will meet with affected neighbors with an eye to minimizing impacts whether it be through routing a fence around existing trees, or installing new trees on properties. One neighbor's lean -to shed will be replaced with a conforming storage shed and additional shrubbery.) >Will property line surveys be done by both involved parties? Are the neighbors accepting of the property lines that have been established? (Breeze - not aware that the neighbors have done so, but have been consistently reaching out to the involved property owners.) >What is the reasoning for an eight -foot fence? Sees this as residential uses are abutting residential uses. Encouraged the neighbors to clarify the purpose. Public comments: Noveed Safipour, works in Burlingame: >President of local political club (Peninsula Young Democrats) that has a pro -affordable housing stance. >A project like this will help meet housing needs. >Encouraged project approval. It is near public transit opportunities. >Only the bare minimum of affordable housing units are being provided. Asked the Commission to take a closer look at this and perhaps encourage a lower level of affordability, or more units. Marianne Saucedo, 925 Larkspur Drive: >Supports the project. >Parking has been an issue in the neighborhood for a long time. Neighbors have expressed concern regarding the parking. The City has done what it can to address the parking problem. Presented six letters from neighbors supporting the project with one against due to parking and traffic. >Assumes that there will be overnight parking available on Carolan after the reconfiguration of the street. (Commissioner - is the parking impact due to the businesses or North Park?) Likely from the apartments around the corner, not from North Park. Shannon Chircop, Floribunda Avenue; >Supports the project. Lives and works in Burlingame and grew up on the Peninsula. >Impressed with the design, location and the parking. >Will be a huge visual improvement for the area. To have a project that makes a statement in the area will be a positive improvement. >Perfect location for those wishing a connected lifestyle. >The parking provided is phenomenal. Pat Callahan, 921 Linden Avenue: >Still concerned with some of the project massing and how it fits in with the neighborhood. Have made positive improvements to the design. >Have continued parking problems; is there a means of prohibiting residents within the project from parking within the low-density neighborhood? >Feels the traffic analysis is confusing. Feels there will be impacts caused by people going to school. Jesse Ososky, Toyon Drive: >Like what Summerhill has done to refine the project and their responsiveness to the neighbors. >Will be a great improvement to have townhomes behind their homes. >Have been assured that ample parking is being provided. >Supports the project. Cynthia Cornell, Burlingame Advocates for Renters Protection: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Wondering if the environmental analysis assesses traffic impacts upon Cadillac Way as it is the access to the freeway? >Want to be certain that Summerhill will be a good landlord in Burlingame. Noted problems with the landlord at North Park reducing tenant parking. >Noted numerous tenant impacts at North Park. >Doesn't agree with the moderate income rental amount. >Will rent increases be tied to the Consumer Price Index? >The Commission needs to vet who will be running the development. >Concerned about the volatile organic compound (VOC) levels outside the development after construction. John Kevranian, Chairman of the Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District: >The board supports the project. >Will be good for businesses on Broadway. >Urged support of the project. Wayne, 1008 Toyon Drive: >The eight foot wall is a good sound and privacy barrier, doesn't want to lose his. Applicant rebuttal (Elaine Breeze): >Were advised that the tenants cannot be prohibited from parking in the neighborhood. Noted other measure in the conditions. >Will develop a construction period parking plan as a condition prior to issuance of a building permit. >Summerhill uses third -party management companies. Develop on the Peninsula and remain in the communities. >Parking Counts were taken September 10-12 at midnight. The occupancy of the Plaza was 95%, the Metropolitan was 90%, Archstone San Mateo was 95% and Avalon San Bruno was at 93-95%. >Trees will be placed eighteen feet on center. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: EIR Certification: >Need to rely on the consultant's analysis relative to CEQA. >Feels that the questions that have been asked during the scoping session and the EIR review were good. >Is comfortable with the conclusions of the FEIR. Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to certify the FEIR for the project. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:6 - Terrones, DeMartini, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul Absent:1 - Sargent Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for Height: >Likes the project design; is the type of smart development that needs to be taken in the area. >Very nicely mediates between the high- and low-density developments in the area. >Nicely articulated, great landscaping. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The project represents a significant contrast to the North Park Apartments; the design approach embraces the street and the pedestrian realm; provides pedestrian circulation within and through the project. >Significant amenities are provided within the devleopment. >Struck by the neighborhood support given the site design's sensitivity to the existing neighborhood pattern. >The project successfully creates a good transition between the high -density to low-density neighborhood. >Good massing, character and pedestrian scale. >Impressed with the public spaces; have embraced the community with amenities built into the project. >Will be great for Broadway and CalTrain. >Feels that the new top story setback change has allowed the design to better fit into the setting. >The project's location and design encourage walking. >Pleased with providing a community meeting space. >Doubts whether a better company could be selected to run the devleopment. Summerhill is thoroughly capable. Summerhill has remain engaged in the community in other areas as well. >Is concerned about the height of the building. Every planning document in the City has discussed how critical it is for the project to fit in with the Toyon neighborhood - feels that the project is one -story too tall. Doesn't feel that all land-use policies have been followed in this realm. >The site is a fantastic place for housing and replaces an eyesore. The use is perfect for the location. >Disagrees with comments regarding the building height. The plans for the area provide the opportunity to build up to 75-feet in height in a manner that is sensitive to its setting. Could not think of a better design solution. The project makes a good transition between the density areas and providees a townhouse development area that provides a transition to the single-family neighborhood to the south. Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli to approve the application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for height of the apartment buildings. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:5 - Terrones, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul Nay:1 - DeMartini Absent:1 - Sargent Special Permits: >The driveway is a benefit to the transition to the single-family neighborhood to the south. >The landscape plan provides for extensive screening. Commissioner Gum moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the requests for Special Permit for a driveway in the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the Toyon neighborhood and for the height of the condominium structures. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:5 - Terrones, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul Nay:1 - DeMartini Absent:1 - Sargent Early Demolition of existing improvements: >There are special circumstances that exist in this instance, in that site preparation will require the potential clean-up of contaminants. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the request for early demolition of existing site improvements. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:6 - Terrones, DeMartini, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul Absent:1 - Sargent Fence Height Exception: >Can't support this aspect; it creates a separation between the neighbors. Understand that it is coming from the affected neighbors. >Doesn't necessarily disagree, but considers this request from the perspective of those who are being impacted. In this case, the neighbors are requesting the desires of the neighbors. >Feels obligated to consider the request, given the genesis of the request. >Do not have consensus of all property owners, but do have a majority represented. Is comfortable with allowing. Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to grant the request for a fence height exception. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: >Is an exceptional example of the developer attempting to work with the neighbors. >The owners have asked to keep the taller fence. No one came forward not wanting the fence. The motion passed on the following vote: Aye:5 - Terrones, DeMartini, Bandrapalli, Loftis and Gum Nay:1 - Gaul Absent:1 - Sargent Condominium Permit and Maps: Motion by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for multi-family use and Tentative and Final Maps. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - The Commission took a break from 9:20 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. b.21 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (Scott C. Kuehne, Suarez-Kuehne Architecture, applicant and architect; Todd and Michelle Friedman, property owners ) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Scott Kuehne represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: There were no questions or comments. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Gum, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the project with conditions, as described in the staff report. Chair DeMartini called for a voice vote and the motion passed by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1715 Toledo Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions (James Welch, architect and applicant; Haiyan Song and Huaixi Li, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commisisoners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum indicated that he had spoken to the neighbor at 1720 Toledo Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report and noted correspondence received from Yvonne Lee indicating her opposition to the project. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. James Welch, Veronica Welch and Huaixi Li represented the applicant. Commission Questions: >Have they spent a good amount of time in the neighborhood; it is made up primarily of single -story ranch homes? (J Welch - though it would be the first two -level home, feels that given the location with no rear neighbor there will be little impact from the design.) >Not concerned with views, per se, but will need to design the second story in a manner that is sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood. >The first second-story addition will need to be well crafted to fit into the neighborhood. >Noted that one type of cultured stone is proposed as wainscot, then a brick sill at the top, then a stone around the entry element; is this to be the same brick? (V Welch - will use the same brick material.) Is there a reason why the brick is not being used as a wainscot; why the cultured stone? (V Welch - brick tends to be a bit plain, are trying for a more natural look.) >Concerned about the variety of materials; may be too much of a mix. >Did the architect mean to have the execution of the design match what is shown on the sketch on the cover of the plans provided by the applicant; the design may work better if the details matched this more modern detailing. The design should have a very definitive style. >Have the project plans been presented to the neighbors? (J Welch - no.) Encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbors. >What is the proposed roofing material? (J Welch - composition shingle.) Concerned that the roof Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pitch will not work with composition shingles. >A variety of window types are provided that don't have a particular rhythm. Need to put more windows on the Trousdale Drive elevation. Look at the window locaitons and make the second floor look more appealing from the side. >Would be a more cohesive design if the roof pitches are all the same and kept low. >Both plate heights are shown at ten feet? (J Welch - yes.) Discouraged increasing the plate heights as proposed. >Will there be a new garage door? (J Welch - can replace the door.) >The landscape plan needs some help. Should review the landscape plan and improve it with the house. What are the intentions? (Li - looks bad currently because they are not living in the home currently.) Public comments: Neighborhood resident: >Noted that all of the homes in the neighborhood are uniform. >The project as proposed will double the existing floor area and will not match the existing neighborhood. >Encouraged the Commission to maintain the existing single-story character. >Are there any other homes on Toledo that are similar in size and height? Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Not comfortable denying the second floor, but this particular design shouldn't be the first design to be approved. >Good candidate for a design review consultant. >More single-story elements are needed to bring down the apparent height. >Simplify the design. >Reconsider the plate heights. If ten feet is desired on the first floor, try to keep the second floor to eight feet. >House would drastically alter the neighborhood feel. >Would help the project to keep the first floor plate height the same. >The drawing on the cover sheet is a good example of what is preferred; it should match the elevation. >Provide materials board and a rendering; would assist the applicant to understand what the design will really look like. A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motioned passed onthe following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.2525 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Applicaiton for Design Review and Side Setback Variance for approval of an as -built trellis at the rear of the house (Peter Jaunich, applicant and property owner; MH Architects, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, Gum and Bandrapalli did not visit the rear yard. Commissioner Gum spoke to the left side neighbor. Commissioner Terrones visited the rear-yard with the applicant. Commissioner Gaul viewed the rear area from between properties . Commissioner DeMartini viewed the rear-yard with the property owner. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >If the plate height of the trellis were less than nine -feet, would the height need to be reviewed by the Commission? (Gardiner - no.) >Clarified that the deck is larger than what was approved and the applicant is now seeking approval after the fact. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Daniel Nordson represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Asked for an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that support the request for a variance . (Nordson - the lot is a non-conforming lot and the existing deck is already within seven feet of the property line. Want to be able to provide a space that is protected from the sun for the owners. Public comments: Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive: >Upset that the neighbors have not approached her to discuss the project. >Take her privacy under consideration. >Meet the City's minimum setback requirement. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Uncomfortable with the dramatic encroachment into the side setback. >Concerned that a precedent may be set by granting approval after the fact. >Felt that the original approval was appropriate. >Doesn't believe the trellis is necessary for enjoyment of the deck. >Doesn't feel that the findings for a variance can be made. The trellis could perhaps be made smaller. Seems to be pushing the limits of what may be considered a hardship. >Should be managing the built environment in advance of actually building. >Can't support the variance. >The height of the trellis is not the issue, but the variance should not be granted. There is no property right being adversely affected; the trellis may still be used even if it meets the setback. >Could send it to design review. >The design should conform to all City standards, including reducing the height to eliminate the conditional use permit. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for consideration by the Commission. Discussion of motion: >Clarified that the applicant should consider eliminating the request for a variance. They may still request that nine-foot plate height for the trellis. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 May 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Loftis provided an update regarding the Community Advisory Committee for the new community center. A revised design was reviewed recently and the Committee suggested some changes. Not certain when the concept will be presented to the Commission, but likely will occur following another presentation to the City Council. Some outreach efforts will be occurring before the end of the month. Commissioner Terrones encouraged everyone to attend the Burlingame Dragons games. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the project at 1906 Easton Drive, further requiring any revised project to be referred to a design review consultant prior to being placed before the Commission. a.FYI: 1349 Bernal Avenue - Review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commissioner Terrones noted that he wished to pull Agenda Item 11a (1349 Bernal Avenue) for a future hearing. He noted that his concern is related to removal of the bedroom windows. Commissioner DeMartini noted that the plans do not accurately reflect the project, particularly some of the trim details (window arches, etc.). The plans coming before the Commission should match what has been built. b.FYI: 1441 Drake Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Approved as submitted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:20 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 May 26, 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 June 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015