Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.07.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 13, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.June 8, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the July 8, 2015 meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - b.June 22, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent and Loftis were not in attendance so will be resusing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the July 22, 2015 meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Recused:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 7b is pulled from the Consent Calendar at the request of the applicant. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA None. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1149 Cambridge Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect; Raul and Paula Sachdev Tr ., property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact : Catherine Barber Commissioners DeMartini, Loftis and Sargent were absent from the Design Review Study meeting but Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes watched the video. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - b.1710 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for Commercial Design Review for an addition and facade modifications to an existing office building (Mike Ma- March Design, applicant and architect; Lisa McTaggart- California Society of Certified Public Accountants, property owner) (12 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Pulled for discussion by the applicant to review minor change to the plans. All commissioners visited the site. Commissioners DeMartini, Loftis and Sargent were not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Todd Wright represented the applicant: >Similar to what was reviewed at Design Review Study meeting. >Upsized the box trees. >New steel, metal and glass storefront will be pulled out to the two -story buttresses to meet the existing building. Commission questions: >Has trash enclosure been coordinated with Recology on size? (Wright: There will be no issue with size. Currently enclosure is oversized.) >Tree at the entry is not healthy. May need to be replaced. (Wright: There are several trees on the property that fit into that category.) Public comments: None. Commission discussion: None. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the item with the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Questions for the applicant: >Cannot find planter mentioned in design review letter. (Robertson: Planter is shown on landscape plan. It is located below the porch, out in front.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Changes are good. >Negative declaration is acceptable as described in the report. >Special Permit can be supported as a creek runs through the back of property and creates a special condition. Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the item with the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - b.1401 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved project. (Jesse Geurse, Guerse Conceptual Designs, applicant and designer; Mei Liang and Hao Liu, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Changes in some respect make the project better. >What happened with the front where the plate height had to get taller? (Geurse: Discrepancy in plans, 9 ft vs. 8 ft to remain. Would have had structural, lateral issues with beam. Beam would have encroached into entry area.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Plate height is still within the declining height envelope. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.225 California Drive, zoned HMU - Environmental scoping and Design Review for an application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Permit for building height, and Parking Variance for a new 4-story commercial building (DLC 225 California, applicant; The Jewell Partners, property owner; MBH Architects, architect ) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and a business owner of 1100 Howard Ave. Commissioners Sargent, Terrones, Loftis, and Bandrapalli met with the applicant. Commissioner Gum met with the applicant and with the owner of Christie's next door. Planning Manager Gardiner and Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing presented the staff report. Commission questions: >Further describe the Special Permit for height? (Ah Sing: The roof is at 55 feet, and the roof deck is at 55 feet, but the guard rail and parapet extend 4 feet higher. The guard rail is not solid, while the parapet around the back is solid. There is also a canopy in the front, but is designed to not exceed 10 percent of the roof area per the requirements of the Special Permit .)(Gardiner: This type of Special Permit is unique to this district and one other in the Downtown Specific Plan. The intention is to provide a means for having a limited portion of a building exceed the height limit for architectural features . Normally the parapet is required to be within the height limit, but this application proposes to include it within the Special Permit request. This is different than how things are normally done, and the commission can decide on this.) >How does the parking puzzle stacker work, and are there local examples? (Ah Sing: Two levels with an empty slot, then would shuffle the cars around. Would need to be for people who work in the building . There are some examples in jurisdictions that are more dense.) >Confusion on environmental information form, as it shows a different number of parking spaces than shown on the plans and staff report. (Gardiner: The form is provided by the applicant at time of application and will need to be updated. It is initially provided to give a sense of the scale of the project for purposes of determining CEQA status.) >5,000 to 20,000 cubic yards is indicated on the environmental form for being removed, but expect it will be more with three levels of underground parking. Will impact the traffic including trucks hauling out. >Is underground creek within 200 feet of the site? Should be verified. >Will there be a peer review of the studies that were submitted with the application? (Ah Sing: Yes can do that. There is an environmental consultant, and they can be directed to have peer review.) >Is there an estimate of the numbers of people in the building? (Ah Sing: Applicant can provide an estimate.) >Why was the Howard/California intersection not included in the traffic study? (Gardiner: Intersections included were provided from the Engineering Division. California/Howard was not included because the assumption was that traffic exiting the project would be required to turn right on Howard, not towards the California Drive intersection. As this is a scoping meeting, it can still be identified for reasons other than the base criteria.) >Will cumalitive impacts include the potential Peninsula Avenue interchange in San Mateo? (Ah Sing: Assumes projects that are in the pipeline would be included in the analysis .)(Kane: Projects in a pipeline are easier to analyze than projects that are in the proposal stage.) >Is there a sense whether this will be an EIR or a Mitigated Negative Declaration? (Gardiner: Too early to tell. This is the beginning of the study process so will depend on impacts identified in the Initial Study.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Richard Dewey and Ryan Guibara, Dewey Land Company, and Andres Grechi, MBH Architects, represented the applicant: >1450 Chapin Avenue project completed last year. Same architect on this application. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Original design concept was transparent facade, to see activity inside. >Revised through application to mix transparency with more classical elements. >Rich ground floor treatment. >Articulated on sides, not flat. Light and balconies throughout. >Roof with transparent parapet made of glass. >Stone, GFRC (glass reinforced concrete), glass, metal, and wood materials. >West elevation has same materials as the front, with stone ground floor. Solid parapet on back to finish the cornice. >Vehicles enter from Highland and exit from Hatch Lane. Right-turn only at Howard. >Three office levels, each with different balconies. >Roof has landscaping and glass rail at front, solar panels and mechanical. Commission questions/comments: >A four story building could work if articulated and scaled nicely. However this is made to look like a five story building. If a person who stands 6'-10" wanted to fit in with friends, probably would not wear a top hat. Canopy and tall atrium makes building appear like it is a five -story building. Alternative would be a bottom, a base, and the fourth floor articulated with the edges and the canopy. (Grechi: Goal was not to feel taller. Once the building was massed, the elements were added for the portions. It has a base, middle and top. Building has two forms, with an element wrapping around to marry the two masses. If this element were removed and brought down, the building becomes stubby and short. Elegance and good proportions would be lost. Could set a precedent for the area for well-proportioned architecture.) >Canopy provides some protection for roof garden. >Wants to make sure the building fits in. >Would like to see awnings at street level investigated further. Examples of recently approved projects at Comerica, Walgreen's, BevMo. Needs structure for pedestrian protection. (Grechi: There is an element over the front door that extends across. Light awnings over storefront in proportion to the space, which are smaller.) >Retail spaces need to support the street, not be too adjunct to the lobby. Should be open to both the street and the office users. (Guibara: 101 2nd Street example in San Francisco has a Peet's Coffee that spills into lobby. 22 4th Street is another example with a cafe barista activating the space.) >Why not retain existing facade? (Grechi: Existing one story building. Adding a building on top would not fit, would look like a mistake. A building of today combined with the existing facade would look like a mismatch. Instead has added elements to facade to fit in.) >Landscapingg on roof element does not show on rendering. (Grechi: There will be more planting showing. Wants it to feel lively.) >Specific Plan talks about Hatch Lane providing a connection in the future between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. How does this project support that? (Grechi: Goal was to maintain same treatment as front. Same richness of materials, same articulation, not diminished. Sidewalk is narrow but could improve over time. Bikes could arrive by Hatch Lane.) >Does the applicant own property or under contract? (Dewey: Under contract, closing in about a month.) >Variances have usually been for layout, not number of spaces. Would in -lieu fee be paid for difference? How will parking be managed on weekends and evenings? (Guibara: Understands in-lieu fee is within Planning Commission purview. Too early to tell how parking will be managed based on how building is tenanted. 1,200 sq ft of retail on ground floor replacing 13,000 sq ft existing, so less parking impact than currently.) >How is excavation issues for garage different from every other property in downtown with regards to the variance request? (Dewey: Unique property, two sides to lot and buildings to each side. Property right issue.) >Has there been discussion of undergrounding power lines on Hatch Lane? (Guibara: Consulted with PG&E, says it can't be done.) >How would lobby coffee shop work? (Guibara: Lobby would not feel like a lobby, would feel like a cafe.) >Would cafe be open on evenings and weekends? (Guibara: Does not know, depends on who the tenant is and what they want to do.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Has there been consideration on how building would function with potential closures for the Highland Avenue flex zone and Hatch Lane for special events? Where would people park? (Guibara: Circulation was discussed with Engineering staff .)(Grechi: If closures were on Saturday there would be fewer office users. There are two entrances so there is flexibility if needed. Best for engineering was access in from Highland, out Hatch but can use Hatch for access both ways if Highland is closed.) >How does this fit into the spot that it's placed, with respect to the adjacent architecture, the street on the front and the alley on the back? (Grechi: Breaking down the building into smaller pieces, both horizontally and vertically. Does not want to mimic historic buildings. All surrounding buildings are different from each other. This building respecting neighbors by being well articulated, good solid materials, being well proportioned. It is bigger than surroundings, but in 2015 that is what is being done . Needs to add more space.) >Will rooftop area be used on evenings and weekends? Concern with noise with parties. (Grechi: Not proposed to be used at a specific time. Area for taking a break, write emails, etc. Not a place for parties, a place for working and meeting, similar to a courtyard.) >How to signal exiting vehicles so pedestrians are warned? (Grechi: Noise devices required for any other building would be applied here. Will signal when cars are coming out. There are flat areas so cars can see street as they exit.) >Any thought to alternates that do not use Hatch Lane? (Grechi: Has considered nearly every alternative. This access was preferred by staff.) >Has there been consideration of alternate massing? (Grechi: Has considered many designs . Believes this is the right solution but is here for input.) >Front of building has a lot going for it. Can some of those elements be carried to the back? (Grechi: Has brought a lot of the materials and articulation to the back. Back is west -facing wall exposed to sun so can't have large expanses of glass facing west.) >Estimate how many people will be working in the building? (Guibara: Is guessing 100-125 at any one time.) >What is longest time to wait for car to arrive at the parking puzzler? (Guibara: 60 seconds.) >Will rooftop access be available for the general public? (Guibara: Depends on the tenant. There may be security concerns.) >Has there been wind shielding studies? (Grechi: Windbreak element on roof, with further protection from elevator and stair towers. Prevailing winds from the west.) >Where will the construction equipment be staged? (Guibara: Working on it with the contractor . Working with other property owners on potential for off-site staging.) Public comments: Joan Endo, Sakae Sushi spoke on this item: >Longterm tenant of building next door, 243 California Drive. >Concerns with size of building and impact to business during construction. >Build safe - demolishing old building with asbestos, building materials and wells under property . When digging, will wells contaminate adjoining properties? >Pedestrian was hit in front of building, so there are traffic concerns. >Restaurant is open 7 days a week 11:30-2, 5:30-10. Concerns with vibration and drilling. Adjoining wall is 6 feet from demolition, and buildings are attached. >White elephant. >Concerns about Hatch access. Will have to demolish Hatch and Highland for sewer and PG&E, will take tenants' access away. >Questions feasibility of the service road, it is very narrow. >Will take approximately one year. The longer the delay, the greater the interruption to the business. >Has submitted two letters. Basim Azar spoke in this item: >Owner of Christie's Restaurant, and an apartment on Hatch Lane. Same concerns as Ms. Endo. >Concerned about losing parking spaces for entrance. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Hatch Lane is an alley and is difficult to get traffic through, especially in afternoons. >Building is seven stories when including three floors of parking. Irvin Dawid, 615 Ansel Road, spoke on this item: >Supportive of the building. Downtown needs more height and mix of uses. >Zoning allows multifamily housing. Would like to see the type of building seen in Millbrae on the former Wendy's site, or like the apartments on California Drive and Peninsula that are four stories. >Burlingame has the second -highest imbalance of jobs to housing in the region (2.52 to 1), second only to Palo Alto (3.3 to 1) according to San Jose Business Journal. Would be prime location for mixed use, should do all three uses including housing. >Has a problem that City is not demanding a lot less parking be provided, it is a prime TOD zone . Should demand the developer do Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - every worker should have Caltrain Ecopasses. Lytton Gateway in Palo Alto is a good example for TDM model. Eric and David Mandel, 214 Lorton Avenue, spoke on this item: >Does not fit in to Burlingame, but would be great for downtown. >Hatch Lane vision could be great someday, but once it is a thoroughfare can't go back. >Should consider partnership with parking structure in Lot N. Could also benefit the city. Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item: >Submitted a letter >Lovely building but does not fit here. >If approve 10-foot special permit as a typical outcome for roof structures, will be seeing more of this . Other project on Howard is trying to keep below the height limit. >Is not a good fit because it does not have the refined, fined-tooth scale characteristic of Downtown. >Suggestion to pull structure 12 feet away from Sakae building to provide a pedestrian access, have all traffic from Highland and keep traffic off of Hatch. >If Lot N disappears there would be no way for public to access Hatch Lane. Linda Field spoke on this item: >Rendering indicates building is too tall to compliment surrounding buildings. Will stick out like a sore thumb. >Existing building is not as tall as adjacent buildings currently. >Roof terrace looks like a fifth floor, adding to the oversized feeling. >Facade looks austere. Existing facade has architectural features that provide character. >Visit Redwood City and look how the projects there are changing the character of that city, especially the building across from City Hall. >Waiver here could lead to other waiver requests. >25 spaces is a big variance. >Don't be entranced with the current siren call of urbanization that is sweeping the Bay Area. Keep Burlingame small-town scale in tact. John Rule spoke on this item: >Conditionally in favor of the project. >Applicant was guided towards current design but Is not sure the design works. Prefers original glass modern facade. >Traffic is too heavy for Hatch Lane. >Ecopasses a great idea, but people drive. There is not enough parking in downtown currently . Variance to reduce parking would be detrimental. Philip Trevenson spoke on this item: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Burlingame is historical and quaint. >Example of Burlingame library built to mimic older building. >Walgreen's tried to fit in, fits in better. >San Mateo High School example. >Should look like it belongs there. Could look like old theater where Fox Mall now stands. Applicant responses (Dewey): >Asbestos will be removed with appropriate protocols, similar to protocols at 1450 Chapin. >Site had underground storage tanks, they have been removed. Excavation of soil will be removed from site in a process reviewed and approved by the County. Wells will be capped off per County protocols. >Demolition time would be a matter of weeks, not months. >Hatch Lane runs from Burlingame Avenue down to Howard. This site is three quarters down Hatch Lane from Burlingame Avenue, just passing by a couple of properties before Howard. No traffic is going up to Burlingame Avenue. City engineers directed to bring entrance from Highland, not Hatch. Intention is not to close streets during construction. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Environmental Review Scoping: >Cubic yardage of excavation and traffic pattern needs to be studied. >Needs to locate underground creek. >Calculation for employees for office space utilizes 2012 guidelines. Understands office space per employee is decreasing, so more employees per area. People are grouping themselves differently than before. New tenants coming into Burlingame have had employee counts higher than would have been expected. >Should have a peer review of the traffic study. >Look at numbers of employees in retail space. Would want more activity so more than three employees total in retail spaces. Design Review: >Variance assumes there is an inherent right to fully develop the property to a certain standard, but seems like a circular argument. Exceptional circumstance is created by need to build the parking to support building to the fullest extent possible. Needs proper support. (Kane: Downtown Specific Plan establishes maximum envelope, but does not create an entitlement to build to the envelope. Design review and environmental constraints also need to be taken into account. There may be a lower limit with a tipping point of reasonableness. Can provide a short memo to the Planning Commission.) >Handsome building, proportions work for this building. Does not believe this is the only solution that can work. Looks and feels like it is five stories from the street. Wants it to fit in better with the neighborhood. >Needs to resolve the Highland and Hatch tension. Downtown Plan suggests vibrancy for Hatch Lane but is in conflict from what applicant is being told by Engineering. (Kane: Engineering can provide further explanation.)(Gardiner: Concern is turning movements from vehicles exiting on Highland trying to turn left on California Drive. Would have restricted right turns at Howard whether it is Highland or Hatch Lane.) >What about parking off site? Could have a parking elsewhere, possibly contribute to parking being built at south of Howard Avenue. >Size the office to the amount of parking that can be provided, as happens with residential projects. >Does not believe Hatch Lane is suitable for egress. >Misses a number of policies in the Downtown Plan - fitting with architecture, mass and bulk, Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pedestrian access. Adding more cars to Hatch Lane would be a mistake. >Would be a good-looking building in San Francisco but does not work in Burlingame. >Cite some buildings in town that are this scale, height? Will allow people to have an idea of the scale. >Does code requirement account for ITE reduction for proximity to transit? (Gardiner: No, city code does not have discount built in. ITE guideline is a reference for evaluating the variance request.) >Should consider other options for parking, such as including in -lieu fee to contribute to a downtown garage. >Belden Lane is a stretch for Hatch Lane. Belden Lane is a high bar. Envisions taking down power poles on Hatch Lanes, putting garbage away, then it can become something different. Should continue to evaluate with PG&E to have poles removed. >Could incorporate historic facade. >Concerned with suggestion that in 2015 things should be made bigger. An office building would go well here, but does not need to be so big that it doesn't fit. >Suggestion that traffic on Hatch Lane forces people to slow down seems debatable. >City needs to provide direction to applicant on access. >Concerned lobby retail will be closed on weekends, or not enough draw just from office. >Connection to retail needs to be to Hatch Lane. Lobby should open to Hatch Lane. >More vocal opinions on this design than the more modern proposal on Howard Avenue. >Special Permit findings for height can't be made based on consistency with surrounding buildings . Adhering to the letter of the Special Permit, but not the spirit - there is more proposed to extend beyond the height limit than just architectural features. >This is not the only architectural solution that would fulfill the urban design demands. It ignores buildings to each side. Should draw the elevation of the block. Likes this building but does not fit in here. >Hatch Alley concept is farfetched. More like Claude Alley, smaller than Belden Lane. >Retail should be aggregated, driveway moved to one side, building should address street. >Variance could be supported if study is using industry -accepted standards. If it can't be supported here next to Caltrain can't be supported anywhere. Building owner could require transit passes issued to tenants as a mitigation. >Needs to make sure building fits into the neighborhood. Study item. Will return for further review including environmental review. b.305 Primrose Road, zoned DAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial storefront and Conditonal Use Permit for a new food establishment (Lily Gray, Philz Coffee, applicant; Michael McCall, McCall Design Group, designer; Modisette Living Trust, property owner) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item, as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli noted that she had met with the adjacent property owners. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. Commission questions: >Who is responsible for the garbage cans that are currently situated near the property? (Barber: Public Works is working with the businesses in the area to address the issue .)(Gardiner: This application has designed trash receptacle storage into the plan so will not contribute to the problem.) Erica Nelles, McCall Design Group, and David Gray, Phliz Coffee, represented the applicant: >Good storefront for coffee, lit on both sides. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Design uses the existing building elements. >Storefront shifted back 4 feet to create an exterior patio. >Transparency maximized by retaining existing glazing in the rear and creating a new transparent storefront on the front. >Mimicking the glazing and mullion patters from the second floor. >Maintaining the purple tile chimney. Commission questions: >Will upper windows be restored? (Nelles: Not leasing second floor but has been coordinating with the building owner on specifications.) >How will the deco tiles be restored? (Nelles: Keep the tiles, clean it, make sure the grout is in place, but have as little impact as possible.) Wants to retain the tiles with emblems. (Nelles: Will stay in place.) >Above the top windows are two scuppers that come out for the roof drains. Will there be a downspout? If water is coming down will need to have a downspout and be shown on plan. >Electrical service looks like it is coming out where the door is on the left. Is that where it will come in? (Nelles: Meters will be behind the new door. The drop for the line will come inside.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Likes that ground floor is being pulled inside the building to provide room for tables. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item, as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini and Bandrapalli each met with the neighbor at 2769 Burlingview. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Wayne Lin, DTA, represented the applicant: >Has revisited the issues with the adjacent neighbor at 2759 Burlingview and will visit again once the story poles have been installed. >Garage stair relocated, allowing a conforming garage. Variance no longer requested. >Revision to west elevation proposed to add two side windows to add light into the lower bedroom. Commission questions/comments: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Lin: Yes, have reviewed with neighbors at 2759 Burlingview.) >Pleased the parking variance has been eliminated. Public comments: None. Commission comments: >Moving the setbacks back on both sides will help with the impacts on the neighbors. However while massing has been improved will still be a huge building in relation to the neighboring houses. 10 foot plate height on first floor, 9 feet on second floor, whereas most of the neighboring houses are older ranch style with 8-foot ceilings. Will make it hard to fit into the neighborhood. >Neighbors to right would not have views that would need to be protected. Not sure about other homes, but will determine once story poles go up. Story poles will also give a sense of the scale of the house. >Good job of sculpting the building, not just a rectangular box. Challenge is it sits on top of hill, over the house below it. Naturally sits on a promontory overlooking the house below. >Good job of mitigating the massing and allowing the neighbor to the right to have a sense of openness. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar once the story poles have been installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Terrones1 - d.1437 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit for height for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Adam Bittle, Architcure Allure, applicant and architect; Richard and Hiba Graham, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicants when she visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Anne Ravizza, Architecture Allure, represented to applicant and Richard and Hiba Graham represented the property owners: >Keeping within existing footprint. Adding where covered porch exists on first floor, adding second story above. >Staying within exiting architectural style with simple gable form for second floor. >Stepping back and keeping front first floor intact, keeping kitchen mostly intact. >Dormer windows on the sides. >Changing from clapboard to shingle siding, with stone wainscot to bring down scale. >Neutral color palette to blend in better with neighborhood. Commission questions/comments: >Why change from clapboard to shingles? (Ravizza: Preference of homeowners.) >Consider weaving the corners rather than 1 x 4s? 1 x 4s create an outline. >Chimney would need to be taller if fireplace is woodburning. Would also add to the design if taller . (Richard Graham: It has a gas insert.) >Placement of tree on elevation, will the Japanese maple be removed? (Ravizza: No landscaping will be changed.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Front gable over porch could end up looking blank. Vent in upper gable helps. Revisit with a vent or lattice. >Decided on type of stone for base? (Ravizza: Has not yet decided, but will choose something in the color range shown in the rendering.) >Might want to revisit height of wainscot - currently shown rather high with the stone, but might work better at the level of the water table coming off the porch line. >Add note specifying simulated true-divided lite windows. >Consider two windows one above the other rather than single stair window behind fireplace . (Ravizza: Will consider.) >Considered expanding the size of the porch? Works well with scale of small bungalow but feels undersized for the scale of the new house. (Ravizza: Was not part of original scope but will discuss with the homeowner.) >Any screening trees to screen view into neighbors' yards? (Graham: Oleander trees will screen view to neighbors on the right. Will add something for the rear neighbor.) >Any thoughts on doing something for garage to match the house better? (Ravizza: Not in the original scope of work, but can discuss materials with homeowner.) Public comments: Jay Trygstad, 1441 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >Offers support for the project. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Special Permit for height can be supported. It is just the top peak and is only 11 inches. >Corner boards seem like "piping on a tuxedo" and should be revisted. >Bays don't seem special enough, something unsettling about them. Find a way for them to settle in better, perhaps with brackets, or become more special and stand out more. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - e.232 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition (Mark and Kathy Strem, applicant and property owners; Ina Chou, project designer) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the project site. Catherine Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Ina Chou represented the applicant, and Mark Strem attended as property owner. Commission questions: >Has the placement of a TV been considered in relation to the windows? Could affect window placement. (Strem: TV will go on the wall on the left.) >Rear elevation roof slope on extension would be shallower, as shown on right elevation. Wants to make sure it's thought through and it will work. >Existing chimney on the house does not look like how it is drawn on the plans. It is sculpted, narrows as it rises and is asymmetrical, not as high as existing roof ridge. >There is a vertical piece on the top of the existing building that is missing from the plans. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Graphics make it difficult to read, particularly the tone on the drawings. >Vinyl windows proposed on the addition. What is on the existing house? (Chou: Milgard white vinyl windows. New windows will be exactly the same.) >Rear bays look tacked on. There may be a way to incorporate the rear roof over the kitchen over the bays, maybe articulate the bays more on the bottom with details such as wood trim and corbels to support them.. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Could send it to design review consultant, but not necessary. There are some issues that need to be addressed but they are relatively minior. Drawings need to be corrected. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item to the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made to the plans as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - f.807 Acacia Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Variance for driveway width for a two -story addition at the rear of an existing single family dwelling (Daniel Dunigan, DTA- Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Lily Gray and Josh Weiner, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Terrones was recused, as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. Daniel Dunigan, DTA-Dreiling Terrones Architecture represented the applicant. Lily Gray and Josh Weiner attended as property owners. >Building was built on lot crooked relative to property line. Front is in conformance with side setbacks but back is not. Requests variance to extend to back. >Narrow lot does not leave enough room for driveway. >Wants to preserve street appearance of craftsman house. >Has spoken to both adjacent neighbors, neither expressed objections. >The front of the house will remain unchanged. Commission questions/comments: >Plantings on left should not be bushy, given how narrow it is. (Dunigan: Plantings will not be bushy.) >Is there a guard rail on the front balcony? Doesn't show pickets on drawing. (Dunigan: There should be pickets. If not, can look at adding some.) >Variances supportable on paper since lot is significantly narrower than standard width. Concerns if driveway will be useable to reach garage. >Was there consideration of pulling wall back on one side or the other? Hard to justify variance on both sides. Would only need to jog in a few inches. (Dunigan: Considered that, but likes the symmetry on back with the windows and roofline.) >Variance is supportable given work to that would be needed to manipulate the architecture because the house was built crooked on the lot. Narrow lot is challenging. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: No further discussion. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Chair DeMartini, to put the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Terrones1 - g.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Gaul met the right -side neighbor while visiting the site. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Ferdinand Rivera represented the applicant: >Approved in 2008. Same design, only change is windows in front. Commission questions: >Will fence on right hand side be replaced? (Rivera: Will need to discuss with owner.) >Front entry steps are steep. Site plan shows steps being replaced with walkway but might be too steep. Should be looked at. >Why removing trees on right side? Seems they do a fair amount of screening. (Rivera: 3" diameter trees, will replant with better trees. Has not done a landscape plan.) >Why declining height envelope? Were other options considered? (Rivera: Kept same height, continued plate across.) Public comments: Jerry Baker, 2510 Hale, spoke on this item: >Concerned with water drainage. 6" drain pipe coming out of back of garage. Empties between the houses. Is supposed to pump out to street, but pipe is still there. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Plans need to indicate that drainage will go to street. It is a requirement. (Barber: Public works has comments to address this.) >Special Permit request is straightforward, can be supported - existing condition being continued. >Neighbor indicates they have not seen the plans. If this is coming back on the Consent Calendar needs to ensure neighbors have seen plans. If meet with neighbor, include a short letter to staff. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 13, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There will be a Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the Community Center on Wednesday, July 15th. A General Plan CAC meeting is scheduled for July 22nd. The Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) has become inactive. The Transportation, Safety and Parking (TSP) Commission will come up with a new plan for BPAC in the coming months. Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee has not yet met. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.FYI: 1419 Carlos Avenue - Review of as -built and proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Pulled for review. Concerns with the front door, and the window being similar to one that the commission had issues with before. FYI: 770 Walnut Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 11:17 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 July 13, 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 July 23, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015