Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.07.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 27, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2015 Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2015. Chair DeMartini called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted that Agenda Item 9b (1252 Bernal Avenue) was pulled from the agenda by the applicant and will be rescheduled for consideration at a later date. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way: Changing "ecosystem" in Burlingame. Areas in the City that were known as starter home communities are now being changed through the construction of newer, larger homes, shrinking the supply of smaller homes for those wishing to downsize. Some lots can't support increased building sizes. Be conscious of the decisions that are being made and how they will impact the "ecosystem" of Burlingame. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.250 Myrtle Road, zoned R -3 - Application for side and rear setback variances for a new generator (L.U. Electric Inc., Luis Urrego, applicant; Jordan Pope, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the applicant and Commissioner DeMartini met with the on-site maintenance supervisor. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Luis Urrengo, L.U. Electric, Inc., represented the applicant. Planning Commission questions/comments: >How loud is the existing generator? (Urrengo: 90dBa.) >How long and when will the monthly testing occur? (Urrengo: during normal business hours anywhere from 15-25 minutes per test.) >How frequently will the testing occur? (Urrengo: the manufacturer recommends up to two tests per month. This will be determined by the property owner.) >Can the existing location be used for the new generator? (Urrengo: there is not enough clearance in the garage for the generator and the sound attenuator.) >Are there other generators that have been examined that will fit within the existing generator space? (Urrengo: most of the generators are similar and require a minimum dimension enclosure. The space requested is the minimum required.) >How powerful is the existing generator? (Urrengo: 50 KW.) >How oversized is the generator? (Urrengo: New generator is 200 KW. It is sized to meet the needs of the facility.) >Thought that the existing generator is natural gas powered? (Urrengo: was told that it is diesel powered.) >Have other types of alternative -fuel generators been explored? (Urrengo: no, but this generator meets all safety requirements.) >The property supervisor indicated that all life -safety items are all currently backed up by the existing generator. The only reason to enlarge the generator is to permit all equipment to operate. >Would be helpful to better understand what is currently being backed up and what will be backed up with the new generator. >Noted that there are two residential units that are located closer than the 23-foot measurement distance for noise impacts. Should provide a better sense of what the noise level will be at those locations. >Is there a smaller generator, or two smaller generators, that could be installed that wouldn't require removal of the tree? >Provide information regarding the code requirement relating to the length of time that the generator must run in an emergency and the fuel capacity. >Requested clarification that there is no other generator that could be placed on the property that meets the needs of the facility and will fit within the garage where the existing generator is located . Wants this verified. Needs more information that proves that this is the only location for the new generator and to support a variance. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >This is a business operation, not a government institution or emergency service operation that might require over-riding consideration, but the Commission is being asked to consider a variance. Any other applicant would be required to demonstrate that there is no other feasible solution, including a reduction in the number of units on the property if required parking must be removed. >Need to be certain that the installation doesn't impact the nearby tree. Could add a condition requiring an arborist to be present when digging occurs in the vicinity. b.Considerations of Amendments to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and to Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chapters 25.32-25.35 and 25.38 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for amendments to side setback and ground floor commercial requirements. Planning Manager Gardiner presented an overview of the staff report. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Commission questions/comments: >Is there a sense for how many lots may be affected by the retail lot depth question? (Gardiner: will need to conduct more research and provide this at the next discussion.) >Has there been any discussion regarding whether or not these deeper spaces would be split tenancies, or another approach? (Gardiner: that type of approach has occurred before. Would require additional discussion.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Public comments: Mary Murphy, Park Condominiums, 33 Park Road: Referenced the project at 21 Park Road and the lack of a setback for that proposal. Have worked with the Commission regarding the setback. Encouraged by the discussion that would require R 3/R4 side setbacks in the Bayswater Mixed -Use (BMU) zone. Would hope that the setback would be ten feet. Sue Gore, 33 Park Road: Appreciates the Commission's willingness to consider the requests, particularly with respect to the front and side setbacks in the BMU zone. Noted that the area on Park Road is a mix of uses. Encouraged side setbacks that are compatible with the existing residential development. Adequate front and side setbacks are imperative. Encouraged looking at the ten foot setback referenced in the Downtown Specific Plan. Wished clarification regarding where the setback is measured from. Would like to have the front setback of fifteen feet be applied to all new development. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way: One side setback does not fit all. There would be an unintended consequence from requiring a side setback between commercial buildings - would result in an attractive nuisance. Noted that the retail landscape and the cost of rents keeps a lot of store owners out of the market, resulting in empty storefronts since independent business owners may not be able to pay the rent. By permitting office space in the rear of these spaces, it could encourage a landlord to require a more reasonable rent. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Requested clarification regarding the setbacks referenced in the table in the staff report. (Gardiner: provided for reference, does not represent the only solution.) >The side setback should perhaps be considered on a case-by-case basis. >Noted that the only project under discussion currently is the 21 Park Road project. (Meeker: it is yet to be determined whether or not the new regulations would apply.) >Is not comfortable allowing ground-floor office space. >The urge to impose setbacks is a Modernist movement. Should not be creating a non -urban condition. Should be a case-by-case consideration given depending upon existing conditions. >Open to splitting the retail spaces, but discouraged office use. >Open to greater setbacks where a commercial use abuts a residential use. >Need to preserve privacy and light for residential uses. Staff will review all comments from the Commission and public and will present a revised proposal for the amendments at a future date. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.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 (David Grey, 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 the vote on this item as he has a business relationship with one of the applicant’s representatives. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the consent calendar with the findings and conditions contained in the staff report and resolution. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1349 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved design review project (Sonia Wadhawan and Deepak Chugh, applicants and property owners; Daryl Buckingham, designer) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Sonia Wadhawan and Deepak Chugh represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Requested clarification regarding the roofline. >Noted that there was prior discussion of the plaster feature at the front entry; was raised by one Commissioner. (Wadhawan/Chugh: the plans before the Commission accurately reflect the as -built conditions. The plaster feature will not be restored.) >Was the applicant not aware of the need to have changes approved in advance? (Wadhawan: it was an innocent mistake on the applicant's part.) Public comments: Nicole Armstrong (tenant), 1353 Bernal Avenue: Supports the applicant's request to remove the bedroom window from the plans. The property owner also sent an email supporting the window removal. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >Supports the request. >Understands that the owner may have not understood the plan. >The window can't be viewed except from the neighbor's property. >Wishes that the plaster detail at the entry would have been provided. >Feels the owners are sincere in their confusion regarding the process for approving changes. >Does the applicant and the adjacent property owners' agreement on the window solution trump the design guidelines? Should the Commission eliminate the need for design of side elevations? The design doesn't comply with the design guidelines. >Doesn't necessarily agree with the Feng Shui impact upon the design, and it is not a consideration in application of the City's design guidelines. >In this situation the window is not very visible and there are other windows along the elevation. >Not certain that this design solution would have been supported if it was part of the initial design. >Non-visible spaces do not have a pass from compliance with the design guidelines. >Feels that the design complies with the design guidelines. The applicant made an honest mistake. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Nay:Sargent, and Terrones2 - b.1419 Carlos Avenue, zoned R-1 Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built and proposed changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Jack McCarthy, applicant and designer; Kieran Wood, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the contractor. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Doesn't see an egregious design flaw in installing the taller front window. >Feels the front door looks small, tight and crowded. (McCarthy: the materials are the same as shown on the plans, but feel the appearance is a function to going to 100% scale.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Doesn't see an egregious design flaw in installing the taller window, nor with the entry way Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes appearing narrower. >Accepts that the window manufacturer needed to work within constraints which resulted in the window being taller, but could have framed the window lower or brought the sill down - is this a violation of the design guidelines? The result is not offensive, still fits within what was intended. Is supportable. >Wouldn't have approved the window as part of the original design, in fact, directed that the window be changed. >Seeing the design as an as -built condition provides the opportunity to view the design in reality and determine if it is appropriate. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Nay:DeMartini1 - c.616 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Joshua and Hilary Henshaw, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding alterations to the garage. (Hurin: the front of the garage is not being altered, hence the non-conforming condition may remain.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and Hilary and Joshua Henshaw represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Did the designer consider centering the living room window under the gable? (Deal: can do it, but may cause it to look crowded.) >Appreciates elimination of the variance request and reducing the size of the garage. >Movement of the living room window is not a deal killer. >Have the revised plans be shared with the neighbors? (Henshaw: yes.) >Noted that the stair windows are oversized. This is okay if the neighbors did not raise them as a concern. Public comments: Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington: The window in the upper right hand corner appears oversized. Because the garage was made smaller, have now missed the opportunity to remove an additional car off of the street. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Likes the changes. >Doesn't believe that the current garage is considered to be a two stall garage. (Hurin: considered a one-stall garage.) Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - d.149 Pepper Ave - zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration 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 (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jeff Gard represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Have the revised plans been reviewed with the neighbors? (Gard: the massing of the structure has not been changed, therefore the plans were not shared.) >How does the architect feel the design fits with the neighborhood? (Gard: there is a good mix of styles in the neighborhood. Feels the house will bend in because it is set back from the street and will be screened by vegetation.) >The architecture has only changed by making it appear more Modern through the use of a standing seam metal roof and providing more Modern windows? (Gard: yes.) >Referenced the design reviewers comments regarding making the front elevation blend more with the more traditional form of the mid -section of the home. (Gard: the design reviewer ultimately felt that the design approach selected was appropriate when viewing the conditions in the field.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels there is no potential historic impact. >Can accept the non-conforming setbacks. >The building in rear has been in place for some time and is not problematic. >The home presents a design challenge in bringing harmony between the interior and exterior design . Still wonders whether the design fits with the neighborhood. >The neighborhood is a mix of home sizes and styles. The key to having this design fit in will be the landscaping. The house is set far back and the landscaping will help the property to blend. >Comes down to the neighborhood compatibility issue; the design does not fit with the neighborhood . Blending with the interior is important, but should not drive the exterior design. Can't support the design. >The neighborhood is eclectic. There is a strong traditional house next door though. >Was initially concerned that the project design wasn't compatible within itself. The prior rear addition Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes tends to move the design towards a more Modern style. The design now harmonizes internally and with the landscaping. Fits in with the neighborhood because of the large lot with large setbacks for landscaping. Provides the opportunity for homes to be more unique. >Doesn't particularly like the design, though it does hold together better now, it is still confused. The design seems somewhat brutal. >Also confused by the design. Expected to see something entirely different. The design review process may have misguided the applicant. The Commission is not concerned with the interior of the house and how it relates to the exterior. >Doesn't feel that the landscaping helps to make the project blend with the neighborhood. >Are the stair windows metal or wood? (Gard: steel-framed with wood in-fill panels.) >Feels that the landscaping shields the home from the street. All of the homes are set far back from the street; because of this, the design will not impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Nay:DeMartini, Gum, and Sargent3 - e.1438 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two -story single family dwelling (Alex Nie, Nie Yang Architects, applicant and architect; Yuan Tian and Ying Ding, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Chair DeMartini recused himself from the discussion as he has a property interest within 500-feet of the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Alex Nie represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comments: None. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Appreciate the changes that have been made at the Commission's request. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Vice-Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:DeMartini1 - f.2940 Dolores Way, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates, applicant and designer; Sanford Lau, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Has he reviewed the final letter from the design review consultant and the additional recommendations? (Darosa: wants to first hear the Commission's comments.) >Feels that there will be problems with the gutters draining with the pine tree remaining on the property in the rear. >Requested clarification regarding the window design. (Darosa: will be fiberglass windows with true divided lights.) Feels that fiberglass-clad wood windows would be preferred. >Are the windows meant to be sliders? Not clear on the plans. (Darosa: majority will be casement; smaller windows will be sliders. The owner is open to suggestions.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Darosa: no.) >Why was the garage door style changed to a single door versus two? (Darosa: feels that the Craftsman-style door is not appropriate so went with a more Mediterranean-style.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Shares the concerns regarding the fiberglass windows. Further direction needs to be provided to the applicant. Snap-in grids should not be allowed. >Clarify the window styles. >The project's transformation is remarkable. >Feels with the design reviewer that the entry is a bit bulky; something needs to be done. >The applicant said that the windows would be true divided light windows. >Landscape plan needs further enhancement along the right side. >Should windows be added on the right side? >The improvement could be achieved with additional landscaping. >Feels that some of the changes should be brought back. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as outlined in the minutes. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - g.1100 Broadway, zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area - Application for Conditional Use Permit to convert existing automobile service bays to retail sales (expanded convenience store) in an existing gasoline station (Eric Keng, applicant and architect; Lawrence G. Zaro Tr, property owner) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Chair DeMartini and Commissioner Loftis recused themselves from discussion of this item. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Abdul Khamosh represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comments: None. Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Supports the request. The use is consistent with the neighborhood and there will be no detrimental effect. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Acting Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Recused:DeMartini, and Loftis2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.616 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Davina Chall, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Thanked the applicant for reaching out to the neighbors. >Likes how the design has been articulated and fits into the neighborhood. Could the massing at the front be broken up a bit more? (Bittle: has considered approaches to break up the massing. Will review again.) >On the project's side of the street, homes have more substantial porches; why wasn't a larger porch provided? (Bittle: wouldn't have been used by the property owner. Would rather have landscaping.) >The garage is much taller than the current garage; appears taller than it needs to be. (Bittle: the plate heights on many of the existing garages are very short and can look out of scale. Have tried to balance the design and make it in scale with the neighbor's property while providing a more useable garage.) >Tree depicted on the color rendering looks more like a Japanese maple, not like a Magnolia as shown on the Site Plan; please clarify. >Notes for horizontal siding are incorrect; state "board and batten vertical siding”; please revise. >Clarify material for horizontal siding. Concerned that if Hardie siding is proposed, corner boards will be required at the corners of the building; prefer to see another material used so that the corners can be mitered. Asked the designer to provide a sample of the siding. >May want to consider drought -resistant landscaping in the front and reconsider the areas under the trees. >Will the windows be simulated true divided-lite? (Bittle: yes.) >Likes the different textures with the siding. The front elevation appears very vertical. Perhaps expand the porch or some form of wainscot. >The long valley ending at a cricket at the house and garage. Have other solutions been considered for the transition from the garage to the house? (Bittle: feels that the roofing will work as proposed, but will review again.) >Noticed that shutters are only proposed on one window at the front of the house. (Bittle: proposed on this window to help break up the massing; shutters are also proposed on two windows at the rear of the house.) Public comments: Bob Leoni, 620 Lexington Way: The 600 block of Lexington is unique in that they are all single -story homes with a couple of exceptions. Most homes have been added on to without adding mass to the front. There haven't been massive homes built within the neighborhood. Concerned that the addition is front-loaded. Doesn't feel that the proposed design and massing fits in with the neighborhood. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way: Ninety percent of the homes on this block of Lexington Way are single-story. Increasing the home sizes in the neighborhood can have an impact on the infrastructure . Concerned with the metal roofing material above the garage door. Board and batten siding is not an exterior finish that one finds in Burlingame. Jyoti Palaniappan, 749 Lexington Way: Supports the applicant's proposal. Observes a diversity of housing sizes in the neighborhood. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The metal roof doesn't belong above the garage door. >Needs a better transition from the garage to the body of the house. Also seems very tall. >No problem with the board-and-batten siding; it is not unheard of in Burlingame. >Understands that everyone would like to see their neighborhood remain the same, but the policies require interpretation by the Commission - it is challenging. >Feels the design is generally pretty nice. >The entry seems a bit small for the house. >The porch could be expanded somewhat. >Look at the garage roof transition to the body of the home to minimize impacts in the future. >The rhythm of the horizontal and vertical siding is good, but is all in the execution. >The practicality of adding a second story works for some and not others. Property owners should be allowed to build as they desire and have a right to do. If the design is within the design guidelines it should be allowed. >The home is well within the maximum height and has been designed to minimize the expansion. >Could look at a means of reducing the verticality of the design. >At what point should the City look at further restrictions on home expansions. >Reduce the height of the garage. >Eliminate the standing-seam metal roof element above the garage door. >Needs a larger porch. >Beef up the front landscaping; it could reduce the perceived height of the structure. >Clarify whether or not the garage windows will be obscured and how they will be obscured. Will the glazing be permanently obscured? >The porch shouldn't necessarily extend across the entire front. >The second-story addition is nicely articulated and as quaint as it can get. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - b.1252 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions and a new detached garage (Jesse Guerse, Geurse Conceptual Design Inc., applicant and designer; Tyler Aguinaldo and Shiva Malek, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (NOTICE: Item has been continued at the request of the applicant.) This item was pulled from the agenda by the applicant and will be re -scheduled for consideration at a later date. c.1024 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variance for a two-story addition at the rear of an existing single family dwelling (Julie Carlson, applicant and designer; Stacy Rusley, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini spoke with the property owner and met with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015 July 27, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Julie Carlson and Stacy Rusley represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Suggested adding a window in bathroom number 3. >Break up the remainder of the block wall in some manner. >In support of the Variance given the presence of the 10-foot alley. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >The variance is supportable due to the stream in the front. >Doesn't feel that the existence of the easement in the rear supports the setback variance. >Not certain if all of the variance findings have been clearly made, but supports the request. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair DeMartini, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for consideration. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS None. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS None. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:51 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 27, 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 August 6, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 9/18/2015