Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.07.14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 14, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the July 14, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Victor Voong III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 3, third bullet; change “interest” to “interested”.  Page 3, seventh bullet; this text should be a continuation of that included in the sixth bullet.  Page 12, fifth bullet from bottom of page; insert “have you” before “talked” in third line of bullet.  Page 13, fourth bullet from bottom of page; revise to read: “Design review consultant asked the applicant for these details several times verbally and in his letter, but they were not provided with these plans and the information on the application.”  Page 16, fourth bullet from top of page; revise first statement to read: “Requested clarification that the applicant is currently not the owner of the proposed lot, but will acquire the property if the lot split is approved?”  Page 22, seventh bullet from bottom of page; revise second sentence to read: “Currently congested, want to make sure that there is sufficient capacity for the project.”  Page 22, last bullet at bottom of page; delete “when look at projects” from first line. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner DeMartini abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1. 82 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NORA AND BILL HICKEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TANNERHECHT ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1441 Drake Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the project site. He also indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (2202 and 2220 Summit Drive) as he has a financial interest in property lying within 500-feet of the site. He left the City Council Chambers. 2. 1441 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ATTACHED CARPORT W ITH A NEW ATTACHED CARPORT AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE (JEANNE DAVIS, DAVIS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND LESLIE HOLZMAN, PROPERTY OW NERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had reviewed the recording of the prior discussion of this item. There were no ex-parte communications to report. All Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis represented the applicant. Commission comments:  None. Public comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 3  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 3, 2014, sheets A0.1 through A9.1 and L1.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or carport, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s June 9, 2014 and March 28, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s June 9, 2014 and March 31, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s May 6, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s March 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s March 31, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 4 architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1. (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE AND 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT AT 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE; AND APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE AND 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WAYNE HASS, B & H SURVEYING INC., LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR) (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 23, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL 23-C, KENMORE TERRACE SUBDIVISION – PM 13-01 AT 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE (APN 027-271-340) – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE (APN 027-271-090) AND 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE (APN 027-271-340), PM 13-01A – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had reviewed the recording of the prior discussion of this item. There were no ex-parte communications to report. All Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Civil Engineer Victor Voong presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Warren Donald represented the applicant. Commission comments:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 5 Public comments: Susan Chilton, 2840 Canyon Road, spoke:  There are currently power lines that bisect the proposed lot split. Believes this must also be adjusted prior to the split approval.  Many of the neighbors feel that the best use of this small piece of property would be for parking for the school. Are asking for a postponement of a decision regarding this matter so that the School District can be consulted. Judy Iverson, resident of property immediately adjacent to the proposed site, spoke:  By creating a new lot and a new building, three driveways will merge into one where they meet.  The lot is below the standard size.  Her property and the new property merge together within 30 feet of the school crosswalk. At that point four streets intersect.  It is possible that the school district will be required to alter its resolution to the traffic issue and may need this property.  Sewer and power easements will need to be repositioned to place a building on the narrow space.  There are many factors that must be reviewed before this is approved.  Take another look at the property to see how cramped and out of scale this project will be in the context of the soon to be congested intersection. Applicant’s rebuttal:  Feels the property would still need to be subdivided if the school wished to acquire the property.  There is a conceptual design for the home provided in the report that shows it is buildable.  The easements will not need to be adjusted.  Have been working on the lot split for a long time.  Feels that development of the property will allow the drainage issues to be addressed.  Has spoken with Judy Iverson many times regarding the project. The lot is 6,000 square feet – it meets the City’s criteria.  Has worked with the neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission Discussion:  Was previously moved by the need to provide parking for Hoover School. But has only requested the adjustment of the property line.  Clarified that there is only one house up in the canyon; there will only be one additional home added if the application is approved.  Will reduce loitering in the area.  Understands the concerns of the neighborhood, but are not approving a driveway location or another home at this point. Until a project is submitted cannot comment on these possibilities.  Cannot see a reason to deny the project.  The applicant makes a good point that the property cannot be a parking lot without the lot split.  If the lot is approved, is the Commission also approving construction of a new home? (Meeker – a separate application for design review would be required.)  Is interested in the drop-off design. Could be a safety concern, but only three homes are in the immediate vicinity. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 6  Does the overhead line have any effect upon the design of improvements for the lot? (Voong – is primarily a service drop for the adjacent school; can be moved and are willing to do so.)  If the lot split is approved, is there a way to prevent a new home from being built? (Meeker – if the lot split is approved, the City cannot unduly restrict the ability to build a home on the lot in accordance with code.)  Can the two items be separated? (Voong – can be separated, though the applicant seeks approval together.)  If the lot split doesn’t meet the needs of the applicant, then the applicant doesn’t need to proceed. (Kane – the lot line adjustment approval can stop here, but the lot split requires City Council approval.) Commissioner Loftis moved to approve lot line adjustment as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner Yie moved to recommend approval of the lot split to the City Council as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). This item concluded at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 4. 1545 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEORGE NOVITSKIY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS SADLAK AND MEE KWONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 23, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Item continued to a date uncertain to provide the applicant more time to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission at its prior review of the project. 5. 2501 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NIMA AND ELLE PARIVAR, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GRANT LEE, MARTINKOVIC MILFORD ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN There were no ex-parte communications to report. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 7 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Grant Lee represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Likes the changes that have been made.  Was the siding changed? (Lee – hasn’t been changed, but the perspective drawing wasn’t available at the last discussion.)  What is the material of the new windows? (Lee – aluminum-clad wood windows.)  The changes look very good.  The stairs are much improved.  Feels a bit odd that the railing is wood, but could be more in the execution and details. Suspects that the design is to be of a finer finish.  The project is approvable as it is.  Likes how the stairs have been tied into the existing stairs.  Will the rear stairs contain the same metal appearance, or will the rail be changed to the same design as at the front? (Lee – will likely change to the same language as the front.)  Has come a long way from the initial design. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission discussion:  None. Commissioner Loftis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 24, 2014, sheets A001 through A203, L1.0 and L2.0 and date stamped March 25, 2014, sheets A101, A102, A201, A701 and T-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the rail on the rear stairs shall be of the same design and material as shown on the front stairs; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 21, 2014 and January 9, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 10, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division’s January 21, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s January 13, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s January 10, 2014 memo shall be met; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 8 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 9 Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. 6. 1426 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED BUSINESS ACCESS FOR A NEW RETAIL SPACE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER This item was continued to a date uncertain to permit further research regarding a matter requiring resolution prior to Commission consideration. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1340 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW, DETACHED GARAGE (GEOFF GIBSON, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; AMITA AND NITEEN JAIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke with a neighbor at 1341Vancouver Avenue. Commissioner Loftis met with the applicant. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Geoff Gibson represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is there a landscape plan? (Gibson – are not proposing significant changes to the landscaping.)  The southeast elevation doesn’t have a lot of architectural detailing; is there a landscape solution? (Gibson – is next to the driveway so can’t place much in the area; perhaps a small planter.)  Will the brickwork at the top of the front entry be replicated elsewhere? (Gibson – not planning to carry this element through as it doesn’t appear elsewhere on the house.)  Would something more symmetrical have been designed if not for the declining height envelope? (Gibson – was also up against maximum FAR, could have placed the addition more symmetrically on site, but likes the way the design has come out.)  Were alternatives to the bay windows considered? The new bay windows appear to be competing for attention with the front entry element. (Gibson – tried a square bay window but didn’t work. Could consider retaining the existing windows.)  The front windows look original and appear to have a six over one grid pattern; will this be replicated? Perhaps consider adding the divided light elements back into the design. (Gibson – will simplify the windows with the addition.)  The second-story looks massive because of the second-story plate height. A lot of attention should be paid to keeping the massing down. Look at a lower plate height on the second floor. Typically see an eight foot plate height. Could help with the massing. (Gibson – feels it is really important to CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 10 have adequate windows on the upper level. The suggestion could impact the size of the windows in this area.)  Addition needs to be tied into the existing design in a better manner. Feels that the roof of the addition appears to take away from the front entry.  Don’t really call out the plant materials in the planters; should explain the current condition and any changes to be made to the landscaping.  Want to make certain that the neighbors are contacted regarding the window placement on the sides. Public comments:  None. Additional Commission discussion:  This is a challenging addition.  Wonders if the roof form on the addition contributes to the box-like appearance of the addition.  Perhaps could benefit from a referral to a design reviewer.  Feels the architect understands the comments.  Referral to a design reviewer can result in a streamlined process.  Better integration between the existing home and the addition is needed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to refer the application to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:21p.m. Commissioner Yie left the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (1419 Paloma Avenue) as he has a financial interest in a property within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 8. 1419 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY DWELLING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (KAREN CURTISS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ELISA LEE AND JEFF REED PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Gum spoke with neighbors at 1415 and 1418 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner Loftis spoke with neighbors at 1411 and 1410 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner Sargent noted that he’d met with the applicant. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 11 Questions of staff:  None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Karen Curtiss, Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Noted that the rear yard slopes down towards the fence. (Curtiss – will work with a civil engineer to ensure that runoff is handled on the project site and doesn’t impact the neighbor.)  Encouraged working with the neighbor to preserve access along the side property line where his junction box is located. (Curtiss – are straightening the fence line in order to preserve the width of the driveway. Will keep the fence low to preserve access to the junction box.)  Why is the side courtyard proposed? (Curtiss – will be an area for sun and ensures privacy for the occupants from the neighbors.)  Feels the pattern of the house is unusual in that the front of the house actually faces the side. There is a lot of pressure on one side of the house. Feels that there is a lot of glass along the courtyard side that could impact neighbors. (Reed – love the sunlight. Were exploring ways of opening up the interior in order to gain interior natural light. Will not see the courtyard from the street.)  If someone has a dinner party in the courtyard, will affect the privacy of the neighbors. (Curtiss – the courtyard faces a pretty blank wall on the neighbors’ house. Moving it further to the rear would have been more impactful. Adds some relief to the neighbor’s property. The windows at the upper level above the courtyard are off of a hallway. Attention was paid to where the view lines exist to preserve privacy.)  Must consider the neighbors’ right to privacy. If this architectural solution is repeated, then there could be greater concerns as properties redevelop.  Not sure what to think of this proposed architectural solution.  Asked for an explanation for a fence height exception. (Strohmeier – would require Planning Commission approval for an exception. A minor modification is approvable at the staff level.)  Concerned about the pattern of the home’s design and how it fits with the neighborhood.  Clever design, can understand why it is proposed.  Concerned regarding potential neighbor impact due to the shift of the active outdoor space from the rear of the property to the side. (Curtiss – could consider some sort of sound mitigation such as a fountain, or perhaps a greater height wall. The neighboring home is actually closer than it could normally be placed.)  Worth exploring the higher fence height and perhaps some form of green screening.  Has done a marvelous job of reflecting that a one story home exists next door.  Construction of the garage will require the removal of two trees. Could the garage be placed further into the property, or lowered in height to reduce impacts upon the neighbor and/or provide an area for landscaping? (Reed – the current design is actually better for the neighbor. Curtiss – the exterior walls are lower than thirteen feet.)  Will the garage be used for cars? (Curtiss – yes.)  The overall height of the shed roof on the garage is no greater than it would be for a gable roof. It is actually less imposing as the ridge is further away from the property line.  The one-foot setback along the left side of the garage is pretty standard within the community.  There are enough traditional elements in the design that it could fit into the neighborhood.  Likes the design. Need to look at some type of screen at the courtyard. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 12  Also reconsider the large amount of glazing on the upper floor of the courtyard; the windows give the appearance of a picture window. Public comments: Mike Gaul, Adeline Drive spoke:  Feels the existing home is at the end of its life.  Over time will see a lot of change in the community.  Will not be able to isolate people from one another; will always know that you have neighbors.  The courtyard helps to keep the activity away from the neighbor while providing a creative use of the paving on the property.  The house to the left is too close to the property line. That can be mitigated by the neighbor as well.  Likes the design because it is forward thinking.  Encouraged approval. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission Discussion:  Don’t usually populate the side of the house; the side courtyard is a change in the pattern of development in the area.  The intent of the side driveway is to provide a greater separation between houses.  Privacy is a two way street. It is not only incumbent upon the applicant to address the issue in anticipation of a future development scenario for the adjacent property.  Okay with the CUP portion of the request. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gum. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. 9. 1504 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SHAWN AND VICTORIA MCNAMARA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Gum met with the neighbors from 1503 and 1506 La Mesa Drive. All Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 13 Question of staff:  What trees are to be removed and what are to stay? (Strohmeier – doesn’t know anything other than what is shown on the landscape plan.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Audrey Tse and Victoria McNamara represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Requested clarification regarding the trees that are to be removed, and those that are to remain. (Tse – one tree was diseased, the other was growing into the front of the current house. Permits were issued. One more tree is to be removed per a permit.)  Could the tree be pruned to avoid impacting the house? (Tse – the tree is leaning into the house. The property owners want to save as many trees as possible. McNamara – explained.)  Have any discussion occurred with neighbors? Will there be view blockage?  Have color renderings been prepared? 3D studies? (Tse – no 3D studies.)  Encouraged reviewing all the remaining trees and pruning when necessary. (McNamara – the trees were trimmed a few years ago. There are 26 trees on the property.)  Has the design been reviewed with the neighbors. (Tse – have reviewed with Hillside and La Mesa neighbors. McNamara – the Hillside neighbor is much higher. Views from the La Mesa property are not impacted.)  Has consideration been given to treating the other wood elements, i.e. fascia, could be stained in the same manner as the cedar inserts at the windows. (Tse – can prepare renderings and will consider this type of change.) Corner lots are always tough. Correcting that problem will make a big difference.  Nearly all corner lots have the front facing the long side.  The impact upon the neighboring house is greater given the orientation of the home on the lot and the slope of the lot. Concerned about increasing the plate heights on both the first and second floor to ten feet. The plate height impacts the human scale. (Tse – Has developed the design to stay away from the neighbors.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission Discussion:  Concerned about the plate heights that are proposed; the Design Guidelines speak to minimizing mass and keeping homes on a human scale. Needs to be addressed.  The design could be helped by reducing height which would improve it as a piece of modern design.  Two ten foot plate heights are pretty tall.  The existing tall trees reduce the impact of the height. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 14 This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:32 p.m. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10 (1119 Eastmoor Road) since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 10. 1119 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN NEJASMICH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER There were no ex-parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated July 14, 2014, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public comment period. James Chu and Dan Nejasmich represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is all of the landscaping being replaced with lawn? (Chu – intend to keep the existing landscaping.)  Is there a way to relocate the address numbers from above the garage door? (Chu – will do.)  The second floor above the entry appears to only be supported by two very small columns; should revisit this element. (Chu – will do.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes July 14, 2014 15  None. Vice-Chair DeMartini called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Bandrapalli recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:41 p.m. Commissioner Bandrapalli returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of July 7, 2014:  The rezoning of portions of the west side of Primrose Road, between Burlingame Avenue and Chapin Avenue was introduced and is scheduled for adoption on August 18, 2014.  There was not enough support on the City Council to warrant further analysis of code amendments to allow electronic media signs in certain areas of the Highway 101 corridor.  The City Council restated its support for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow large-format specialty retail uses within the Rollins Road (RR) zone. FYI: 1418 Capuchino Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 515 Marin Drive - review of revised plans for a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Will Loftis, Secretary