Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.10.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 26, 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 a.October 13, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the October 13, 2015 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 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted that Agenda Item 9d (1451 Burlingame Avenue) is continued to a date uncertain. Notice of the re-scheduled public hearing will be mailed in advance of the scheduled hearing date. It was noted that Commissioner Gum would recuse himself on Agenda Items 7b (721 Neuchatel Avenue) and 9b (1144 Palm Drive) since he owns property within 500-feet of the properties; Commissioner Loftis would recuse himself on Agenda Item 8d (2209 Ray Drive) since he resides within 500-feet of the property and Commissioner Sargent would recuse himself from Agenda Item 9c (205 Bayswater Avenue) since he is the project applicant. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA None. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Sargent requested that Consent Calendar Item 7b (721 Neuchatel Avenue) be removed from the Consent Calendar so that the window sample for the project may be reviewed. The item was moved to Regular Action. a.119 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Brian and Jennifer Buhl, applicants and Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property owners; Ruff + Associates, architect;) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve Consent Calendar Item 7a (119 Loma Vista Drive). Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 7b.721 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Brett Newman, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Gum recused himself from the discussion since he owns property within 500-feet of the subject property. He left the City Council Chambers. Community Development Director Meeker suggested disposal of the staff report. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Presented a sample of the proposed vinyl windows. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comment: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >In this instance the vinyl window is acceptable to match the existing windows, but not as nice. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Gum1 - a.Considerations of Amendments to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and to Chapters 25.32-25.35 and 25.38 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for amendments to side setback requirements. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Public comments: Sue Gore, 33 Park Road: Spoke in favor of creating side setback requirements within the mixed -use zones. Asked that the side setback be required for all development in the district whether or not residential or mixed use. Also requests that the front setback be increased to fifteen feet to permit an appropriate amount of space for street trees. Jennifer Pfaff: Supports going to a sliding scale for side setbacks that was applied for decades; is a fair approach. Didn't look into the front setback issue raised by the prior speaker. Feels that the Bayswater Mixed-Use district setbacks adjacent to El Camino Real should be the same as those provided in the Howard Mix-Use zone. Feels that 25.33.060c of the zoning regulations should also be included within the setback language for the Bayswater Mixed-Use district. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Staff comments: Community Development Director Meeker indicated that only those items discussed in the staff report are before the Commission. Any further changes in response to speakers' comments would require the item to be continued and presented to the Commission again in the future. Will need to review Ms . Pfaff's comments to determine what changes she suggested. If the Commission is interested in proceeding on only the items in the staff report, it could move forward, but it is preferable to provide further direction for any changes and allowing all items to be brought back together as one matter . There is no urgency in moving forward immediately. Best to allow staff to review all requested changes and provide analysis for the Commission. City Attorney Kane suggested that the Commission provide input regarding the items before it this evening to inform further analysis as staff moves forward. Commission discussion: >Okay with implementing the side -yard setbacks as outlined. Uncomfortable with expanding the requirements for front-yard setbacks. Discussed the reason for not requiring front -yard setbacks in these areas; was a point of discussion when the Plan was adopted. >Can look at the issue related to El Camino Real raised by Jennifer Pfaff. >Okay with the scrivener's errors. >Supportive of judging commercial depth on a case-by-case basis. >Should address the issues raised by Jennifer Pfaff. Continued to a future date. b.1301 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and enlarging the existing attached garage (Candice Williams, applicant and property owner; Gregorin Engineering & Design, designer) (20 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Frank Pecavar and Candice Williams represented the applicant. Commissioner questions/comments: >Thanked the applicant for making the changes. Public comments: None. Commission discussion: >Project complies with all policies and regulations. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Discussion of motion: >Just because an attached garage is acceptable doesn't mean that two attached garages should be accepted. >Having a tough time with approving the project; can't make the design review findings of consistency with the neighborhood. The design is visible to several other properties within the vicinity. >The Commission's credibility is based upon its consistency in applying the design guidelines. There shouldn't be a neighborhood where there is less concern with compliance with the guidelines. >Can't make the design review and special permit findings. >Feels the lines of the addition and the scale match with the existing structure. Other Commissioners may be having a problem because the addition is a garage. May look better if not a garage, but it is allowed. Parking on a cul-de-sac is at a premium; will take cars off of the street. >The design does fit with the existing house; supports the project. >Must look at neighborhood patterns, but the design does fit well with the existing building. Agrees that the discomfort may relate to the fact that the addition is a garage. Agrees that parking is at a premium in a cul-de-sac. Supports the project in this context. Chair DeMartini asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Nay:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - c.601 Concord Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Robert Stiles, applicant and architect; Eric and Vyl Chiang, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Gaul and Gum spoke with the applicant and his son. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 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. Robert Stiles and Eric Chiang represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Has trouble with the blank facades on Concord and Clarendon. Is there something that could be done to make the front facade more exciting? >All of the windows facing the street have been moved to the rear; was that the intent of the design? (Stiles: was the intent to move the windows to the rear activity areas. Could conceivably place a window in the pantry, but is not a preferred solution. Chiang: Could look at some form of texture around the front entry to provide more depth.) Could place some form of opaque glass in the pantry to avoid a blind being place in the area. >How is the second floor deck to be used? (Chiang: primarily for star-gazing with a few chairs.) >Have they contacted the neighbor on Concord regarding the deck? (Chiang: yes, he is comfortable with the design.) >Could any thought be given to using a different type of roof to make it fit into the neighborhood better? (Stiles: is an appropriate roof for the house; fits with the ranch-style home.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The 3D images actually reveal how stark the street -facing elevations are, more than the elevations did. Is turning a fairly stark face to the street. Needs something besides landscaping at the corner. >The simple design works, but the design of the rear makes the corner appear even more stark. >Okay with the metal roof. >Still concerned with the second -story deck. Privacy for the neighbor is not just a planting issue; sound transfer can also be an issue with the neighbors. Doesn't feel the applicant went far enough addressing the issue. >A second floor deck doesn't belong in a single-family neighborhood. >The design presents a "compound" type feeling when you approach it. Seems contrary to the design guidelines and trying to create unity within the neighborhood. >Likes the project, but the project is not quite there. There could be a better way of weaving the two elements of the design together. >A softer roof may help the design. >Have an obligation to look closely at the size and placement of decks when off of a living space. >What is the difference between a balcony versus a deck? A balcony may be acceptable, but a larger deck is problematic. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item with direction to the applicant as included in the Commission discussion. Discussion of Motion: >The roof isn't a problem. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The issues are the corner design of the house and the deck. >If a roof deck can accommodate more than two or three people, then it is problematic. Trying to discourage large gatherings on the amenity. The deck doesn't need to be eliminated completely. >Concurs with the prior comment about the number of people that can assemble on a deck. >Concerned with the applicant's comment that the deck is a "recovery" space for activities occurring in the yard. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - d.2209 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Briggs McDonald, bmod Office of Design, applicant and architect; Ann Stephens and Keith Bol, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Vice-Chair Loftis noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent and Demartini met with the applicant at the site. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Keith Bol and Briggs McDonald represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Appreciated receiving the neighbors' support. >Will the new roof be flat with no parapets? Material? (McDonald: yes, will be of a membrane material of some sort. Will likely be nine to ten inches in thickness.) >What are the plate heights? (McDonald: explained the ceiling heights. Ceiling heights will vary from 11' 7' to 10' 4" on the second floor. On the first floor the height will range from 8' 8" to 10' 7" at the rear.) >Is the entry way porch at the same level as the sidewalk? (McDonald: yes.) >The owners do not seem to be married to changing the siding on the ground floor from vertical to horizontal. (McDonald: explained the approach to installing the siding.) >Expressed concern about the transition between the different siding orientations. Couldn't all of the ground floor siding be horizontal? (McDonald: provide the transitions at less visible areas. Could be all horizontal, but would be difficult to transition between new and old materials.) >Suggested having all of the siding on the ground floor vertical in orientation. >Will the fascia on the new roof match the existing fascia? Need to match as closely as possible . (McDonald: will be a bit larger given required finishing.) >Will the chimney be extended up with brick? (McDonald: will be brick.) >With respect to the deck, is there a door from bedroom four to the area? Is a pretty sizeable deck; concerned. (McDonald: not a critical element of the design. Received some comments from the neighbor.) >Did the neighbor behind the property weigh-in on the design? (Bol: liked it and had no complaints.) Public comments: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chuck Wallace, 2301 Ray Drive: feels the setback is fine in instances like this if the Commission grants them periodically. Has some concerns regarding the second floor deck facing his property. Noise could be an issue depending upon who lives on the property. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Likes the design with the addition. >Supportive of the variance as it follows the lines of the house and is architectural compatible. Also is a large lot. >Have been instances where the Commission has granted approval of the continuation of a non-conforming setback. >Design is much better, still some details to be worked out with respect to the siding and the size of the deck. >Encourage a deck that can accommodate no more than two or three people. >Suggested keeping the new fascia within the realm of six to eight inches. Nine inches and beyond would be too large. Wouldn't suggest matching the existing fascia on the lower floor to match the new addition, but if they do match it would not be problematic. >Given that the ground floor is at ground level and the home has flat roofs, doesn't have a problem with the design. >Design seems to be generally supported, but still need to review the upper deck, the siding and perhaps the fascia design reviewed. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to continue the item. Discussion of motion: >Agrees that there are a number of items that need review. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - e.401 Primrose Road, Suite J, zoned CAC - Application for Parking Variance for a real estate office (James Meader, applicant; Stephen T. Cohn Tr, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a discussion with the building manager. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarity regarding the representation regarding the number of employees on the property . (Hurin/Meeker: the applicant has indicated that there will be fewer people in the office than in the hair salon. Staff cannot perform an individual analysis based upon a specific business operator's representations. The parking standards are based upon generalized ratios based upon categories of uses.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jim Meader and Robert Brisbane represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There are only four desks; do the agents share desks? (Meader: not all agents require a desk, only a place to meet clients.) >Appears that the floor plan shows mostly furniture, but noted that the floor plan shows what appears to be a conference room that doesn't currently exist on the property. Need to be clear on the construction plans. (Meader: yes, this space will be built out.) >Who receives clients at the location? (Meader: Agents will meet the clients at the location.) How does the Commission ensure that a receptionist will not be placed on the property? (Meader: within the Sotheby's organization this space will be defined as a gallery office, one that only serves as meeting space. Brisbane: have no desire to staff it. Meader: office meetings are done with a live broadcast; there will be no office meetings at the location.) >How long will client meetings take? (Meader: fifteen minutes to an hour.) Likely that patrons will use other businesses on the property and in the area. Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Accepts the applicant's position that the use will have fewer clients than the prior use. >Need to clarify the plans regarding the conference room. >Initially felt the variance request is warranted - the building was built without parking. Will this be an intensification, or is the decision based upon speculation or does the Commission only consider the code requirement? Doesn't want to rely upon speculation. >If there truly is intensification, then the Commission has the obligation to ask for the in -lieu fee. However, based upon the description provided by the applicant, then it is hard to justify the in-lieu fee. >Not okay with waiving the in -lieu fee - it is in place for a reason. Difficult to determine how many spaces will actually be used within each request. >Okay with the variance request. >Asked if the variance will run with the property and if the space could be used by other office users in the future? (Meeker: the variance runs with the property and would permit other subsequent office uses to occupy the space.) >Believes the incremental increase is not enough of an increase to warrant payment of the in-lieu fee. >Most real estate work is done in the field or at home, not in the office. >The in-lieu fee is warranted since the variance runs with the property and is not specifically related to a particular operator; a future office use could have a higher employee count that would support the need for additional parking. >Parking within the Downtown is sensitive. People generally come out on higher profile uses encouraging rejection of variance requests. Hard to support the variance and not collect the in-lieu fee. >The variance will run with the suite? (Meeker: yes, but also look at the total property and the mix of uses to determine the required parking for the property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application and require payment of the parking in-lieu fee. Discussion of motion: >Staff noted that the condition restricting the number of occupants needs to be striken from the conditions. This was accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. >The motion is intended to include payment for only the fractional space (.94 space). Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nay:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1612 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Jiyoon Chung, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communcations to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.\ Questions of staff: >Is the second floor side setback different from the first floor setback? (Hurin: typically the second floor is pushed in somewhat due to the declining height envelope requirement.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Pointed out a wood post on the floor plan that doesn't appear to exist currently. (Gann: only added the post on the ground floor on the existing floor plan.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Gann: no.) >Does the applicant feel that there is enough of a separation from the neighboring property? (Gann: wasn't aware of the addition being built next door.) >Any thought to placing a window on the wall adjacent to the neighboring property to the left? (Gann: would have required a fire-rated window.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Straight forward proposal. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Discussion of motion: >Only concern is the front entry with the new hip roof sitting above looks jammed into the corner; something odd about the roof, not resolved fully. Think through this element of the design. >The plans were prepared before the home to the left was under construction. The juxtiposition of the proposed addition and the home under construction only places the structures eight feet from one another. Is hesitant to approve this element of the design. >There isn't much landscaping on the front of the property. Asked that the applicant consider enhancing the landscape plan to help shield the second story. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Nay:Gum1 - b.1144 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition (Todd and Karen Gemmer, applicant and property owners; Rob Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Gum indicated that he would recuse himself on this item as he owns property within 500-feet of the site. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Gaul and Bandrapalli had met with the neighbor at 800 Crossway. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Pointed out an error in the table in the staff report where it says 17-feet. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer and Todd Gemmer represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Noted that the elevations are labeled the opposite of what they actually should be. >There are three vent stacks on the existing building; how will the clapboard siding be placed behind the stacks? (Wehmeyer: all systems in the house will be replaced. >Clarified that there will be a door into the garage though it doesn't appear on the floor plan. >Requested notes clarifying the existing rafter tails will be retained and that the addition will incorporate the same details. (Wehmeyer: will add these details.) >Will there be some sort of transition feature between the siding and the stucco? (Wehmeyer: yes.) >Generally the massing is handled nicely, but is there something that can be done to break up the large wall along the side where the addition is being placed? (Wehmeyer: have looked at this, but it is really tight on the side. Met with the neighbors on both sides. Considered bringing a gable over the side window, but could make it seem heavier. Have had conversations with the neighbor regarding placing a fence at the location.) >Perhaps a bay could be placed at the master bedroom window to break up the mass. (Wehmeyer: could do a similar shed detail that exists on the opposite side.) >What is the clearance between the back of the fireplace and the porch rail? (Wehmeyer: three feet will be maintained.) >Understands the desire to extend the porch, but the extension would now be adjacent to a portion of the neighbor's house. (Wehmeyer: the lot configuration and the small front yard is limiting options . Have spoken with the affected neighbor regarding this issue. The neighbor is considering placing a fence at that location.) >Diid the designer consider other options for a front porch that don't require a side setback variance . Could a porch with a front setback variance be an option? (Wehmeyer: would be more of an impact upon the front of the house.) Public comments: None. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Doesn't have an issue with the variance. They are not expanding habitable space, they are expanding porch space. >The option of not having the side setback variance would butcher the home design. >Does the neighbor have a problem with the porch extension? Can go either way with the porch extension. >Agrees with looking at the massing on the left side of the house. Is particularly visible from across the street. >Double check the dimensions of the chimney. >Feels that the living room is large enough to create a foyer and reduce impacts upon the neighbor . A front porch could have been placed on the building. >The special permit is supportable. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, 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, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Recused:Gum1 - c.205 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story dwelling with a detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc .; applicant and designer; Sargent Constructions, Inc., property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner Sargent recused himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item as he is the applicant; he left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Noted receipt of a letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding the project. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Is the proposed project slab on grade? (Chu: no, there is a crawl space of approximately 18-inches. Soils report shows the groundwater to be twenty feet below grade.) >Is compelled by the comments raised by Pfaff in her letter; particularly the comments regarding the steps leading to the entry. (Chu: has discussed with the applicant and favor the current design.) >Most of the homes in the area have more than two steps or a stoop leading to the entry. Perhaps elevating the entry would reduce the top -heavy appearance of the structure. (Chu: would likely further encroach into the declining height envelope.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Were other designs considered that wouldn't impact the declining height envelope? (Chu: only this design was considered.) >Requested a discussion of the thought process behind the metal roof. (Chu: want a more contemporary element that relates better to the interior.) >Is a pretty significant expanse of metal roof, not sure he agrees with this design element. >Has any thought been given to cladding the chimney in something other than siding material to make it stand out as a design feature? (Chu: will review this element.) >Commented on the garage exterior finishing; stucco on two sides. (Chu: stucco is proposed on the sides that are not visible.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Good support for the special permit for declining height envelope; the lot is substandard in width and this directly affects the situation. If a special permit option wasn't provided, then traditional forms of architecture could not occur in the neighborhood. >Have already stepped in the second floor in order to reduce the impact upon the declining height envelope. >Feels that the metal roof breaks up the mass of the roof. The design is a bit top heavy; the metal roof helps to reduce this impact. >Consider elevating the ground floor a bit to provide more of a presence and reduce the top heavy appearance of the structure. >Feels a more appropriate finishing approach for the garage would be to consider having three sides with the same finish. >Agrees that the ground floor should be elevated more. >Feels the design fits well with the neighborhood. >Agrees that the findings for the special permit for the declining height envelope encroachment may be made. >Ensure that the landscape plan accurately reflects the existing landscaping. Also show the placement of the required street tree on the plan. >The color of the roof isn't offensive, but open to a different material if the applicant proposes it. >Doesn't feel the metal roof is appropriate. >Supports the special permit for declining height envelope because of the home's architecture, not the narrow width of the lot. A smaller home could be proposed on a smaller lot. >Feels that the metal roof element works in this case. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, 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, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Recused:Sargent1 - d.1451 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a full service food establishment (Rise Pizzeria LLC, applicant; Architects II, architect; Diane L. Ayoob Tr, property owner) (30 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Continued to a date uncertain. Public notices will be mailed in advance of the scheduled hearing. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/19/2015 October 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair DeMartini noted that a community open house was held on October 24th to solicit input from the community regarding the general plan update. Commissioner Terrones noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee is scheduled to meet on November 3rd. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS None. a.1312 Capuchino Avenue - Reveiw of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. The item was pulled for future discussion because of discrepencies in the floor plan and elevations and the number of windows being eliminated. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:09 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 October 26, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, 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 11/19/2015