Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.12.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 14, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and BandrapalliPresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 9, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Corrections: >Page 5, Item C should show 1447 Paloma Avenue as the project address. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.November 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Pat Giorni, spoke on this item: >November 9th letter Caltrans requested one elm be planted in El Camino Real right-of-way. >Caltrans is not supposed to plant within 200 feet of any intersection. >Agencies do not seem to be communicating with each other and within themselves. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2016 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b.612 Vernon Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and major renovation to an existing single family dwelling (Wehmeyer Design, designer and applicant; Amy and Bryan Michael, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.717 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for tentative map for a lot split of one lot into two lots at 717 Linden Avenue (Kavanagh Engineering, engineer; 1448 Laguna LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Project Engineer: Victor Voong 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: >Would approval give the applicant any entitlements? (Hurin: It would only provide assurance the applicant can go forward with the proposed projects. The tentative map would not be reviewed by the City Council until the project comes forward.) >Would there be a design proposal for the lot? (Hurin: Yes. Site plans, floor plans, exterior designs.) >Is it common to review the subdivision and the projects separately? (Hurin: Most cases the project is tied in, but in this case the applicant is looking for confidence that the subdivision portion of the application would be supported.)(Terrones: It has been done before, on Vista Lane.) >If approval is given to the tentative map but not the project, does it ends there? (Hurin: Yes.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. James Evans represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >What would be the length of the single -surface wall? (Evans: Don't know. Based on previous feedback is trying to soften the plans, make them amenable to the neighborhood.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >If the plan showed a single long wall, it would be difficult to support. >The outline of the footprint just follows the setback lines, not much more articulated than that. It has not been tested for lot coverage, FAR etc. It is only for considering a potential layout for some type of footprint, but it would need to be further articulated to meet other requirements. However it appears something could be built that adheres to the setbacks, preserves the trees, has adequate driveway width, and achieves something similar to pattern in the rest of the neighborhood. >Seems something is possible but seems a long way between what is sketched here and what would be approved as a development project. The concept seems good but it is a leap to saying it is developable. >Applicant has noted that most parcels in area have already been split. This is one of the few that has not. Other lots have been developed with approximately 50 to 55-foot widths, and a number have what appears to be single family homes with a second unit behind. >Does not know when other lots may have been split and what zoning standards were in place at that time. >This split can be done without a variance. The earlier application required a variance but this does not. (Hurin: The only purpose of showing the footprints is to show it can be buildable. Would not want to approve a lot split without showing a footprint providing confidence it can be split or is buildable, but this would not approve that footprint in any way. The design can change before it comes back as a project, or through the design review process.) >Does not have a problem with the methodology of the lot split. Not yet looking at the layout or design, the request is only for the lot split currently and it is reasonable. >Could also be developed with two single family homes, rather than duplexes. >Sees intent of code as having the frontage on one street. Therefore one or the other lot would be out of compliance. Seems gerrymandered. (Kane: In interpreting a statute if the words are clear on their face, should not try to go behind them to determine the intent. If the regulation says 55 feet on a public street, if it meets that criterion should not be required to go through a variance procedure when they have complied with the ordinance. Primary question is whether this created two legal buildable lots as defined by the City.) >Concerned lot split would not comply with the required findings because Linden Avenue is so narrow. It would be a hard street to have equipment and construction. >Applicant has responded to direction provided by the commission previously, and commission is not reviewing a specific design review application. This gets them one step closer so they can submit something for design review. >This is the predominant pattern in the neighborhood. Many of the surrounding lots have frontages less than 50 feet. Applicant is not gaming the situation, it is pursuing a direction suggested by the commission. It is not a development entitlement. >If one of the lots has frontage on Carolan Avenue, does that mean the street address would be on Carolan too? (Hurin: No, it does not automatically mean that. Believes the applicant wants to orient both projects towards Linden Avenue. Also Public Works has indicated it would not want to have a new driveway curbcut on Carolan Avenue. The address does not need to be on the frontage.) >Looks like a half proposal. Comfortable with the concept but thinks an important piece is missing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve the application. The motion failed for lack of majority and was deemed Denied Without Prejudice by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, and Terrones3 - Nay:Gum, Sargent, and Bandrapalli3 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-2 and R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment of a portion of the site from Medium Density to Medium High Density Residential, Rezoning of a portion of the site from R -2 to R-3, Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Condominium Permit and Lot Combination for a new three -story, 10-unit residential condominium with at-grade parking (1509 El Camino LLC, applicant and property owner; Rodrigo Santos, engineer) (205 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Mary Bean of First Carbon attended as environmental consultant. Questions of staff and the environmental consultant: >Would 55 feet be the maximum height with a special permit? (Hurin: 35 feet is the maximum by right . Anything above 35 feet requires a Conditional Use Permit.) >Several issues were discussed at the March meeting, but plans have not been revised. Issues were regarding tree screening at the rear of the lot and a sound wall at the rear of the lot, which the applicant seemed willing to include with the project. There was also concern over access to the guest parking. >Has a portion of a lot been rezoned from R -2 to R-3 in recent years? (Hurin: This is a clean-up for the lot merger. Would not want to approve a project with two different zoning or General Plan classifications. It is a request that comes with the project, not a request to rezone an entire for changing the density such as for example from single family to duplex. Cannot recall an instance of rezoning from R-2 to R-3 but this is just for a portion of the site.) >The traffic counts compare an 11-unit apartment vs 10-unit condo/townhouse with different traffic rates. What is the difference between an apartment and condominium? How can an 11-unit project with all one bedroom units have more traffic compared to a 10-unit building with eight bedrooms? (Bean: The difference between apartment and condominium /townhome is one of rental vs. ownership. ITE trip generation rates are the accepted standard that all consultants use based on survey trip generation patterns. Survey data has shown ownership creates a different type of trip generation, even if there are more bedrooms. Under ownership is has been observed that additional bedrooms in a condo are not used in the same way as an apartment. May be used for an office, or a child who gets taken to school rather than a roommate. The data is based on observations across the country and is the accepted standard.) >What happens if all of the units get rented? (Bean: Can take different assumptions to the analysis . The traffic engineer for this environmental analysis took the accepted industry standard approach. Tries to avoid one-off analyses rather than what is consistently accepted.) >Should a building of all one -bedroom units have the same trip generation rates as one with three bedrooms? (Bean: No, but the number of trips involved would not be enough to generate a significant difference on traffic impacts on local intersections or traffic hazards with turning movements.) >When a project is so completely different from the norm can another analysis be done that does not follow the accepted standards, but instead looks at similar types of similarly unusual buildings? For example a student housing complex. Why wasn't this done here since the unit makeup here is so very different? (Bean: The analysis reflects the professional opinion of the traffic engineer to approach the difference between a rental apartment and an ownership condominium. An option could be to do a sensitivity analysis to determine how many trips would need to be generated to create a significant impact at a given intersection.) >The City's parking requirements are based on bedroom count and by extension occupancy, but the traffic analysis does not reflect that. (Bean: The analysis is based on observations of use of ownership vs. rental of units. The project has provided more parking than is required .)(Hurin: The code has a higher parking requirement for condominiums than apartments. The existing apartments are nonconforming with the amount of parking. The project will provide more parking than what is provided now.) >The project is not large but the wastewater data seems old, citing 2009 data. Can there be more current data? (Bean: Yes, can get more current data when the application goes to the Council.) >What is the clientele in this project? What size cars will they be driving? There are compact spaces . (Bean: The applicant may be able to speak to what type of buyer is being sought. Parking is not a CEQA issue, it is a city municipal code issue. Applicants need to be treated consistently, so if there is interest in creating a different parking standard need to be sure to apply it consistently across all development projects. There needs to be a consistent standard.) >Obligation of environmental analysis is to see if there are any impacts that rise to a level of Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes significance as defined by CEQA, not by some other criteria. (Bean: The Level of Service on surrounding streets and intersections is acceptable, so even if someone takes issue with the methodology of the trip generation rates the point would be how many more trips would have to be generated to create an impact where the Level of Service would be unacceptable.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Pat Fellows represented the applicant: Commission questions/comments: >Why were suggested design changes not incorporated into plan? Landscape screening at rear, guest access of visitor spaces, location of guest spaces. (Fellows: Is prepared to provide the fencing and screening up to what City will approve. Can't have a wall taller than what the City would approve . Will have a garage entry pedestal for visitors, and visitor spaces will be clearly marked.) >Why 14 compact spaces? (Fellows: Had developed 1226 El Camino Real, most have smaller cars . There are always spaces in the garage. 3 bedroom units typically have one bedroom used for guests and one for a study.) >How many cars are currently parked on the property? (Fellows: 25 on average. Would not expect the garage to be fully occupied.) >Anticipating families or empty nesters? (Fellows: Usually just two or three people in the units, so will have fewer cars.) >Why is the affordable unit on the second floor? Would it be possible to extend length of affordability? (Fellows: Would not be prepared to extend the length of affordability. If something was given back could consider it - give and take.) >What is the justification for the lot combination? (Fellows: Two property taxes, and one land -locked lot with no access. City did not want to have two zoning designations. The creek lot was originally part of the adjacent parcel to the north on Albermarle, but it was split off.) >The affordable unit does not match the unit mix of the project. 60% of the units have three bedrooms in this project. Has this been revisited? (Fellows: Could consider a two -bedroom. The rent formula is complex. Larger units have higher rents by the formula so require higher incomes.) >The Housing Element applicable at time of application required there be no fewer units than being replaced. (Fellows: Could provide 11 units. May change parking count.) >Is there sewer and water capacity for the project? (Fellows: Yes, has already confirmed this with the City.) >Would existing tenants be given the first preference to return? (Fellows: Yes they are good tenants.) Public comments: Ann Wallach spoke on this item: >Adjacent to many Ray Park homes. >Will have 10 new neighbors with outdoor play areas that can be used day and night. >Garden at back replaced with bocci ball court. Will cause noise, poses a serious threat to neighbors' enjoyment of property. >Bocci ball court has been ignored by the environmental review. Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >Existing units serve low- and moderate-income individuals. Some of the lowest rents in Burlingame. >Expects families with children to live in the new project given the size of the units. Does not expect bocci ball and putting green to appeal to children. >Families with children will not use transit. At a minimum, all families will have a full -sized vehicle, most likely SUVs. >Does not make sense to rezone a parcel with a creek to a higher density when the building will have fewer residents. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >ITE has caveats for the use of its data. >Parking and traffic issues currently exist on Balboa Avenue. Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive, spoke on this item: >The 11 existing units are homes for people of moderate means. >Developer may or may not provide affordable unit depending on whether receiving an incentive. >Majority of project would have three bedrooms. If there were more one bedroom or studio apartments would not have as many school children. >Unjust to evict people to make room for people of greater wealth. Shortage of housing for people of moderate means. >Property owner should be able to make good profit on the buildings as they are now. >Concern with creek damage and ground stability. Pat Giorni spoke on this item: >Requested surity bond for trees, but Neg Dec notes it is not a City requirement. >Does not have assurances that the bunya bunya tree will survive. Replacement not guaranteed to be a bunya bunya tree, or at the same location. >Precedent for security bonds at 1537 and 1543 Drake Avenue. Should use same language. Adam Ward, 1512 Abermarle Drive, spoke on this item: >Newly arrived to neighborhood. >Concern with rezoning precedent, environmental impact on creek, proximity to school and Lincoln Elementary. >Does not believe any other project has this combination of circumstances. Nina Weil, 1520 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >If developer would agree to have taller wall and screening why would it be an issue to the City? Would like it considered and incorporated into the plans. >Why is developer convinced the wastewater capacity is acceptable? >Wants remeasurement of noise at 1226 Balboa to see if there is an impact. Currently there is a high level of noise and new HVAC units will elevate noise at peak hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Pat Fellows spoke on this item: >Is only one of four owners of the creek. Needs the other three to participate in clean -up, is amenable to clean-up. Questions of the applicant: >Can there be restrictions on outdoor activities? (Fellows: Can eliminate bocci ball court. Can put in a herb garden for residents of the building.) Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concerned with the number of hypotheticals in the discussion such as condos being rented out; needs to follow the accepted science and industry -standard methodology for the environmental review . Needs to be analyzed with logic. >Property should not be required to de-intensify because of situations beyond the project. >Needs work on details such as unit mix, details of landscaping that could have impacts on neighbors, and landscape screening. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Creek parcel does not have a required frontage. Rezoning is warranted, as the creek parcel cannot stand alone as its own parcel. >R-2 zoning may have been intended to provide a buffer between R-3 and R-1. >Concern with parking and traffic. Too many compact spaces given numbers of 2 and 3 bedroom units, could result in spillover parking. >Needs to use the industry -accepted standards for evaluating traffic and parking. Otherwise will be using subjective measures made each time, and nobody would know what standards would apply to a project. >Project exceeds parking standard. People will use compact spaces since they will want to park near their units. >Planning Commission does not have the authority to go above and beyond the code for parking. >Does not accept the report that estimates lower trip generation than existing. However differences in trips is not significant. >Why is there a bocci court in the design if nobody wants it? Take bocci court out, change to quiet garden landscaping. >Housing Element is specific that there cannot be a loss of units. >Traffic engineer could run a sensitivity analysis to determine where an impact that would be significant to CEQA would be. >Believes R-2 designation was a mistake, not a grand plan. >26 people living on the property now. Has not heard that the existing people are noisy. >There is not design review purview on this application. Criteria is whether there are impacts to the neighborhood. >Is no net loss of units a requirement? (Gardiner: It was a Housing Element program at the time the application was submitted. It was a program but not adopted as a regulation.) >Desire for 11 units, smaller units, change in landscaping, taller fence. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - c.2101 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition (Robert Medan, Applicant and Architect; Peter A. Zuercher, property owner ) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Robert Medan represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Is the window box wood? Why not wrought iron? (Medan: Yes. Thought wood would be more functional.) >Which window was added? (Medan: Second floor bedroom window, west elevation, middle window.) >What is thinking with brackets on the roof extensions? (Medan: Old-style, traditional approach consistent with the architectural style.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Pleased with the changes. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - d.1447 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Mauricio Melchor and Alan Ohashi, Ohashi Design Studio, applicant and architect; Max Ramos, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item as he has a property interest within 500 feet. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum traded voicemails with the applicant, and Commissioners Bandrapalli and Sargent met the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Phillip Liang and Mauricio Melchor, Ohashi Design Studio, represented the applicant, with property owner Max Ramos. >Eclectic architectural styles in the neighborhood. >More distance from neighbors in new design than the existing house. >Balcony on front has been removed. >Window heights have been reduced and bases raised. >Roof slope increased to 5:12. Roof eave reduced by 6 inches. >Wood siding wraps around corner to create a more uniform look. >Flat roof changed to a small awning at entry. >Corner pull-out and recess hides the stair window from the street. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Impressed with the changes. They are impactful and effective. >Roof pitch change an improvement. >More humble, subdued than previous. >Should be lowered more. >Nice piece of "transitional modern" architecture. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Bandrapalli4 - Nay:Sargent1 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - e.1338 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer; Sean F. and Erika A. Cafferkey, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber) All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: None. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Changes are subtle but real improvements. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - f.628 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a basement and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (Toby Long, Toby Long Design, applicant and designer; Charlotte Payton and Greg Smelzer, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Toby Long represented the applicant, with property owner Greg Smelzer. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Adjusted the roofline. >Revised window design, removed screens. >Material palette with wood and stucco. >Posts at front to create a different type of porch. >Changes to windows on left for privacy of neighbor. >Drought-tolerant landscaping. Commission questions/comments: >Decided on type of wood for horizontal siding? (Long: Clear cedar.) Public comments: Patrick Mcguane, 632 Trenton Way, spoke on this item: >Lives next door. Does not object to house being built but objects to basement. >Concern with stress cracks on foundation from construction. >Bedroom 3 has windows facing into bedroom. Frank Hennelly, 624 Trenton Way, spoke on this item: >Lives on right side. >Great job changing the design but worried about the basement. >Shoring plan to show there will not be stress on the house. Toby Long spoke: >Working with Glenn Romig, a reputable geotechnical engineer in the area. There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >There are other houses in the area with attached garages. It is integrated into the architecture of the structure and the neighborhood. >No longer looks similar to neighboring house. >Changes are substantial; is a nicer looking project. >Could condition a shoring plan be submitted with building permit plans. Planning Commission does not have the expertise to evaluate a shoring plan. >Does not believe the house fits into the neighborhood - the house next door was a stretch . Landscaping in front is sparse. >Design fits into neighborhood. Not the same as Easton Addition. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 - Nay:DeMartini1 - Absent:Gaul1 - g.350 Primrose Road, zoned DAC - Application for a Sign Variance for a new wall sign (Anderson Yazdi Hwang Minton and Horn LLP, applicant; VKK Signmakers, Inc ., designer; Primrose Plaza Partners, LP, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Lynne Esselstein represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >What are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances? (Esselstein: There is a small sign band relative to the height of the building. The building is 6 stories tall. Letters could not be any smaller and still be back-lit. Had considered running the length of the band but the trees would obscure the logo.) >Are the lamps attached to the back of the lettering too large to be hidden? (Esselstein: The letters are channel-cut, and the LEDs need to fit into the spaces. Beyond a certain point the lights cannot be fitted, so parts of the letters would be dark. LEDs are the smallest lights they can find.) >Did the lease stipulate the sign location or a right to the size of the sign? (Esselstein: Lease stipulates rights to signage in the same locations as the previous tenant.) >Could a second sign be on the Donnelly side? (Esselstein: Had considered this but would prefer not . Could not accommodate the same quality of signage.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Understands extraordinary circumstances of narrow band relative to building height. There is a glass and metal facade that does not allow for signage other than on the narrow band. Would not want to trim trees for the sake of signage. Solution is handsome. >Concern that every business that has a tree in front would request a variance. Sign band is more than 3 feet. Choice of font is not sufficient justification. Doesn't understand extraordinary circumstance. >If letters were smaller they could not be backlit. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli4 - Nay:DeMartini, and Gum2 - Absent:Gaul1 - h.820 Malcolm Road, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit to operate a van rental business (Cesar Leyva, Airport Van Rental, Inc ., applicant; Harvey Hacker Architects, architect; Monfredini Properties Llc, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Harvey Hacker represented the applicant, with business operator Cesar Leyva. >Application is to continue to operate a use that has successfully operated on the site without generating complaints or problems. Commission questions/comments: >Does applicant understand that parking and offloading cannot be in the street? Must all be conducted on site. (Leyva: Yes, it is understood.) >Will the City of Burlingame see tax revenue from this? (Leyva: Transactions will be going through the City of Burlingame. The airport has a separate tax for customers coming through the airport. All contracts will pay local sales tax, and airport rentals would also pay airport tax. There would be no situation where the City of Burlingame would not receive sales tax.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Prior car rental business operated here previously, and this would be a smaller operation. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1357 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Driveway Width Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Eric Korman and Jennifer Wang, property owners) (56 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant: >Existing house does not have a lot of detail. A bit of tile detail, some decoration on living room windows. >Driveway width is 8'-9" from the survey. 2 foot addition to the rear will not make the driveway any less usable. >New location of garage is more usable than current location. Hammerhead turnaround at patio so can come out forward. >Roots of existing magnolia tree in back are within crawl space of existing house. Commission questions/comments: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Appears there may be some relief to the driveway width based on location of the fence on the adjacent property. (Grange: Wider at front.) >What are current windows made of? (Grange: Painted wood.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Grange: Owners currently live in San Francisco and work long hours, so does not believe so. Relying on public notice.) >Why not match existing window grids? (Grange: Horizontal grids is the classic mediterranean look . Wanted to preserve the Living Room windows as they are, even though they wouldn't match. If added vertical grids everywhere it would get too busy. Would rather replace Living Room windows if needed to match rather than adding lots of grids to the other windows.) >There is a wide path to the front door, lots of hardscape. (Grange: Agreed. Could put some green space between the steps and driveway.) Public comments: Stephen Chan, 1355 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item: >Lives next door, shares driveway. >Has not been contacted by owners. >Concern about lead paint removal during demolition. Existing garage to be removed is 8- to 10 feet from back yard. >Concern about extensive root system of magnolia tree when it is removed, as it is also encroaching onto their property and has concern over effects on their foundation. Anne Robertson, 1361 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item: >Looks like walkway on right side is close to her driveway. >Concern with privacy and encroaching too close to fence. >Concern about greenery being taken out in back. Ed Fineman, 1352 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item: >Concern with timing of construction work. >Drake Avenue already has two projects already on same block, plus one more approved tonight . Construction equipment left on the street makes entry difficult, particularly off Easton. Four projects at one time may be difficult for existing residents. Randy Grange spoke on this item: >Setback on right side is the existing setback. >Second floor is set back well away, outside declining height envelope. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >How to respond to lead -based paint question? (Senior Planner Hurin: It is addressed through the Building Permit process. Will need to show how it will be abated.) >Federal Law requires the lead-based paint to be abated or stabilized as part of deconstruction. >Should coordinate meeting with the neighbors, including discussion of existing setbacks and setbacks on new addition. >Should clarify whether there will be a bench or planter in the front. >Clarify if there are any other existing trees that are protected size other than the Magnolia. >Nice project, well detailed, massing is handled nicely. Addition enhances the mediterranean -style look. >Can the City do anything about sequencing projects? (Gardiner: Projects are entitled to build upon Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes receiving building permits, but are required to complete the work within a set timeframe .)(Kane: If there are traffic impacts because of construction equipment, violation of construction hours, or debris left in the right-of-way, code enforcement can follow up.) >Variance is deminimus, and will not change the existing condition of the overall driveway width. >If neighbors have not been consulted and continue to have concerns, they may request that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar at the next public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 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 All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbor at 1238 Bernal Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Would there be hand rails at the front? (Geurse: It is not over 30 inches from grade so is not required to have hand rails.) >Are the circular tile vents on the front gable meant to be off -center? (Geurse: No, should be centered.) >Will the existing vinyl windows be swapped out? (Geurse: Yes. New windows will be aluminum -clad wood. All doors and windows are being replaced except for front window, which is traditional and will be retained.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Nicely crafted renovation. Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016 December 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1700 Devereux Drive - Reveiw of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:12 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 December 14, 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 December 28, 2015 (the first business day beyond the 10-day appeal period), 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2016