Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.11.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 10, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting The draft meeting minutes for the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were not available in time to be reviewed at this meeting. They will be reviewed at the November 24, 2014 meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner noted that procedures are being modified so that minor spelling or punctuation edits may be submitted for correction in advance of the meeting. However, comments relating to the substance of an item (particularly an action or condition) should be held for the public hearing. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc., property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he met with the applicant and toured the property. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Dale Meyer represented the applicant, and Enrique Pelaez Jr represented the owner: >No work planned to the building itself. Removing auto repair portion of the business, and keeping the building as it is. Questions: >Will the parking space be used? (Meyer: 1 or 2 will be there to operate business. They will likely arrive together and will park in the space. Most people coming to look at the cars will have an appointment, so either the owner or the visitor will park outside.) >Where will they park on street if all the other businesses are using the street spaces? (Meyer: Will need to park down the street. There are five spaces on site, but not all may be filled with inventory.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >How does the buyer take delivery? (Pelaez: Will take delivery on site, at the location. As they make the appointment, will bring the car out front so don’t need to shuffle cars around.) Public comments: None Commissioner comments: >Straightforward application. >Will not be any detriment to neighborhood. >Site is built out so there is nowhere to put more on -site parking, so any application requiring discretionary review of parking would require a parking variance. >No safety issues. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the application on the Consent Calendar when ready. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan - Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager made a presentation of the Draft Circulation Element and invited Commission comments. Commission comments and questions: >Bicycle use of commuters (weekday and weekend), recreation, and families >Usage of bike racks >Detection systems at signals – roadbed vs. manual/pushbutton >Does completion of the Bay Trail need to wait for private development or could the City bridge the gaps itself? (Gardiner: Existing policy has been to have the gaps filled in with new development, but going forward a capital program could be considered if there was a desire for the City to take the lead . Developers are advised it is their responsibility to fill the gaps corresponding to their properties.) >Will parking ratios be evaluated in the update? (Gardiner: Yes, in General Plan Update coordination with the Land Use Element) >Is there required regular reporting by city departments on how each category of users are being served? (Gardiner: Could establish an index or indicators to be tracked on a regular basis. Kane: Public Works does this internally – not sure if this is summarized to be presented externally as well.) Wants City to be able to easily report how it is doing on Complete Streets goals, and support future grants and applications. >Should cite more recent update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. >Coordination between City and school on bike routes, with awareness at the beginning of each school year so that parents can know safe routes are available. >Target a higher bike and walking to work percentage. >Focus on California Drive between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue for road diets, street calming, greater density to make a more pleasant and usable connection. >Street trees for road calming on wide streets such as Rollins Road and California Drive – move street tree wells into parking lane in order to grow larger street canopies and create space for wider sidewalks. >Clarify changes in trends in pedestrian/bike commuting on page 10. >BPAC and TSPC should review this document. >BPAC business plan for a bike fair and family bike ride. >Update Burlingame Avenue status on page 19. >California Drive/Lorton Avenue intersection shows two alternatives (page 48) but if signalized Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes intersection is no longer an option it should be deleted from the document. >Merchants looking to add bike racks; Lunardi’s will be proposing bike racks. >Could additional data help influence reopening the Broadway Caltrain station to weekday service? (Gardiner: The issue is the design of the station, not ridership. Should be rectified with the electrification project.) >How did North El Camino Real frontage road design end up in the plan if it could not be implemented? (Gardiner: May have had conflicting information, or expectation it would be easier to vacate frontage roads than what has since been encountered.) >El Camino Real is a state road under Caltrans jurisdiction. Has there been discussion on taking road back from State and taking on responsibility of maintaining road? (Kane: Has been a subject of discussion for many years.) >Interest in gauging numbers of commuters who walk or bike to transit. >Bayfront does not seem to be built out. Could there be circulation improvements that could support more development in this area? (Gardiner: Anticipate this will be a focus in the General Plan Update.) >Should focus on the safety of children across El Camino Real. Add safe routes to school policy. >Does grade separation at railroad involve road or tracks going under? (Gardiner: Both are being considered as options.) Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1262 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage (Christopher and Anna Clevenger, applicants and property owners; Bottarini Construction, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Terrones reported that was given access to the rear yard by the property owner. Commissioner DeMartini met the property owner and designer. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff Brett Bottarini attended as applicant, and Christopher and Anna Clevenger attended as property owners. Commission questions/comments: >Is the door a sliding or swinging door? (Bottarini: Swinging. Originally a french door inswing, changed mind and want outswing.) >Is bathroom located on outer boundary of structure so that sewer line avoids tree? (Bottarini: Slab foundation is to minimize impact to root system of existing tree. Sewer line will not impact drip line of tree.) Public comments: Neighbor spoke on this item: >Lives to the rear of the property. >Understands it is legal to have inlaw unit. >Proposed garage is 1/3 bigger than previous garage. >Why does it have so many lights? >Why is there a bathroom? >Bathroom backs up right to the easement. >Will there be follow-up on the use of the garage? (Hurin: The garage has been approved already; request here is to allow a toilet in a detached structure.) >Would there need to be another covered parking space for a second unit? (Hurin: This is not a proposal for a second dwelling unit; it is a garage. A second unit could have either a covered or Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes uncovered space, but could not be in tandem.) >What will be the follow -up? (Hurin: There will be regular inspections during the construction of the garage through the Building Division. If there are any changes to the garage that would require special review, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Likewise, if the bathroom were approved and became larger or added a shower, it would need to come back to the Planning Commission for additional review.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Understands the neighbor ’s concern that this would be a second dwelling unit, but that is not the application. The parking requirements would not allow it in this location. It would not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties, and the findings can be made for the Conditional Use Permit. >If it were to become a second unit, it would be a code compliance issue and can contact the City. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - c.14 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition that qualifies as substantial construction. (Samuel Sinnott, architect; Christy and Jesse Lindeman, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All commissioners visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Sam Sinnott represented the applicant: >Wanted to save as much of the house as possible and keep it single story. >House dates to 1921, built in the National Style – simple style using materials brought in from the railroad. >Original house has simple hip roof that covers living space and porch. >Wants to save materials of value including siding, roof slope and plate heights but improve on it. Add pitched front gables and craftsman details. >Enclosed porch will be more pronounced and expressive, to function as a foyer. Will be used to park strollers and leave backpacks. Commission questions/comments: >Would it be possible to widen the front stoop? (Hurin: Can be expanded across as long as it is not more than 30” above grade.) Could extend the half-circle, make it more grand and inviting. >Landscape plan needs to have labels, such as indicating the bay tree. Previous plan shows pepper tree to be removed – still planning to be removed? (Sinnott: Yes, planning to remove tree in the rear.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Discussion: >Straightforward. >Direction to applicant that if changes are made to the front stoop to bring it back as an FYI. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - d.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye, Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the neighbor to the left at 2312 Hillside Drive. There were no other ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Mike Ma attended as applicant, and Hari Inouye attended as the property owner: >Provided letter listing several points on the garage placement. Trellis, staggered garage, nicely detailed garage doors, neighbors preference to keep garage away from side. >City encourages second units but would be difficult with rear garage. > Design review consultant recommends approval. >Seven hearings, with unclear and confusing guidance. There is no concrete guidance from last meeting. >Safety concerns with parking out of long driveways. >Street is popular for street parking. People park on street rather than on driveways and in detached garages. >Neighbors oppose detached garage because if garage in back would need to drive alongside bedroom windows. >East and west neighbors support the project, as do surrounding neighbors (letter submitted). Public comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: >What constitutes Hillside Drive are the houses that front Hillside Drive. Houses that front Hillside Drive are the ones that end blocks but front Hillside, but the lateral cross streets are not part of the Hillside Drive neighborhood. >For properties fronting Hillside Drive, many are end properties for long blocks. Corner lots constitute 75-100% of the block. Looking at corner lots and houses with garages fronting Hillside, can ’t disregard corner lots since they are a significant part of the neighborhood. Approximately 27 total garages currently fronting on Hillside from Balboa Avenue up to Hillside Circle. This is why supported the application previously. >In previous meetings did not see absolute and clear direction that attached garage was a problem that would not be approved. >Application is not much different from a number of other properties on Hillside Drive. >Had approved project with attached garage previously. >There are several mid-block one-car attached garages, but not two-car. >Uses guidelines as criteria. Not sure agrees with safety issue. Position is that 2-car attached midblock is not characteristic. >This is not a science, not required to be right but required to be fair in interpretation of regulations . Job is to apply rules fairly. City Council mentioned garage in passing but focus was on the modern design, as opposed to the garage. >It is a peculiar neighborhood, one -of-a-kind. It is not a quaint cozy street, is a major thoroughfare . Does not feel like a small-town street. There is plenty of precedent for attached garages on the street. >Neighbor has indicated preference for current design. >Applicant’s data was inaccurate, which lead to earlier decision. Once found inaccuracy has stated same point with garage all along. Attached one car would fit neighborhood but not two car garage. >In earlier meetings there was no uniform opinion of commission. >In the design review letters, although second letter recommends approval first letter says front-facing garage does not meet the predominant pattern of garages in the neighborhood . Commissioners have duty to be able to make the findings – still can’t make those findings. >Neighbors are supportive of the project. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, and Terrones4 - Nay:DeMartini, Sargent, and Gum3 - e.770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and Tamara Miller, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All commissioners visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report, and noted two letters received after preparation of the report. There were no questions of staff. Randy Grange represented the applicant, Jonathan and Tamara Miller attended as property owner: >Took modern characteristics away. >Garage changed to two single doors, brought door heights down. >Smooth stucco. >Smaller scale details. >Attached garage important. Rear garage less likely to be used. Want to be able to get home at end of day and plug in car overnight. Follows R -1 diagrams showing pushing garage way back, situated 45’- 48’ back from the street. >Hip roofs with wide overhang buries top foot of wall into roof, to bring roof height down. House is 5 feet below the height limit. Commission questions/comments: >Did not like previous mix of modern and traditional. Looks much better now. >Does not feel as massive now. Proportions of windows and doors more human now. >Garage design better. >(T. Miller: Predominant pattern on this street is attached garages. 6 of 7 homes to right have attached front-facing garages, to the left 2 of 3. Building for selves, not developers. Wanting to be neighborly and wanting to build something that fits in neighborhood.) >Planning to remove the oak trees in the back? (T. Miller: Keeping all the trees in the back except for the cypress tree in back. That tree is sick, borders the neighbor ’s property and has been an issue for many years.) >What measures to protect the trees? (T. Miller: Would like to start the landscaping in advance of the construction to get a foothold, so it is full and taken hold by the time the house is completed.) >Stunning and beautiful – appreciates listening to the Commission and neighbors. >Two-car garage is common in this neighborhood. >Rendering no longer shows fence extending out to street. (T. Miller: Never intended to have fence extend out to street, will probably have a hedge instead.) >Will there be wood window heads as shown on elevations, rather than stucco as shown on the renderings? (Grange: Yes, will be approving elevation not rendering.) >Adjust side window adjacent to neighbors? (Grange: Will look into it.) Public Comments: Neighbor spoke on this item: >The people who have garages in the back do not use them for cars. >Parks one car in garage; the other car that stays on street has had its mirror hit twice. Benefit to not having cars parked on street. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission comments: >Neighborhood consistency subcommittee changed attached garage from Variance to Special Permit in recognition that people don’t always park in detached garages. Created 25-foot setback. >Plate height issue becomes more sensitive when a Special Permit is requested or at maximum allowed height. >Coordination and cooperation with neighbors for privacy is good – window coverings may be the extent of what is needed. >Can make findings for the Special Permit for the garage because it is the predominant pattern in the neighborhood, and the massing fits well with the house and neighborhood. >Approval of the Special Permit for the basement ceiling height. There will be no detrimental affects on surrounding properties. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (Continued from the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting) All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli reported that she had spoken with the neighbors to the left. There were no other ex parte communications. Minerva Abad represented applicant: >Reason for the second story was to maintain existing open space. >Front covered porch is hardly used. Windows to bring light into the house and create an entry feature. >Has used different plate heights and articulated walls to address massing. >Smaller windows on side of building to protect neighbors’ privacy. >Use of materials is sympathetic to the neighbors. Commissioner questions/comments: >Sensitive to plate heights. Why taller plate height on second story? (Abad: Clients wanted the space . 8 feet is too low. Personal preference.) >Odd proportions: single-story ranch nicely proportioned with front porch and low roof, replaced with taller entry that is out of proportion. Shutters and gable detail on left are removed, stripped of charm, then taller structure is added onto the second floor. >Second floor pushed far back so not well integrated with rest of house except on the rear elevation. >On rear second story windows look too tall compared to first floor. >Second floor windows have a lot of freeboard /brow above because of tall plate height, makes it feel taller and more massive. >Neighbor was concerned about door on the east side (Abad: Is an existing door into garage.) >Neighbor concerned with new magnolia being planted, wants to ensure would not be planted too close where roots would be encroaching. (Abad: Will be using a landscape architect.) >Second floor step-backs are not uncommon in neighborhood, but this is pushed all the way to the back. Looks like a house peeking out from another house in front. (Abad: Wanted to raise plate height in living room and entry.) Design does not feel well integrated. >Result is rear elevation is a flat two-story mass. >Plate height on second story needs to be reduced. >Looks like two homes, with big house in front and small house in back. >Recommend changing existing fiberglass garage door with wood door to match rest of house better. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: None Commission discussion/comments: >Would benefit from consultation with design review consultant. >Look at scale of the entry, looks high. >Consider adding grids to windows may make it integrate better into neighborhood. >Garage door is a prominent feature and would benefit from an upgrade. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1444 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Jeff Chow, ICE, applicant and engineer; May Li and Yim Nor Yan, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had spoken with Jeff and Leslie Inokuchi at 1440 Cortez Avenue (the right side neighbor). There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Jeff Chen and Jeff Chow represented applicant: >Craftsman style home with brick paved driveway and patio and lawn in the rear. Commission questions/comments: >Difficult to read the plans. The line weights make it difficult. >Second story plate height needs to be brought down. It is too much on top. >Windows on right side on front elevation should be lined up. It would center on the living room, and it would look better if the window on the second floor was slightly smaller to give hierarchy. >Trees on the right side cherry or avocado? Should be shown on the plans. It’s a collection of tree trunks each 6-7 inches diameter, so is substantial in overall size even though any one trunk is small . Makes for a great screener, and it is already there in the ground. The neighbor adjacent has a concern with privacy. >Would there be a landscape strip between the driveway and the fence line? (Chen: Will take that into consideration.) >Neighbor’s upstairs bedroom windows line up directly with bedroom in proposed house. >A1.3 shows the array of trims, but don ’t have same profiles as shown on elevation. Belly band on elevation looks like it is built-up with more detail, preferable to flat trim. >Increase text size on landscape plan keynotes. >Consideration of muntins in windows? Divided lites would help the scale of the project. >Detached garages on A3.0 and A3.3 show different garage doors, and widths of walls is different . (Chen: Should be as shown on A3.3.) >Rear elevation looks like it was a bigger house and was “smooshed.” Looks very tall but not wide, would not fit in with the neighborhood. >Style confusion on the project- is all over the place. Arch, curves at the entry way, glass railing at the back, the trim. >What is gable material? (Chen: Siding) >Garage – consider wood door with lites? Would support the craftsman style better. >Feels very vertical. Could have 8 foot plate height on second floor, but have cathedral ceilings in bedrooms. >Width of driveway looks too narrow. (Chen: Should be 11’-6”.) >Could they provide full-sized plans if that’s easier? (Ruben: Can request if it would be easier to review.) >Shared plans with neighbors? (Chen: No.) Not required but recommended. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: None Commission discussion/comments: >Would benefit from design review consultation. >Consider a larger front porch. Might fit into the style better. >Front gables are so prominent, entry gets lost. Also if plate height were reduced might tip the scale back to the entry. >If grids are added to the windows and Millgard fiberglass windows are used, requests a sample. Not sure the windows would meet the Commission’s typical requirements in terms of architectural detailing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to refer the application to a design review consultant . The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - c.21 Park Road, zoned BMU – Application for Environmental Scoping, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new three -story, 8-unit residential condominium (Samir Sharma, applicant; Dana Denardi, property owner; SDG Architects, architect) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with applicant, the homeowners at the adjacent condominium property, had email discussions with Homeowners Association president of the condominiums, and met an additional condominium resident. There were no other ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. In response to a commissioner inquiry prior to the meeting, the presentation included additional data on the lot sizes and numbers of units of recently approved residential projects in downtown Burlingame: >1225 Floribunda Avenue – 50’ width x 165’ depth lot (8,223 sq ft), 6 townhouse-style units >1433 Floribunda Avenue – 44’ to 49’ width x 200’ depth lot (9,515 sq ft), 10 units Commission questions: >Did the examples cited on Floribunda Avenue have zero setbacks, or are there precedents for zero setbacks? (Gardiner: Both of those properties are in the R -3 zone so those are required to have side setbacks.) >Is it possible for a property owner to acquire a strip of land adjacent? (Kane: Can’t just buy a strip of land, would need to buy an existing parcel. There would need to be a proposed sale and action through the Planning Commission to do a lot line adjustment and lot split. However if the lot split created a substandard lot on the other side it could not be done. The adjacent lot would need to be wider than the required minimum so that it could still be conforming after the lot split and adjustment.) >Is the commission allowed to make a finding that there are unique circumstances with regards to the parking and that the project should provide more parking than required by the parking standard? (Gardiner: The parking ratios are zoning standards. The commission may suggest additional parking. It has been requested in other projects such as 1433 Floribunda Avenue where additional spaces were added that were above and beyond what was required per the zoning, but a finding could not be made to require additional parking .)(Kane: The only way a deviation from established standards could be required would be if it were a mitigation under CEQA for a potential project impact.) Jeff Potts, SDG Architects, represented the applicant: >Difficult infill site, 50 feet wide >Odd angle at the northwest >Access restricted to Park Road >48” minimum ADA path needed on one side >Parking design is limited regardless of numbers of units and spaces. There needs to be a drive aisle and parking at 90 degrees (head-in). Can’t have angled parking because can ’t drive through the building; Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes can’t drive straight in to spaces because wouldn ’t be able to turn around and get back out of the building . Initially started with a 24-foot drive aisle and 20-foot parking space dimension. >Original submittal had building sunken further down, but raised it up 3 feet since it was well under the height limit. >In first Planning Commission meeting neighbors were concerned with large massive wall on the property line and asked for a 3 foot setback on that side. Also commissioners asked for more articulation on the opposite side. >Met with neighbors on 12/23/13 with revision showing side path minimized, pushed building over slightly (6 inches), reduced building width to minimum based on parking dimensions, did step -backs on 2nd and 3rd floors, created more articulation. >In response to neighbor comments pushed 2nd floor back, eliminated tower elements on 3rd floor to create a setback on the entire 3rd floor, added articulation to break down massing. >Met with neighbors on 7/1/14 to discuss concept of pushing building further down into the ground. >Came up with two concept alternatives to share with neighbors; neighbors were not favorable to either. One option would move the entire building over to the other property line, lower the building height by 3 feet, narrowed the building width by two feet with a reduced parking stall depth, resulting in a 4’ setback at towers, 7’ setback at the balance of the building. Has developed 3D diagrams since meeting with neighbors. >Other alternative would keep building at 2 1/2’ or 3’ all the way along, and lowered height. First floor with planter would be at fence line height. Could replace fence and give neighbors more yard, or retain fence and put planting in between. Commission questions/comments: >What is preventing having an exit to El Camino Real? (Potts: City requirement.) >Does not feel the constraint is the parking – feels the constraint is the design, because it has not changed much. (Potts: 50’ wide site, 45’ wide building, has taken 7 feet out of the bulk of the building, significantly reduced size of units and distance to neighboring property.) >Examples do not show landscaping. (Potts: Would be able to have 2 ½ - 3’ landscaping in all examples.) >Side elevation has come a long way from first submittal. First submittal was a blank wall with just a couple of depressions. >In this district there is a zero setback, but more subjectively it needs to fit into the neighborhood . There are no zero setback properties in this neighborhood. >Needs more convincing that parking constraint can ’t be solved with different parking design. Other projects have been able to do it. >Could consider lower the parking and keep the first floor below the fence line, then have second and third floors set back and well articulated. (Potts: Not asking for zero on either side in preferred plan . Building has been lowered and is very close to being at fence line, could possibly bring it down a bit further.) >Project is shifting its bottom around on a fence, but not getting anywhere. Not seeing a range of distinct options. Letters show the concerns are much greater than that. >Hard to choose between the two options since they are not much different. >There is existing landscape screening already there. With the existing 3’-4’ setback that exists there is already a solution – with a similar setback could provide a similar solution. >Project has come some distance in terms of articulation and the qualities sought in the Downtown Plan. It is a handsome building, has the kind of density envisioned in the Downtown Plan. >Would it be possible to reduce the number of units? Increase side setback? (Potts: Reducing units or adding parking would not change the width of the bottom dimension of building. It is not a large enough site for a podium.) >Density works when the two faces are not key living areas. It’s not on the project, but it is on the neighbors’ homes. Where it works with buildings close together, non -important living spaces are juxtaposed. >The residents of the project to the south will be the new concern when the next lot is built. The south-facing decks and balconies will be in the same position, so whatever precedent is set here will be repeated. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comment: Steve Krauss, president of the 33 Park Road condominiums, spoke on this item: >Has resubmitted petitions, still concerned with the plans. >Since the last Planning Commission meeting has met with the developer and architect once, but changes are not sufficient. >The problem is trying to fit too much on too small of a lot. 8 units on this sized lot is too much. >First design was 3-story flat wall. Changes are small setbacks of a few feet. >Plans do not provide room for servicing landscaping. >33 Park Road has eight units facing the lot, would be significantly and negatively affected. Eli, Unit #11, spoke on this item: >Made some changes but should start over from scratch. >Did a good job with dipping down the first floor so it is below the fence. But if there are two floors above it will be dark. >Going back and forth with design revisions but not working. Mary Murphy >Single family home owner applicants talk a lot about compatibility with neighborhood, but does not appear to apply Downtown. >This development is atypical of the block. Does not reflect the neighborhood. >There is no additional parking in the neighborhood. >Just because downtown have to put up with a giant block of granite next door. Not attractive for Downtown Burlingame. >50’ x 120’ lot does not merit 8 units. Downtown also deserves to look nice, not have a monstrosity next door. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: >Not much has changed with this design. Still the same issue with a massive wall facing the adjacent property. >Would like to have another set of eyes on this. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of the motion: >Not sure if anything will be acceptable to the neighbors. Any building will have impact on the neighboring property. >Will design review consultant be looking at extreme revisions, or just continuing to move it around? >Building is too tall and too close, so look at pushing it way down (parking below grade) and get rid of the second floor corridor. Instead access units through individual stairways rather than a common corridor, and reconfigure decks on other side. Building would shorter and skinnier, with more relief on the side. >Would not want to constrain design review consultant. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing: Commission questions: >How much would the building need to be pushed further so fence line would cover the first floor? (Potts: The stair towers encroach at the second floor as well, but could look at that. It would be about one foot more depth, but would need to look at the length of the ramp that would be required to reach the depth and if parking spaces would be lost. Not sure if it would be productive to send to design review consultant since these concepts have not been fully developed. Needs to check with client on whether they could consider something radically different.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Design review would not be appropriate. The consultant will not be designing a new project . Applicant needs to have the opportunity to take a fresh look and come up with some another solution. >Would not be productive to send it to consultant Commissioner Bandrapalli called for the vote on the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Aye:2 Bandrapalli and DeMartini Nay:5 Yie, Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, and Gum Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Nay:DeMartini1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications b.City Council Regular Meeting - November 3, 2014 Planning Manager Gardiner reported that the application at 1600 Trousdale Drive was approved. c.FYI: 1153 Bernal Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Accepted. d.FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Pulled for review. Concern over number of requests. e.FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 10, 2014. 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 20, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015