Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.02.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 13, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Staff present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, City Attorney Kathleen Kane. DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - TerronesAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Bandrapalli, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the January 9, 2017 meeting minutes with edits as submitted. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1145 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two -story single-family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, applicant and designer; Miro and Marica Brajenovic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item. Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Considerations of Amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for amendments mechanical equipment requirements. (This item has been continued to a future date to be determined) This item has been continued to a later date. b.776 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Chris Day, applicant and designer; Jerry Ceglia, property owner) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is there ongoing construction work already? (Gardiner: Yes, it is work with a building permit, but the scope of that work is not subject to Design Review or Planning Commission review.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Chris Day, Day by Day Design, represented the applicant, with property owner Jerry Ceglia. Commission Comments/Questions: >Concerned with the 5-foot wood fence that would be next to the landing deck on front side. (Day: Yes, a redwood solid fence.) It is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. Has there been thought to keeping the private area to the right side where it is more private, and keeping the street-facing side more like a regular front yard? (Day: Owner wants to have privacy. The fence will block the view directly into the Master Bedroom. Currently there is a 3-foot fence but the plans should indicate a 5-foot fence all the way back.) >Have the revised plans been shared with the neighbors? (Day: Not sure. Not sure what the status of the neighboring house is since it is under construction .)(Ceglia: Yes, has talked to neighbors and people walking by. Has not had any negative feedback.) >Has concern with the "layer cake" massing and windows. What variances would have been required to address an alternative? (Day: The limitation is the daylight plane. Otherwise would have looked at placing the wall directly above the first floor. Considered stepping out the two bedrooms and stepping in the hallway. The wall facing Willow Avenue could have been placed to allow the gables to be symmetrical. Understanding is that variances are difficult to get approved.) >Why not use the same Andersen windows on the first floor also on the second floor? Vinyl windows don't typically fit into the traditional neighborhoods. (Day: That was the intent. The contractor presented the Montecito product. Could use the Andersen product if needed.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the idea of upgrading to the Andersen windows. >Would fit better into the neighborhood if there was not a 5-foot wooden fence facing Walnut Avenue . Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Maybe privacy could be accomplished with foliage. >In all other respects the house fits in well and meets the design review criteria. >Window could come back as an FYI. The Milgard Montecito is a good window, and does not look like a typical vinyl window. >Has an issue with the layer cake look. Would have liked to have seen what could have been done. >OK with the fence since it is a corner lot. Having private space is a reasonable request. Foliage would work to allow the fence to provide privacy but not wall-off the house to the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the following condition: >That the new windows shall be Andersen 100 Series to match existing, or comparable windows that match the existing windows, to be verified and approved by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - c.746 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, applicant and designer; Peter and Brandy Yarema, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Property owners Brandy and Peter Yarema spoke as the property owners, with designer Natalie Hyland. Commission Comments/Questions: >Has the tree been watered during the drought? (Peter Yarema: Watered it according to City regulations. The tree has been in the same condition for the last few years.) >Does the current garage meet standards for a garage? (Peter Yarema: Does not know). >Is the garage being used? (Brandy Yarema: No. Driveway is too narrow, and needs a place for furniture.) >Is the car ever parked behind the fence? (Brandy Yarema: No. Cannot get a car into the garage.) >The blue house down the street has a wider driveway. Is that intended to be a model for this house? (Brandy Yarema: Yes, although that property has two single family houses and a larger lot.) >Should work with the neighbor next door. (Peter Yarema: They are OK with it.) >Don't normally see higher plate heights, creates a very vertical feel. (Hyland: Wants the 10-foot plate heights to allow furring and beams. Thought reduction of the overall height was the objective.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Mixed neighborhood. Zoned R -2, and there are a lot of multifamily buildings. There are a number of attached garages in the vicinity including single family homes. Precedent is seen in the neighborhood. >This application is a single family home which responds to the context. If it were multifamily it would probably have an attached garage. >Majority of the single family houses have detached garages in the vicinity and majority of the attached garages are in the rear of the lot. >Does not believe the overall height fits into the neighborhood. The majority of the neighborhood are single story. When the building is at the maximum height it does not fit in as well. Design Guidelines were premised around how to make larger houses fit into older housing stock. >Suggested findings in the staff report support the attached garage. >Most of the homes are bungalow style and most have detached garages, except for the blue house at 738 Linden. Concern is this configuration spans entire width of the lot. >Plate heights and massing make it a prominent house that does not fit in with neighborhood. >738 Linden did not go through design review. Duplexes did not go through design review at that time. >Existing garage is already detached, no justification to bring it to the front. Could build new home and keep existing garage. >Could address the plate heights if they were to come back at lower heights. It is a very vertical building, would like to see it at 9 feet and 8 feet. >There is a mix of building types in the neighborhood. There is a string of bungalows, but also lots of other types. >Concern with the width of the lot being filled with the house. Commissioner Loftis made a motion to approve the project with the condition of lowering plate heights, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve Action Item. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Bandrapalli, and Gaul3 - Nay:DeMartini, Gum, and Sargent3 - Absent:Terrones1 - d.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Avenue (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (307 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 2. 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4: Application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Front Setback Variance, and Parking Variance for driveway width for a new five -story, 27-unit multi-family residential building with at-grade and below-grade parking. 3. Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination for 52 Feet on Douglas Avenue, Portion of Lot 3, Block 5, Map No. 2 of Burlingame Land Co. and 50 Feet on Douglas Avenue, Portion of Lot 3, Block 5, Map No. 2 of Burlingame Land Company. 4. 524 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R -1: Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance to demolish the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and replace it with an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue; the project includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction of a new detached garage. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff and the environmental consultant (Laurie Hietter, Panorama Environmental, Inc.): >What is the difference between potentially inconsistent, partially inconsistent, and inconsistent? (Hietter: Used by CEQA practitioners when a policy has multiple parts, and the project has varying amounts of consistency depending on which part of the policy. "Potentially inconsistent" acknowledges the possibility for changes to the project from the Planning Commission.) >Inconsistencies in the stated height of the building. (Hietter: The design had been revised between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR including a change in height.) >Is the analysis of consistency with surrounding buildings based on which buildings were subject to design review, or just the neighborhood as it exists currently? (Hietter: Based on the neighborhood as it exists currently .)(Staff note: Design Review was not required for multifamily buildings until 2011. All of the surrounding buildings were approved prior to Design Review being required for mutlifamily buildings.) >In the discussion of privacy that mentioned stepping back floors, which floors were being referenced to be stepped back? (Hietter: The top floor. Stepping back more than one floor would further help with privacy.) >What is the American Community Survey data that was used to determine the vacancy rate? Why did the vacancy rate increase? (Hietter: It is a data source that provides vacancy rates. An increase in vacancies could be from new units coming on the market .)(Gardiner: American Community Survey is based on census data, except it is compiled on an annual basis. As census data, it is based on self-reported sources. It is a data set.) Would be better to have data that is specific to units that are vacant and available for rent, rather than vacant because of vacations, property sales, etc. >Does the discussion of available vacant housing take into account the rents that are being paid in the building currently, compared to the rents of vacant units in Burlingame currently available? (Hietter: Determination was made based on vacancies, not rents. Census data is a standard metric used in CEQA analyses, but the City may establish its own metric as well provided there is consistent methodology using available data sources.) >The 2010-2040 growth percentage is identified as a range from 0.5% to 0.8%. What is the growth percentage calculating? (Hietter: It is based on the historic data combined with projected growth.) >School enrollment only shows up to 2015-16 enrollment, and indicates McKinley is below capacity . What would have happened if the number was above capacity instead? (Hietter: The school district has indicated that enrollment can be shifted between schools as necessary, and there would not be an issue with this project.) >The district assumes enrollment in McKinley in 2020 will be above capacity, however that does not account for portable classrooms. If students must be driven to another school rather than McKinley, is that counted in the trip analysis? (Hietter: This development is not of a size that would be considered to have a significant impact on the schools based on the relatively small net increase in residents. The increase would be considered de minimis for traffic and air quality impacts.) >Does the water use account for all new development if there are dry years? (Hietter: For project-specific analysis, the study relies on growth rates anticipated in the General Plan. Based on data available currently and anticipated growth rates, there would be adequate water allocation to supply the project.) >Concern with traffic data being dated. (Hietter: The most recent data was referenced in the Final EIR. The specific plan did traffic analysis based on the anticipated development in the plan. The traffic consultant concluded that there were not changes in more recent data that would change the conclusions of the specific plan analysis .)(Gardiner: The scope of work for the traffic study was reviewed by Public Works/Engineering staff, and was vetted.) >Why was Institute of Traffic Engineer (ITE) data from 2012 used? (Hietter: This is the most recent ITE edition available. ITE is the commonly accepted source for calculating trip generation, and is the source traffic engineers typically go to.) >How does the construction management plan work for providing parking for construction workers? (Hietter: The plan anticipates utilizing the Caltrain parking lot. If that lot is not available, another available Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes lot would be located.)(Gardiner: The construction management plan is reviewed as part of the building permit application and must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.) >When is the water use calculation submitted? (Gardiner: Required to receive the building permit.) >Concern with headlight glare coming from the parking area. >Concern there is not guest parking. (Hietter: Guest parking is not required in the downtown specific plan area, based on proximity to transit and city parking lots .)(Gardiner: CEQA analysis cannot require more parking than required by code.) >Were delivery trucks accounted for in the environmental review? (Hietter: Yes, determined USPS deliveries per week but could not find published data for >Are standard methodologies, tools and databases typically applied to CEQA analyses to rationalize the evaluation, and were those applied here? (Hietter: Yes.) Same as any other EIR? (Hietter: Yes, and even beyond in some cases.) >Would there be additional deliveries because of the larger size of the building in the future? (Hietter: There may not necessarily be more delivery trucks based on the additional number of units since the delivery truck will often be making deliveries for multiple units already, and additional units may be included in the stop that would have been made already. Forecasting future trends can be problematic because it requires speculation. The impact of Amazon lockers, for example, is not known. Needs to get out of the realm of speculation and keep within accepted methodologies.) >ITE Western District letter from November 2014 discusses updating the transportation impact analyses of CEQA, suggesting that current models do not achieve a desired level of accuracy. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: >Have the plans been shared with neighbors? (Furlong: Not since the revisions were made to the design. By the time the EIR was completed and the public hearing was scheduled, did not think there was sufficient time to schedule a meeting with neighbors.) >Do other buildings in the area have a delivery bay at the back of the property, with a single drive? Any thoughts on putting a drive in the front? (Furlong: Looked at a number of options with Planning Staff . Building over the roots of the tree could damage the tree. A loop driveway would require two curb cuts, so would lose a street parking space and would also lose landscaping. The Downtown Specific Plan encourages minimizing paving and maximizing landscape. The grade change prevents connecting to the ramp to the underground garage.) >How were the number of units determined, and the height? If the intent is to maximize units, why not dig the garage deeper underground? (Furlong: Based on setbacks, owner's desired mix of units, what could fit on individual floor plates, and what would create nice units to live in. Also parking requirements with only having a single story of underground parking. Concerned with having a second level underground because of expense, water table, and impact on surrounding properties.) >What is the rationale of deciding which portion of the building to step back? (Furlong: Has stepped the front back on the top floor. This was one of the alternates in the EIR. Also looked at stepping back on the sides but because of the width would not be able to have a double -loaded corridor. Needs to have a core going up through the building.) Is the intention of stepping back the fifth floor to minimize views into adjacent buildings, or to minimize the massing? (Furlong: Massing. Wanted to present a four -story face to the street.) >Was there consideration of not making the floors all look the same? (Furlong: There were a number of initial studies originally but did not get traction. There are other buildings in the area with a similar approach.) >Where do the bicycles park? (Furlong: On deeper parking spaces bikes can park at the front of the spaces. Some residents with more expensive bikes may want to park take their bikes to their units up the elevator. There is also a storage room that could be set up to accommodate bicycle parking.) >What is the unnecessary hardship requiring the front setback variance? (Furlong: Function of how the setback is calculated which includes the existing buildings on the site, as opposed to calculating based on the buildings that would remain with the new project. Wants to promote the goal of density in Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the downtown, and a further setback would result in fewer units.) What is the difference between the required setback and the setback requested with the variance application? (Furlong: 18'-5" is requested, 19'-11" is required.) >What are the various widths of the driveway? (Furlong: Trying to stay clear of the tree and provide some landscaping against the building. At widest point is 11 feet on the property + 4 feet on the adjacent property = 15 feet to the chimney on the adjacent building.) Why does the driveway pinch back down at the back? (Furlong: Allow for the turn radius and provide some foliage. The rear of the adjacent property extends the width.) Can vehicles make the turn exiting from the rear parking area? (Furlong: Yes, there is also an easement onto the adjacent property, and both properties utilize both sides of the driveway.) >Why can't the design be adjusted to eliminate the 1'-6" front setback variance? (Furlong: Would create a lot of complexity within the structure after factoring in the various required clearances.) >How does the design fit into the update to the General Plan currently underway? Small -town feel and traditional look. (Furlong: Can have a contemporary design in a small -town context. Modern interpretation of a traditional elements such as a base, middle and capital. Proportions and interface with the street are traditional. Does not turn its back to the street or hide the front door. The street is eclectic and there are a number of contemporary buildings on the block. This building is contemporary to its time.) Public Comments: Elsa Torres - Neighbor at 512 Primrose. The proposed building will deprive air and sun, and lose privacy. Bedrooms facing this building. If all 27 units have two people and two cars, there will be 54 more cars, creating crowded traffic. The back yard of 512 Primrose is approximately 25 feet from the construction, concern with excavation on the trees in the back yard. Median age of residents at 512 Primrose is 60 years old, so concerns with noise and interruptions. The historical house is over 100 years old, and moving it will destroy it - it should stay in place. Does not understand the comments of no children in the building. With 27 units there will be a lot of people moving in and out, lots of moving trucks with people moving every two years and trucks obstructing traffic. Rusty - New resident at 512 Primrose. Concern with the height, will change the neighborhood. Most concerned with the surface parking in the back, will change the environment of the neighborhood . Bedrooms are typically in the back, but with parking there will be headlights and noise, beeping, engine noise, conversations around cars. Given the type of building, particularly the tenants, could have people working on shifts, or coming back and forth from the city late at night. Could have natural barriers such as large trees or large shrubs that will protect light and sound from a natural barrier. Larry Stevenson - Guests cannot expect to park in city lots. The delivery data is four years old and a lot has changed since then - Amazon deliveries have doubled, USPS is up 50%. Online ordering has increased from 5% to 15% over this time. Roots of the tree are already the surface for the redwood, doesn't know how they will build the driveway. Believes there should be 46 parking spaces for the project, not 33. No structural engineering report has been provided showing the existing structure could be moved. John Root - Lives at 1133 Douglas. Has had very little contact with the developer. Only contact was in early 2015. Still thinks the building is too tall. Understands the spirit of the Downtown Specific Plan but this is one of the first tall buildings downtown - needs to get it right and not sure this is right. Deliveries need current data, does not believe one space at the back is sufficient. Believes having a curved drive connecting the two driveways could be worked out. Concern with tree impacts and construction activity, and hopes rules are followed. Does not believe the response in the FEIR is adequate for the headlight impacts, should adjust pitch of the driveway to prevent headlights shining into unit across the street; it is not set up that way now. Douglas is not a quiet street, it is a boulevard at some times of day. Linda Taylor - Has lived across the street for over 10 years. Does not believe a 5-story 60 foot building fits in with the neighborhood, even with a top floor setback. The height combined with the width yields a mass far beyond what would be desirable. The proposed building is 20-25 feet taller than any other building on the block. Would shade an area 80% greater than existing structure. Will displace 22 Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighbors. Neighbors will be inconvenienced during construction from noise, dust, dirt, electrical outages, traffic congestion and road closures. Needs to protect the city trees on the block when moving the building as well as the protected tree. Wants the contact info for the on -site construction manager both weekdays and weekends, daytime and evenings. Also wants a direct line to a city authority who can help if concerns are not listened to. Carolyn Root - Lives across the street in a 9-unit condominium. Concerned the new structure will be in place for next 50-100 years and will have considerable influence on future development on Douglas Avenue. 27 units can house 54 people and that can generate 54 or more additional cars. Had hoped number of units would be further reduced, allowing for less mass and more landscaping. Also would like a drive-through for visitors and deliveries to reduce street congestion. Would like the design to fit in and be an asset to the neighborhood; the library sets a high bar for the area. Danelle Rienk - Lives next door at 1126 Douglas Avenue. Concerned there will be garbage placed up against her building. Wants to push the building back 10 feet on the side to widen the driveway . Concerned with demolition since walls are attached currently. Wants a new traffic report - believes traffic has tripled in past 18 years. Expects there will be 60 more cars and people when there are only 9 now. Everybody drives. Will be in the dark with 5 stories, requests three stories and push back 10 feet. Robert Brisbee - Has lived in Burlingame 49 years. 5 stories is too much on Douglas. OK on ECR or California Drive, and more housing is needed, but not the right thing to do on Douglas Ave. There are other considerations: high amount of traffic at McKinley School, and parking around Caltrain lot difficult because needs to cross busy California Drive. Jerry Wentworth - Has lived at 1121 Douglas for 45 years, wants to know parking code requirement for 27 units. Is it determined by the number of bedrooms in a unit, or just the number of units? Jacob Furlong: The plans meet the parking requirements for the Downtown Specific Plan. The EIR has a condition requiring contact information to be posted on the site. The meeting with the neighbors was at the submittal in 2015. Was waiting for the CEQA document to be completed, then made revisions to the project. The height is not uncharacteristic of the neighborhood, and it is a neighborhood in transition . Taking a lot of steps to address the trees and neighborhood, and acknowledges the concerns with construction. Will abide by all of the requirements in the EIR, which are extensive. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Should have had more interaction between the development team and the neighbors. >It is a handsome building but agrees that it would look better on a larger street like El Camino Real or California Drive. Seems a bit too much for Douglas Avenue, and for this site. >Understands goal of making downtown more dense, but needs to meet the design guidelines. The EIR cites inconsistencies with the design guidelines in the articulation, architectural compatibility, large expanses of stucco, minimizing sightlines to the neighboring properties, etc. >Shared driveway provides the ability to make a bigger building than would otherwise be possible. >Is a great site and the design team is talented. Believes there are other ways to approach the site access that does not require an easement and a narrow shared driveway. >Although the front setback variance request is minimal, not having a variance makes the job of the Planning Commission easier. >Likes the style, but it does not need to look so much like an apartment building. >It is a good site but does not necessarily need to have 27 units. Can go further with quality than quantity - rework the design and articulate the faces better. >Too big of a building. Could be stepped back on a number of the floors, and does not need to be five floors. >Concern with data that is being used to support a building of this size in this neighborhood. General sense that the numbers are old, and will increase. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Should reduce the height and number of units, and eliminate front setback variance. >Downtown Specific Plan was an extensive community process and specifies density in the neighborhood. The project is not overly dense; it is not asking for the maximum in height and density. >There is no perfect data, but has to work with the data available. Parking requirements and codified; can't assign different standards for each project based on what feels good. >The Planning Commission has approved five story buildings in other locations. This site works better for a five story building than the previous approvals. >Two driveways seems much for such a small lot. Parking should all be underground. If parking were removed from the back there would space for more units or amenities, and have less impact on neighbors. >Bicycles have been ignored. >The number of units is less important than the design of the building. Cannot tell how many units are in the building just based on the appearance of the building. >Reasoning behind the front setback variance is weak. Eliminating the variance would not change the building so drastically that it changes the full design of the building. >School impacts have not been considered adequately. >Needs to reconcile water supply. >Needs to update traffic data. >Building will fit into the neighborhood. The facade is only 58 feet wide, and 46 feet to the top of the fourth-story parapet - it is not a big facade, and it is well articulated. However seems to be "bursting at the seams," particularly with the variance. >27 units will not result in 54 cars. People will not rent the units if there is not a place to park their cars - it is a self-selecting group of people who will rent the units. >Living in downtown brings some inconveniences such as headlights. >The construction will be an inconvenience but it is not realistic to expect nothing to be built, or built somewhere else. >The two driveways is odd but not unheard of; an office building was approved with two driveways. It is a factor of the compact sites. >It was a good move to set back the fifth story, and will make a significant difference on the street. It is superior to the existing residential buildings on the street. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1430 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for basement ceiling height and direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure for a new, two-story single family dwelling (retain existing detached garage ) (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Richard and Jennifer Sargent TR, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he is the property owner. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported he had had two brief conversations with the property owner. Commissioners Bandrapalli and Gum reported they had met the applicant when they each visited the property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have 9'-6" basement ceiling heights been approved on other projects? (Keylon: Yes.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jennifer Sargent represented the property owner, with design James Chu of Chu Design Associates. Commission Comments/Questions: >Appreciates sharing the plans with the neighbors. >What is the reason for the exit from the basement? (Sargent: Wants kids to be able to get outside . As many doors to the outside as possible. Is preferable from safety exit standpoint.) >Will there be a retaining wall on the property line? (Chu: Yes, likely an 18-inch wall since the overall grade will be lower.) >How many of the houses in the neighborhood have basements that are not cut into a slope? (Chu: Could provide the data in the next meeting.) Believes it is less common to have a full recessed basement where there is not a slope. >Can the stubby chimney be reconsidered to be a full chimney? (Sargent: Full chimney would not work well with the positions of the windows, would have to jog up around windows. Can show what had been considered. Chimney will not be visible to anyone.) >Where will the 6-inch oak tree be relocated? (Chu: That's an error. The tree will stay where it is.) >Does it look too much like the house two doors down to the left? (Chu: No, completely different floorplans. Other house only has a porch halfway across, bay window on the second floor, and brackets.)(Sargent : Only thing the same is the roofline. The roofline is somewhat common in the area - there are three on the block with a similar roofline.) >The front trees will need to be removed? (Sargent: Yes, the grade is dropping by 4 feet.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the house. Similar to a recent new house on Bayswater, and that one turned out very nice. >Nervous that it will look like the house two doors down. >Looking at prior planning approvals, direct exit was not a concern in prior years. Does not understand why it would be an issue in this case, particularly if neighbors are not objecting. >Good looking house but has concern with direct exit from basement. The principle is the basement is additional floor area that is within the confines of the house, distinct from a basement cut into a slope which is more like a lower level floor. The basement is supposed to be internal to the house. >The basement exit that was denied was a side exit on the driveway side. The concern was it was a larger space downstairs and a gathering could spill out and disturb neighbors. >An exit from the basement is an advantage from a safety perspective such as an earthquake, and the neighbors are not objecting. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Bandrapalli4 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:Sargent1 - Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. (Young & Borlik Architects, applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he had spoken to the neighbor at 1404 Bernal Avenue. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Andrew Young represented the applicant, with property owners Holli and John Rafferty. Commission Comments/Questions: >Right side elevation deck appears to look into the windows of neighbor to right. (Holli Rafferty: It looks into an attic.)(John Rafferty: It is a single -story house with attic in the roof area used as a bedroom . Can already see into the window. Neighbors are supportive of the project.) >Thoughts on the dormers making the house look like three stories in a neighborhood where a lot of the second floors are pushed back? (Young: Predominance of two-story houses on Bernal. Not an overriding theme - there are Tudors, Mediterraneans, Modern, French -style. Dormers are for the Colonial Adams style, and just serve an attic space .)(Holli Rafferty: There are a lot of colonials in the area, particularly on Vancouver Avenue, as well as Bernal, Cabrillo and Cortez, all in the 1400 blocks. There were quite a few to look at to reference.) >What are the plate heights? (Young: 9' first floor, 9'-6 second floor in front, then tapers down at the rear to 8'-4" on the second floor. There has been an intent to retain the existing kitchen; the lower level at the rear stays in its existing configuration.) >Similar house on Drake with dormers on top, but that house has a double -wide lot and the house is wider. This house is similar in height to the house to the left, but because it has a flat facade that creates an apparent massing that may be less consistent with the neighborhood. Would it lose too much of the Colonial aspect if the dormers were not there? (Holli Rafferty: It adds a lot of detail and charm to have the dormers on the roof. The adjoining and facing neighbors love it.) >Screening foliage - could increase screening between the neighboring houses on each side. (Holli Rafferty: There is a fence currently. Wants to put another tree on the right.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Holli Rafferty: Yes, they like the house and have offered their support.) >How deep is the deck on the right hand facade? How wide is the hallway behind it? (Young: The deck is approximately 7 feet and the hallway is 3'-6" behind it.) Hallway seems very narrow. What is the deck for? (Young: Setbacks on the side taper in from the side setbacks. The deck is a result of not wanting the roofline to climb so high that it blocks the windows, and also provides some light to the bedrooms and hallway. Could pull the deck back in and have no rail be visible, just have the roof come up to rail height.) Concern is over creating a gathering spot. Hallway could stand some relief. >How far does the front porch cover project? (Young: 3'-6" to edge of cornice. Columns are at the average street setback, and eave is allowed to project out.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The front of the house is very sheer, but that is the straightforward simple style. >Dormers are not doing any favors. They call attention to the height. >House does not "hang together." There needs to be a 3-D model or rendering. Looks like a rambling house that has been built over time behind a formal facade. The back does not seem like it is part of the same house as either side, and none seem associated with the front. >There are examples of the style in the neighborhood, including those with dormers and those without. The ones without dormers fit in much better to the neighborhood. >9' on first floor and 8' on second would work better for plate heights. Unusual to have a higher plate height on second floor compared to the first floor. >Rear looks like a three -story house - concern with the top floor window being so high up, with impact on the neighbors. >Concern with having a deck on the side. Does not understand what the deck is for. >Apparent height and massing is increased with the dormers. If the dormers go away would help with the issue of the declining height envelope. >Rendering or 3D model would help understand the massing, in lieu of referring to a design review consultant. Needs to make sure the architecture is consistent all around. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones, and Sargent2 - c.1556 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling. (Mark Wilson, applicant; Jeff Baleix, architect; Ken Woo, property owner ) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he talked to the neighbor to the left at 1568 Alturas Drive. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. >The driveway is shared by several homes. When there is construction how are the logistics worked out with the neighbors? (Gardiner: There could be a condition of approval if it is a circumstance that is specific to the project.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Mark Wilson represented the property owner, with architect Jeffrey Baleix. Commission Comments/Questions: >The application was submitted several years ago. What has been going on with the project in the duration? (Wilson: Multiple rounds of plan checks and revisions. Architect has been working pro bono .) (Baleix: Began as a replacement of the deck, but it requires a hillside permit. Scope of project increased with the requirements of the hillside permit.) >Looks like other departments have not reviewed the plans in some time. Is there concern? (Baleix: May need to make changes based on current building code. Not aware of anything that would force a change in the design.) >There is a combination of materials and windows, and is not consistent with what is indicated on the plans. (Baleix: It is a hodge-podge of windows and siding. Would like to replace with vinyl windows to match new windows in the front. Could put wood trim around the vinyl windows. Intent is to replace the old single-glazed aluminum windows over time, but has not wanted to commit to more since the project Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes started as a deck replacement. Had not intended to renovate the entire house.) >What is the status of the trees? The plans indicate existing trees to remain, but some have been removed. (Wilson: There were Monterey pines on each side behind the house. Original intention was to retain the trees, until the recent storms. One tree came down on January 9th in a storm. Lower tree was leaning towards the house below and imperiling it, so had it cut it down. The rain and wind were ongoing that day so could not get permit. Did not make sense to keep the small pine in the middle. There is a line of privets down the driveway side that can be replanted, and the fence can be rebuilt. Fruit trees and an oak tree will remain. The asset in the neighborhood is the view - would like more trees, but not as tall.) >Familiar with the tree protection ordinance in Burlingame? (Wilson: No.) >Was the City arborist involved in the removals? (Wilson: No, the storm was strong and the neighbor was freaked out. The tree had fallen and downed a power line. Needed to be immediately dealt with.) >Is there a new landscape plan that indicates the absence of the trees? (Baleix: Can revise the plans . Did not know the trees were removed.) >How will the neighbors get in and out during construction? (Baleix: Has access along the side of the house from the side yard, by way of a gate .)(Wilson: Will coordinate with the neighbors on the deliveries and construction - it will only be at specific times.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does not appear to have issues with obstructing distant views, per the hillside permit. >Neighbors will benefit from having existing deck removed and replaced with new, smaller deck. >Houses below will benefit from smaller deck. >Not comfortable with the window plan. It sounds confusing and not consistent. >Landscaping is a design review criteria. The trees would have provided significant screening. Will need to have new trees to be consistent with tree removal requirements. >City Arborist has not looked at the application since 2014. Revised plans should be recirculated for comments. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones, and Sargent2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner DeMartini reported that the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will be meeting later this month. He also said that there has been discussion of reforming the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.223 Clarendon Road - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017 February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Meeting adjourned at 11:57 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 February 13, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2017, 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 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/14/2017