Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.04.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 24, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: William Meeker, Community Development Director; Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner; 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Assistant Planner; and Kathleen Kane, City Attorney 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - a.Rotation of Officers Community Development Director Meeker announced that the Planning Commission Officers for the next twelve months are as follows: Peter Gum, Chair Mike Gaul, Vice-Chair Sandy Comaroto, Secretary 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.April 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 10, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the April 10, 2017 minutes. Discussion of Motion: >Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes as he was not at the meeting. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Abstain:Gaul1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Larry Stevenson, 1124 Douglas Avenue: The Planning Commission should amend the Downtown Specific Plan with respect to parking and delivery requirements. E-commerce has increased the number of deliveries and there is no sign of this abaiting. In 2016 Amazon doubled their deliveries from year before. Would like to bring up the fact that tonight ’s meeting does not show up on the City Calendar on the website. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1849 Bayshore Highway, Suite 103, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a school use on the first floor of an existing commercial building (San Mateo County Chinese School/Great Joy Service Center and School, applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, architect; Aryana Health Care Foundation, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Staff Report 1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Attachments 1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What was the code enforcement complaint? (Keylon: the school was operating at a location with inadequate existing as required by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Kane: was a life-safety issue.) >Were there any complaints regarding parking? (Keylon: will have to check notes in Code Enforcement file. Kane: not aware of any complaints in the last year or so involving vehicles or parking) >Can conditions be placed on the project that limit it to a school with non -driving age students? (Kane: can limit the operation based upon the project description and operational characteristics.) >Can hours of operation be restricted; can a condition be included requiring the use of the vans to transport children? (Keylon: yes.) >If the application comes back in a similar format and the Commission does not grant the variance, what are the options? Accommodating existing parking or close school? (Keylon: yes, those are the options.) >Is it known if permits are required for the van transportation? (Keylon: will need to research.) >Has the Fire Marshal reviewed the proposed layout? The area proposed as the pick -up area appears to be outlined as fire lane. (Keylon: yes, Fire has reviewed this and has indicated that as long as drivers are in the car, there is no problem with drop -off and pick-up at this location. There is very little work being done in order to accommodate the use – the Fire Marshal will do a walk -through to determine compliance with Fire requirements.) Chair Gum opened public hearing. Dale Meyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the 72 parking spaces assigned? (Meyer: no.) Is the second floor unoccupied? (Meyer: yes and two-thirds of third floor is unoccupied.) >How long has the second floor been unoccupied? (Meyer: about two years.) >One of the supporting arguments for the variance is that SOAR (the surgical center) is not using parking, do you have in writing that they will not use those spots? (Meyer: no, just know from real estate agent that their business hours are from 6 am to 3 pm. This leaves that parking available for the school after SOAR is closed.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There will be a maximum of 30 students and 5 teachers on the property; how does that compare to operation at the Cowan Road site? (Meyer: for about 4 years that has been their steady number of students. They are not actively trying to increase number of teachers or students. During the summer run two classes or activities – they rent space at Burlingame High School or one of the other schools for larger summer activities, they are not held at this location.) >Will the vans will be stored on the site? (Meyer: only parked there during day, two owners drive the vans from their house and at night drive them home) >The school is open 9 am to 6 pm but students are not there the entire time? (Meyer: yes.) >During the period from 3 pm to 6 pm they operate by appointment only? There will only be 5 spaces but in reality could be a couple more available? (Meyer: yes. Kane: when this item comes back the applicant may want to clarify what type of vans are used and the number of passengers they hold . Meyer: the vans make multiple trips. Kane: clarify that in the application before the item is considered for approval by the Commission.) >Do parents ever bring their kids and stay? (Meyer: unknown. Most of the time parents have appointments after 6 pm with teachers.) >Since the vans are making multiple trips, is the window of arrival actually around 2:30 pm? (Meyer: depends on how far away the students are coming from.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Accepting of the logic of the variance, we have considered similar projects in the past like recreational sports symbiotic relationship with neighboring businesses as they do not operate at the same time. >Obligation to analyze the variance based upon the operational characteristics of the use; however, this analysis could be faulty because some of the tenant spaces in the building are vacant. Things could change. >They have had an operation around the corner similar in scale, if the new location operates in the same manner it seems that the impact is minimal to none and that the 7 parking spaces should suffice. >Is the school being allowed there is it a CUP? (Keylon: permitted by right, but the use does require consideration of the parking variance which is a discretionary action.) >Thought building was completely vacant. >Parking will be okay predicated on SOAR not changing their business hours, applicant should approach them to see if that will be the case for the future. >Even if that were not the case, the Commission has the obligation to ask if it will work still? If tenancy changes, the parking arrangement may not work for another user that has different operational characteristics. >Do variances run with the property or just conditioned based upon a particular applicant and their business? (Meeker: variances run with the property, but conditions of approval may be crafted that ensure that any future use has the same operational characteristics that permitted the Commission to support the parking variance. Need to ensure that if the application is approved that the conditions are tailored to students that are not of driving age.) No action was required on this item at this time. The matter will be placed on the regular action calendar when all additional information requested by the Commission is received from the applicant. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Recused:Gum, and Gaul2 - a.5 Winchester Place, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e) (1). (Joanne Wong, Komada Diseno Architects, applicant and architect; Willie Hung and Heidi Lee, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 5 Winchester Pl - Staff Report 5 Winchester Pl - Attachments 5 Winchester Pl - Plans 5 Winchester Pl - Rendering Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.219 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1). (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, applicant and architect; Simona Torcia and Sergio Vaccari, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 219 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 219 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 219 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joe Sabel represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission Questions/Comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Likes the revisions made to the stair dormer; aligns nicely with the adjacent windows. >Project is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.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 Landscape 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. 1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Staff Report 1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Attachments 1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Final EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Draft EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - MMRP 1128 Douglas Ave - Historical Resource Evaluation 1132 Douglas Ave - Historical Resource Evaluation 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Plans 524 Oak Grove Ave - Plans 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Tentative Parcel Map Memorandum 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Tentative Parcel Map Attachments: Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner Comaroto indicated that they will recuse themselves from the discussion as they have business relationships with the property owner; they left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Kelly indicated that he had reviewed all prior materials related to the project. Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of Staff: There were no Questions of Staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Does the circular driveway necessitate the front setback variance due to the location of the tree, not the building? (Furlong: since the building is outside of setback, if going to push circular driveway out of the setback into the middle of the site, this would limit buildable area for the property.) >Proposing circular driveway? It does not show on the plans. (Furlong: yes. Pointed out on the plan.) >Is the entire front of the property being paved? (Furlong: yes, alternative solutions limit functionality . The two driveways and pedestrian access and anything added triggered a landscape variance.) >The EIR addresses protection of the Redwood tree during construction, what will protect tree past construction? (Furlong: proposing an asphalt as opposed to a pervious paver the asphalt profile can be minimal. Will have an arborist involved during the construction process.) >Is the tree within the easement? Any thought to protecting from cars going in and out of the driveway? (Furlong: providing a curb on top of asphalt paving; from curb to other side of easement is 9 feet.) Seems really tight. (Driveway has to be maintained regardless of providing parking or not) >Drawings of circular driveway are difficult to read. Requested clarification regarding the outline of the circular driveway? (Furlong: showed the location of the driveway.) >What problem does the circular driveway solve? (Furlong: delivery vehicles and congestion of visitors.) >Landscape drawings not coordinated with plans. Describe what would be within the front of the property if not a circular driveway? (Furlong: lawn area.) >Where are there buildings of similar in size or larger? (Furlong: was provided in a presentation from the prior discussion; there are several buildings of similar size in the Downtown neighborhood; provided examples.) Public Comments: Linda Taylor: has lived across street for over 10 years. Has listened to many discussions regarding the design of this building. Still does not believe that this building fits in with the Douglas neighborhood. The proposed building would shade an area greater than the existing development. The residential areas in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan have a range of building heights. Attention needs to be paid to the massing relative to surrounding development. Should be designed to a residential scale. Does not meet principles and guidelines of Downtown Specific Plan. There is no open space. Doesn't understand why the building could not be narrower. Residents on right side will share parking. What about providing open space for residents? There has been minimal discussion as to how trees will be protected as the historical house will be moved to a new location. Not in favor of the conditional use permit for building height. Please respect the quality of life in the area and scale back the project. Larry Stevenson: Stated that the setback should be 25.83 feet rather than proposed 19 feet because of the averages on the street. Has surveying info on that. Second, property line to root collar is 3’-9”; doesn't see how a 9 foot driveway can be constructed there. A 7’-9” driveway is not wide enough. The driveway is wider but it is all on his side of the property. Betsy Vogel: Lives at 500 Almer Rd. Has lived off and on in Burlingame since 1940. The reaction of people to the project was, what is going on in Burlingame? Development is looking like Manhattan. If we start building like this, we are going to have a city, not a hometown. Elsa Torres: lives at 512 Primrose Road. When you have 27 units; car will move in and out 6 times a Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes day. The other issues is the narrow driveway. If this variance sets a precedent, anyone who builds in Burlingame will utilize these similar variances. The house at 1128 Douglas will no longer be historic if it is moved to Oak Grove Avenue. How the trees, the telephone wires, the gas lines be affected by the moving of the house? Many people will suffer while this move is taking place. John Root: he and his wife have lived in Burlingame for many years and at 1133 Douglas for 4 1/2 years. Moved closer to Downtown because of proximity to shopping and transit. Increased activity something we like. The proposed building will be there for long time, everything should be done to ensure that it fits into community best as can and works well for community and neighbors. Believes that building is just too tall, The Downtown Specific Plan allows the height, but it does not fit in this part of the neighborhood. The setback on fifth floor helps but does not fit well with other structure on Douglas . Visitors, drop offs and service personnel block the street on regular basis because there is no off -site parking. Pay close attention to plant material and how it is going to be maintained. Additional number of residences is a significant impact. Applicant Response to Public Comments: >Relocation of the Historic House: the EIR speaks to the process and provides mitigations for impacts. The developer is responsible for expenses of relocation; it will occur during overnight hours to minimize impacts on residents. >Building Height: the City has adopted the Downtown Specific Plan. This neighborhood is largely in transition and very highly desirable place to live. The intention is to increase the diversity of housing stock in Burlingame. Apartments are necessary for affordability to encourage younger people to move into Burlingame. >In response to a Commissioner Inquiry: incentives offered under the density bonus regulations do not benefit the project, the developer is in it for profit and is incurring a significant number of expenses which includes the relocation of the historic property. Developer is investing significant amount of money to develop the project. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >What are the benefits for providing below market rate units? (Meeker: incentives such as height increase, deviations from parking standards, relief from any number of development standards) >Has a problem with the height. It would be good looking building on El Camino Real, but the scale is too large for this neighborhood. Buildings directly around or adjacent are typically 3-stories, one 4-story across street. >Has a problem with the variance from driveway width, doesn't see how people will clear the Redwood tree, the tree will be affected. >The site has constraints, too many special considerations, variances. Does not support the project as currently designed. >Hears the concerns of neighbors, It is big change from what is there now. There have been significant changes in the area in the last 15 years. The only thing the Commission can do is look at zoning code that exists. The project is well within height limit with conditional use permit. Much has been done to articulate the building and break up the massing. In comparison to other buildings on the street, it is a really nice building. >In terms of the heights in neighborhood, there is a big mix. There are some buildings that have the feel of a single-family residence, but there are also 4-story buildings. Stepping back the 5th floor is going to make this feel like a 4 story building from the front. >Based on what the community decided on the Downtown Specific Plan, this is what was anticipated . Meets a need for more housing Downtown. >As far as circular driveway variance, has mixed feelings. It is something neighborhood specifically asked for – for that reason it is supportable. Is concerned that every application for this type of building will ask for this type of variance. Concerned with setting a precedent. >The shared driveway will be there regardless of this project. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Overall, the project is supportable. >On one hand the building is quite large compared to adjacent structures. Personally, would rather see landscaping versus the circular driveway. Delivery trucks will double -park regardless of whether the circular driveway is provided. >If the project were three stories with a stepped back fourth story, could support. Cannot support project as currently designed. >This is exactly the type of project that the City needs and what the Downtown Specific Plan envisioned. As to the buildings around it, they will not be there long; the properties will ultimately be redeveloped. >The 4-story front is very well scaled to the street; the fifth story setback helps reduce the mass at the front. >The Commission's role is to decide whether the project fits or not. Is appropriate for the area and meets the goals and objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan. Feels the circular driveway is a mistake. >Supports the project. >Very moved by the public comments. Would share neighbors' sentiments if residing on the street . However, am motivated by the policy direction of the Downtown Specific Plan. The dynamic of the Downtown area is going to be denser and higher -scale, more steel or glass and not traditional architecture that the community is accustomed to. >The closer you get to Downtown the larger scale makes more sense. Within that area there are multiple 4-story buildings. This is just one story higher than that. >I rather go with driveway now and maybe landscape later if not being used. >A lot of compromise has happened here. Is in favor of the project. >To fit a building on site by variance is backwards. The building should be designed to fit the constraints of the site. The project is not the right size and proportion. >It is hypocritical to not include affordable units. >Anything built here is going to require the driveway width variance because of the tree and shared easement with neighbor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Kelly5 - Recused:Terrones, and Comaroto2 - Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the applications. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, and Sargent3 - Nay:Gaul, and Kelly2 - Recused:Terrones, and Comaroto2 - c.1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to add sales of alcoholic beverages to an existing commercial recreation facility. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Sky High Sports, applicant; The Roberts Trust, property owner) (19 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1524 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1524 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1524 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly left the meeting due to work obligations. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kelly Manning represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >With respect to the sample house rules, it has signature line for servers, how does this work? (Manning: all of the food staff supervisors and managers would participate in program that lays out their responsibilities. They sign an acknowledgement indicating that they understand the responsibilities.) >Requested an explanation of how the wristband program works. (Manning: different color wristbands identify those who have been drinking and those who may go out on the trampolines; there are also liability waivers that must be signed.) >Does the staff on the floor monitor wristbands? (Manning: yes, they have the right to refuse service . We track all this info where we take peoples driver’s license and liability waivers.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Think the sale of alcohol is an incidental addition, I do not see this as a drinking destination. In support of the request. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1308 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, one-story single family dwelling and attached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Caroline and Joseph Padre, property owners ) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1308 Palm Dr - Staff Report 1308 Palm Dr - Attachments 1308 Palm Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum visited neighbor on the left at 1306 Palm Drive. Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >With respect to the special permit for the attached garage, is there any possibility for the front of the garage to be pushed back from front face of the house? (Davis: the whole porch itself is forward and the gable end expression and massing and way roof is handled is receding and set back.) >When this comes back on action, ensure that the findings for the special permit speak more about mass, scale, and characteristics of the garage? >The design guidelines give lots of examples of what appropriate designs for attached garage; address this in the application as well. (Davis: siting the garage is challenging because the lot has an angled frontage. pushing the garage back affects the kitchen and living room. The location of the garage is also an effort to respect the neighbors' privacy.) >Concerned that having the attached garage affects the pedestrian character of the street and reduces the between neighbors. Is this site is narrower in the front than in the back? (Davis: The lot is essentially 50-feet wide at the front and rear.) >Like the project and that is single story and nice beautiful back yard in the back. Just ensure that the findings for the special permit for the attached garage are adequately addressed. >See a lot of single story bungalows in the neighborhood, a couple that have attached garages on Palm; on other streets, most have garages in the back. Looking at neighborhood consistency. >Would be great to keep the detached garage approach. >The side porch facing the backyard works just fine. (Davis: the house on right side has attached garage and so does house across street, But yes there is a mix within the neighborhood.) Public Comments: Deborah Reed: main concern is because her husband has limited mobility they are home all the time . The noise during construction is going to be an issue. Need a guarantee that hours of construction are strictly adhered to. No problem with design. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Really like the project appreciates that a one story house is proposed. A perspective sketch or drawing would be helpful to better see the setback of the garage from the street. Supports the project. >Very nice project nice scale, nicely articulated. One door garage opening works. >Has the feel of a Pasadena bungalow even with attached garage. Seeing how hip roof interplays with main gable of front porch will help the argument of applicant in support of the special permit for the attached garage. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes matter on the Consent Calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.1517 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Joseph Covalesky Tr, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1517 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1517 Drake Ave - Attachments 1517 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Gum met with neighbors at 1516 and 1521 Drake Avenue and Commissioner Sargent met with the homeowner. Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What are the regulations regarding accessory structures; is the shed in the rear allowed to remain? (Keylon: yes so long as the shed is not over 120 SF it would not trigger need for a conditional use permit.) >Is the shed included in lot coverage and FAR? (Keylon: yes.) >When measuring height, is there an allowance for the slope of the lot? (Keylon: there aren’t specific regulations regarding the structure height from adjacent grade; height is measured from the top of curb.) >Is there some accommodation for the integrity of the architectural character that is a factor when considering a special permit for declining height envelope and height? (Meeker: this has been an unwritten policy of the Commission to do so.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Hard to see the existing conditions because of heavy growth in the back. Are the existing Elm trees to remain? There is heavy bush right against house, is that to remain? (Wehmeyer: the front yard will be re-landscaped, though the main trees near the street will remain.) >There will be more visibility along that side of the house where the addition is to be placed? (Wehmeyer: es, can see it better on the side elevation.) >Looks like the height of the house from first floor to highest ridge height is only 24’-7” which sounds like a normal two-story house. If you could add into the justification for the special permit that the blended mass is a two -story house but because of the slope of the lot a special permit is necessary . Essentially a typical two story house on an upsloping lot. >Chimney on sheet A3.1, existing elevation remain but proposed elevation drawn differently . (Wehmeyer: will be altered, will place an insert into it.) >Little confused about A 3 – looking at gable on the front, the roofline on front doorway – theres an additional piece off the back (Wehmeyer: that is the existing roofline of the old porch. We were trying to replicate that, to stay true to original design of house.) >Was any consideration given to making the porch broader, wider, or deeper? (Wehmeyer: the wider it gets, the steeper the gable, the steeper the gables on second floor and higher ridge. Wider makes it Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bulky when looking up at lawn to it. Felt like too big for rest of the house. Deeper starts shrinking the front setback.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Something funny with all the curves. Low arch underneath two gables fits very well but the eyebrows seem out of place; some elements of the design don't hold together. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the matter on the Regular Action calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.840 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and architect; Emily and Dave Fisher, property owners ) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 840 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 840 Paloma Ave - Attachments 840 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is this area in the FEMA flood zone? (Wehmeyer: yes, all necessary documentation has been submitted to Planning.) >Provide a sample of the Hardie siding or give an example of a project where it has been used? (Wehmeyer: yes. The quality of the paint makes a difference. One of our approved projects on Vernon uses Hardie siding.) >Any way to reduce the Declining Height Envelope request? (Wehmeyer: eliminating the gable and pulling it in creates a long bowling alley look and layer -cake effect. It would be weighted on one side of the house and look unbalanced from the front.) Public Comments: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nicely crafted house that is very well proportioned and articulated. >Will fit well into the neighborhood. >With respect to the Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, there are a number of substandard lots in this neighborhood. Requirements for lot coverage and FAR scale with the lot but the declining height envelope does not scale with the lot. This application has an exceptional circumstance. >There is reasonable support for the Special Permit application. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action by the Commission. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - d.1300 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for facade changes to an existing commercial building (John A. Chipman and Karen Baron, Chipman Design Architecture, applicants and architects; Santini Santini Roccucci Gen. Ptp., property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1300 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1300 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1300 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ray Fung represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the new cornice fibreglas? (Fung: yes.) >How crisp are the edges of the cornice? (Fung: pretty crisp, we have looked at alternate materials and the problem is the seaming with metal and with wood patching the seam to be minimized have not been successful in our history we have 150 Athleta stores and 80% have had cornices we have always felt fibreglas to be most successful material.) >Has GFRG been used before? (Fung: trying to have a certain mold and consistency.) >Cowlick edge needs to be crisp in an effort to be historical? Can look cheap if not done correctly . Would like to see a sample. (Fung: not trying to be historical, trying to acknowledge but not copy. Will attempt to obtain a sample.) >Likes the look of the cornices, concern is how far out do they project from the wall? (Fung: 1’-1” for the upper one and about 0’-8” for the one above the entry.) >Look at street everyone has awning or door setback in, like that look – would like to see cornice Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pretty pronounced so it stands out. >Looks like windows to be painted are vinyl? (Fung: yes, desiring to paint them.) Might want to look at replacing them. >Look at cleaning up the appurtenances on the rear wall. >Front of the building, the face is built out a little further (Fung: will rip it all off and start over, there is no brick behind the facade.) >What is the height of new entry doors? Scaling at about 8’. (Fung: 9’, we are not increasing storefront opening itself.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Like the project, with the caveat that wants to see cornices nice and crisp >Nice modern façade. >Understated elegance, nice and clean and simple. Signage will help with architectural details. >It adds some elegance to the street and is much improved from WineStop. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the matter on the Regular Action calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission's action regarding 1556 Alturas Drive has been appealed by the applicant. a.1132 Cambridge Road - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. 1132 Cambridge.fyi2.docAttachments: Pulled for a future public hearing; the changes to the project are significant. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:08 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 April 24, 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 May 4, 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. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 7/17/2017