Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.08.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 28, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 24, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes with edits as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Abstain:Gum1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS No Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.700 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Parking Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Danny Abajian and Aline Kalebjian, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 700 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 700 Newhall Rd - Attachments 700 Newhall Rd - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1810 Barroilhet 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 and new detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331. (Nancy Scheinholtz, applicant and architect; David and Rodhelen Liao, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Proposed Project Analysis (Page & Turnbull) 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation (Page & Turnbull) 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair Gum noted he will abstain from the vote since he was absent from the study meeting. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Nancy Scheinholtz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Rear elevation in the original submittal had a dormer placed in the upper gable with a window. Would it be possible to fit in a window? (Scheinholtz: No, the change in the pitch of the roof is too steep.) >On the west elevation the existing eave detail has the exposed rafter tails, and a portion of roof towards the rear also has exposed rafter tails. Can the new eave also have the exposed rafter tails to match the detail? (Scheinholtz: Yes, it can have the exposed rafter tails. They were deleted by mistake.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The revisions are nicely done. >Special Permit is supportable. The intent of the request is to match a traditional design, which it has done in this case. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Abstain:Gum1 - b.1417 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to a previously approved design review application. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Martina A. Sersch, applicant and property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1417 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1417 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1417 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief discussion with Commissioner Gaul, who was the original designer on the project. Commissioner Kelly spoke to a neighbor who requested to remain unidentified. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Martina Sersch represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Height of the garage appears to be taller than what is shown on the plans. (Sersch: The plans do not accurately reflect the location of the aluminum roof flashing.) >How far back does the glass guard rail extend on the side elevation? (Sersch: Glass guard rail goes all the way from the front to the back. The original approval was for an entire deck. When it was changed it was with a smaller guardrail, but that was not what was wanted. The first approval was for the entire terrace deck and had guard rail to the rear; it was supposed to be shown this way on the second set of drawings, but had not noticed the discrepancy when they were submitted. The building inspector said that as long as it was made safe, it would not matter where the guard railing was ended as long as it would be secure all around. Did not understand it would be a problem since it had been approved that way initially.) >The most recent plans dated June 26th show the glass rail going all the way back, as it has been built. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The applicant letter mentions that the glass guard rail would be safer than approved. However the building code would require the design of metal guard rails to limit the spaces between the balusters. Is there a reason why these code requirements would not be safe enough? (Sersch: Narrow guard rails did not feel safe with children. Kids like to throw things, worried about getting their hands stuck.) >Page 2 of the plans show rafter tails on the gable above the garage that match the gable to the right of the front door. Did not see them on site. (Sersch: They are missing and will be installed, needs to find someone to install them.) >How did all of these things that were not approved get built? (Sersch: Initially the garage was built with an opening, but there was wind along the side of the house and the bikes would fall. Were told originally it would be better to have a garage rather than a carport but did not have the money to build the entire garage. Asked the building inspector if doors could be added if certain steps were taken. Asked the contractor to follow through but has not been successful. Dispute over who is responsible for paying for the fees. Verified the installation of the rail and garage doors with the building inspector.) >Is there understanding that what the Planning Commission approves is what must be built? (Sersch: No, thought the building inspector was able to make approvals. It was not the intent to build something that was not approved.) >There was statement of intent to keep the integrity of the house, so how would the glass enclosure fit the integrity? (Sersch: It can hardly be seen. There is aluminum flashing over the garage, so thought the aluminum on the rail would match and make the rail look more safe. Would prefer glass without the aluminum on top. The house never had wrought iron detail.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Don't want to look at changes from a punitive standpoint. Asks the question, "would it have been approved when first submitted?" >Find it impossible to believe that a glass guard rail with aluminum trim and posts would have been approved originally. It does not fit with the design of the rest of the house. >Although wrought iron pickets might not have occurred anywhere on the existing house, they are typical of this architectural style. >The garage doors are stark white panelized doors. The existing front door is either stained or painted brown, and the two newer spanish houses nearby have brown garage doors. Plain white garage doors are not consistent with the architectural style, and would not have been approved originally. >Other applications are built as designed and approved. If that same standard also applies to the neighbors, it needs to apply here. Building inspectors typically advise changes to be approved through Planning. >The glass and aluminum railings are out of place with the rest of the house. >The garage plate height is supportable. The issues are with the details, particularly the garage door and the glass rail. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Action Item with the following amendments: >Approve the enclosure of the carport into a garage; >Approve the ornamental detail on the front wall of the garage to be replaced with a simplified square opening; >Deny the request for approval of the glass guard rail; >Deny the request to replace the terra cotta tile vents at the front of the garage with a light fixture; and >Deny the replacement of the stained wood garage door with a plain white painted door. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Gaul1 - c.261 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to increase the hours of operation and maximum number of persons on site for an existing fitness gym (Basecamp Fitness). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(a). (Dethrone Burlingame LLC, applicant and Hera LLC, property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 261 California Dr - Staff Report 261 California Dr - Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with a Basecamp member to get clarification on communications between Basecamp and the clientele. Commissioner Kelly spoke to a resident from an apartment behind the business. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant, with business manager Jesse Jones. Commission Questions/Comments: >The early morning classes are the most popular, and max out at 44? (Hudak: Yes. The maximum for any class is 44 based on the number of stations.) >Are there classes of 44 later in the day? (Jones: No.) >At 5:15 or 6:15 are there eight staff members present? (Jones: There is an average of three staff to provide customer service to a class of this size, plus the instructor.) >Have there been any complaints with the construction parking for 225 California Drive? (Gardiner: Not aware of direct construction complaints, but are seeing some indirect impacts such as from the parking spaces being out of commission during construction. The project has been compliant with its requirements for construction vehicles .)(Hudak: Has not observed construction workers from the 225 California Drive project using the parking spaces.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >A member of the club has confirmed that Basecamp has been operating for a number of years, and that management has reached out to the Basecampers to ask them not to park in front of the facility and Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they have responded. >Satisfied that once construction is completed the situation will settle. The construction has displaced parking spaces. >Spoke to resident behind who said occassionally they hear classes but with the business's attention to keeping the door shut it should be fine. >Applicant was responsive with the sandwich boards and it seems to have worked. Would encourage the patrons to park further away even after the construction is completed to help the other businesses in the area. >Appreciates the outreach that was conducted. >Noise concern seems to be under control. >Keep communication open with everyone along the strip. >Concern with the noise and number of people in the last meeting who were concerned with the noise . Concern with moving the hours to 5:00. >Could consider waiting to allow the longer hours until the neighboring construction is completed. >225 California will have a substantial parking garage under it so it should meet the requirements of the building. >There is a great possibility to be able to accommodate overflow parking in the public lots such as the train station lot. >Have already been operating outside their CUP by starting at 5:00, so there is already understanding of what the impacts will be. >Does not expect there will be 52 people on site at a given time. The demand peaks in the early morning when there is plenty of parking. >It appears a lot of local residents attend the early classes. There are a lot of bikes in the bike racks and people run and walk to the facility. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Gum1 - d.1190 California Drive, zoned Unclassified - Application for an Amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to add outdoor seating to an existing restaurant. (Maverick Jacks, LLC, applicant; Dennis Yeung, Oris Design, designer; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and City and County of San Francisco Water Dept ., property owners) (358 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1190 California Dr - Staff Report 1190 California Dr - Attachments 1190 California Dr - Plans - 08.28.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Comaroto met with the manager on the site. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Can the owners of the property (SFPUC and JPB) take their properties back in the future? (Kane: That is a matter of the lease held between the business and the landlord.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Micheal Mallie represented the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Has this been done at the other location too? (Mallie: Yes, at Jack's Prime in San Mateo.) >Is that also bordering the train tracks? (Mallie: Yes.) >Have there been any issues with the outdoor seating in the past? (Mallie: No.) >Would the seating be comprised of the same type of metal seating typically seen at outdoor dining establishments? Would suggest spacious seating. (Mallie: Has heard that comment before.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Having seen turnover of the property between different restaurants, this business is a great tenant and neighbor for Broadway. >If the business thinks this can work, supports the application. >The cover over the outdoor dining is a great idea, will provide some shelter from the train tracks. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones spoke with the owner at 129 Crescent Avenue in order to access the rear yard. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the owner of 129 Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the owner of 1575 Newlands Avenue. Commissioner Gum spoke with the owners to the left and right of the subject property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >One of the letters was from a neighbor regarding the existing property having a second dwelling unit . Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Is that permissible under the Municipal Code? (Hurin: The current code allows for secondary dwelling units. However an application for this property has not been received. There are many existing units in Burlingame so can't determine whether this one would be legal or not, but under the current code a second dwelling unit could be legalized or added to an existing home as long as it complies with the criteria in the code.) >Would a second unit be required to have parking? (Hurin: One parking space would be required unless the property is located within 1/2 mile of a train station, in which case it would not need additional parking.) >Would the parking space be required to be covered or could it be uncovered? (Hurin: It may be uncovered.) >Is this property within 1/2 mile of the train station? (Hurin: It is just within the 1/2 mile radius, so parking would not be required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Terry and Barbara Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: >What are the plans for the detached garage? (Mark Freethy: It is a garage with a work room on the side.) >Are there plans to use it as a dwelling unit? (Mark Freethy: No.) >What is the purpose for the shower in the garage? (Mark Freethy: Clean-up when coming in from the back yard. Saw dust clean-up, sweat clean-up when coming back from a bike ride. Convenience without having to come into the house .)(Pearcy: The owner is retired and does a lot of home improvement projects.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Mark Freethy: The neighbors were provided with pictures of what is planned, but there have not been discussions.) >The lower walls on the driveway side seem blank. Any thought to windows on either side of the fireplace? The driveway wall is stark, and will be visible from the street. (Pearcy: Thought was to respect the privacy of the neighbors. The wall is on the north side so there is not a lot of potential for light. It has been broken up with two wall planes and three materials. The stained wood siding is meant to create a warm and friendly elevation.) >Why the changes in siding? (Pearcy: It's a cement plaster stucco building but if it was all stucco it could look harsh, so there is stained wood siding at logistical points such as the dormers and projections to warm things up. Also stained wood on the front door and garage door.) >Why horizontal siding? (Pearcy: It is stone, not siding. Just two siding types.) >Is the siding board and batten? (Pearcy: Vertical stained wood with a butt joint, center -matched. It will have a warm saw-texture finish that accepts stains.) >Has there been consideration of flipping the garage to lessen impact on the neighbor? (Pearcy: The garage needs to align with the driveway, and are trying to retain the existing deck. The garage has an 8 -foot plate so is low. The new house is further back from the side than the existing house.) >Could the driveway side elevation be pulled in 1 or 2 feet to add some landscaping? It is a new house so could be pulled it in a bit to get planting to soften the ground line. (Pearcy: Needs to have a 9'-6" driveway. It's a challenge on a 50-foot lot to get a center hallway and two rooms on either side. There is more flexibility in length.) >Are the existing brick walls along the side property lines being retained or removed? (Pearcy: On the right-hand side most would be retained but about 30 feet would be replaced behind the gate.) >Could the gate be moved back to retain some of the brick walls and their mature landscaping? (Barbara Freethy: Wants to consider the security aspect and have more land behind the gate. Doesn't want people to be able to climb a low wall into the back yard.) >Simulated divided lite windows? (Pearcy: Yes.) >Landscaping towards the front of the garage to shield the view from the neighbors would be helpful. A hedge would grow taller than the fence. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could the garage be further from the fence line to provide space for foliage and screening plantings? (Pearcy: Wants to keep the existing deck and patio.) >Has there been thought to keeping the tree in the front? (Pearcy: It is a deodar cedar tree, belongs in a park-like space. Huge canopy - to have enough breathing room the tree would need to be back out of the drip line, 20 or 30 feet. It is park tree and not well suited to this location.) >Has there been consideration to lowering the pitch of the roof of the garage to lessen the apparent mass from the neighbors? (Pearcy: Wants to tie in with the main house, with a 6/12 slope. Even a 4/12 slope would look mismatched.) >(Mark Freethy: The neighbor sent a letter implying there is an illegal unit in the existing house. The unit was built originally with the house. It is a legal unit, with restrictions. It will be eliminated in the new construction.) Public Comments: Irvin Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Lives on the north side of the property. Submitted a letter. Per design guidelines pages 24 and 28, the project does not respect the conditions and qualities of existing homes, or support separation at the property line, neighboring yard is not respected. Current house has an attached garage and a large footprint; an attached garage can accommodate needs and there are many examples of attached garages on the street. Opposes the detached structure because of its length, height, and proximity. Concern with drainage from roof of garage onto neighboring property. Currently has 45 feet of unobstructed fenceline adjacent with views of trees and vegetation. Proposed garage is 15 feet high, 20 feet across; most attached structures are not as imposing or high. Structure could be flipped or moved back from property line to allow 15-18 feet of adjacency with room for landscaping. Offers suggestions in the letter. Shower, toilet and windows in the garage likely to be a prelude to an occupied dwelling. Kathy Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Negative impact of detached garages and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). State Senate Bill 1069 brings Burlingame to a crossroads to maintain the unique small -town character of Burlingame. Tipping point may be subdividing the single family living spaces with ADUs . Other cities seem to be maintaining their land. Should instead explore perimeter, uninhabited areas such as the Bayside instead of subdividing backyards of single family residences. Questions whether the detached garage in the project would be used as an occupied dwelling. ADUs encourage the noncompliant practice of renting out vacation rentals. ADUs mean more cars parked on streets and driving on roads, and more non-property tax-paying households. Mark Gschwind, 1553 Newlands - Shower and toilet in detached garage suggests it is being prepared to be an occupied dwelling. Opposed to adding another unit to the neighborhood. There are parking impacts already. It seems like a nice house, but appears to have an open door to an occupied dwelling. Linette Edison - Lives in the house to the south. There is only a 5-foot side setback, and it is completely paved. Would prefer there be vegetation to help with the water drainage. Opposed to the bathroom in the garage. There are other properties on the street that have been converted over to apartments. City does not need many more apartments, would deteriorate property values. Needs to maintain balance between rental units and single family homes. Mary Streshly - Lives on the south side. Happy neighbors are remodeling. When buying into an R -1 single family, buy into a designated neighborhood for what it is zoned for. Disingenuous to ask cursory question whether the structure will be rented. No way to be promised that it would not happen. Police have been called multiple times to rental nearby. If it is zoned to have units, it is not R -1 - the neighborhoods need to be kept separate. Happy with the remodel, not happy to have rental units on the street. Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue - More and more giant houses being built. Past opposition to large houses, and large Safeway. Should re -look at standards such as the FAR and lot coverage. Small lots do not need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighborhoods in order to preserve character. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Handsome design. >Concern the house is pushing out to the edge of the driveway. Even a small amount of landscaping could soften the edge. >With the rest of the detailing a lower slope 4/12 or 5/12 roof on the garage could still fit with the rest of the house. Could help with the overall height of the structure. >Can't support a full bath in the detached garage. Can understand a toilet and sink to support a workshop, but does not see the logic for the shower. A shower would suggest a closet for clothes, which would then suggest the workshop becomes a bedroom, and then it becomes accessory living space that wasn't part of the original application. >Driveway elevation is stark. Described as warm because it is wood, but it looks like the side of a barn. There is no opportunity for landscaping to soften the edge. If it were pulled back to allow landscaping may not need to do much more work to the facade, otherwise needs to do work so the facade is less stark. >Should show downspouts on the garage as well as the house. >Landscape plan needs help on both property lines. Would help to soften the view from the neighbors. >Cannot support the shower in the garage since it would suggest becoming a living unit in the future. >The bathroom would probably need an ejector pump for the sewage system; should be shown on the plans to indicate whether it would be inside or outside the structure. >Streetside elevation is nice, sad to see the tree go as it is a cornerstone of the lot currently. >Supports the detached garage, except for the bathroom. One of the main emphases of the design guidelines is the detached garage pattern. Can provide more separation and privacy between neighbors, particularly if the wall along the property line is finished nicely. The proposed development meets that pattern. >Drainage is addressed in the municipal code. Water is required to be controlled on the property and not flow onto neighboring properties. This will be verified during the Building Permit inspection process. >The south and north side elevations are markedly different. Perhaps they could be more similar or less stark. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1516 Highway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Form One Design, applicant and designer; Yousef and Gina Shamieh, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1516 Highway Rd - Staff Report 1516 Highway Rd - Attachments 1516 Highway Rd - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One, represented the applicant, with property owners Yousef and Gina Shamieh. Commission Questions/Comments: >Appreciates protecting the trees. (Raduenz: Garage will be put on piers to protect the trees.) >Has the property changed hands recently, and was the work that has been done on the property started before the purchase? (Yousef Shamieh: Bought the property in February of this year. Tried to purchase insurance, but the insurance companies had trouble insuring the building since it had not been touched in 60-70 years. There were no breaker or fuse boxes, and there were exposed gas lines. After submitting to Planning, took out all the gas and electrical and boarded up the windows to prevent breakins but did not do any building work.) >Likes the brick patterns on the front of the house and that start down the side of the windows . Thoughts of repeating it in other areas. Can see that the stucco has broken away, and it would be a good way to tie in the new and the old. Would then help the house look like it was designed on four sides rather than just on the front. >On the floorplan there is a little nook next to the front door and the wall goes straight across. To the left of the front door there should be a line, which defines the roof. Can't see how to get to the roof shown on the proposed elevation because the front door plane will be behind the plane of the dining room wall . (Raduenz: The entry will stay where it is. It is an error on the as-built.) >Dining Room window looks small and offcenter. Consider splitting it up or spreading it out? (Raduenz: Can split it up, could also have a small round or square window to the left and have the same type of brick work.) >Struggling with the roofs with the various pitches and the ends being cut off in some areas. While it is a steep roof slope, could decrease the size of rooms and lower plate heights to get the same pitch on the second floor addition but get a little more rhythm. The front looks a bit odd, and the left elevation boxy. >Needs to show the size of the new wood board detail. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project, though the horizontal siding seems alien. (Raduenz: It is wavy siding. It is a tudor look.) >Likes the site planning, and the detached garage has a separate carriage house look to it. >Likes the combination of the strong triangular forms on the front elevation combined with the siding . Has a European look, and has the feeling of a house that has evolved over time and is set in the landscape. >It is a tough lot for site planning, given how far back the house is set back from the front. Likes what has been done finding niches and corners to be able to add and make a workable plan. Commend that the large mature trees are being saved, adds to the creekside feel. >Agrees with repeating the stone details around some of the windows. >Likes the combination of the tudor style and the wavy horizontal siding. >Agrees the dining room windows need to be broken up, or some type of treatment. >Needs to indicate the specifications of the wavy siding. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.1213 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a full bath in an accessory structure. (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Meghan and Jason Dunne, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1213 Grove Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1213 Grove Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is there anything the City can do to help mitigate construction and impacts on parking for the neighbor to the right? (Gardiner: Building Permit includes construction Best Management Practices that would address issues. The intent is to minimize impacts from the construction site on neighboring properties.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant, with property owners Jason and Meghan Dunne. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why the full bathroom in the garage? (Jason Dunne: No intent to be a rental unit. Useful for when doing lots of yard work and when surfing .)(Meghan Dunne: The plans provide that the living room is my space and the garage is a "man cave" for his space.) >Is the shared driveway a deeded easement? (Gann: Owners have not found anything in the deed that addresses it.)(Kane: Sometimes there is an implied easement if that is the only ingress and egress to both houses. It may be a legally implied right that does not exist in the deed.) >The site plan shows there is 11 feet between the property line and the neighbor's house, and 7 feet between the property line and the subject house.) >How long owned the property? (Jason Dunne: Since 2010.) The driveway has uniform paving across . Was the driveway project undertaken together? (Jason Dunne: Yes, it was done together with the neighboring property owner.) >Are there plans to keep neighbor's rear yard enclosed throughout construction so the dog does not get out? (Dunne: Yes, will ensure the fence enclosure. There is a small portion between the existing garages that would need to be closed off so the dog does not get out.) >Has there been a chance to talk to the neighboring tenant? (Jason Dunne: The tenant has been aware of the project and we offered to show her the plans. The letter was delivered last night. The fence will not be a problem, and will sort out the shared use of the driveway.) >Any thought of extending the porch towards California Drive? A lot of the properties in the area have wide, sweeping porches. (Gann: Could not extend further forward because of the setback. Had not considered taking away living space for more porch area.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There is a floor area exemption for front porches. Could have the living space somewhere else and have a larger porch. (Gann: Had not considered, since the owners wanted to retain the mud room that is adjacent to the porch where it is.) Would suggest looking into it further before the next meeting. >Sheet 2 note regarding fire rating - check with staff on exception if the house is going to have fire sprinklers. >Were natural wood shingles considered rather than Hardie shingle? (Gann: No, preference is the Hardie shingle for maintenance.) Would encourage revisiting this; the Hardie shingle look does not fit in well with this neighborhood. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice project, well crafted. >Hardie shingle does not fit in. Typically the Hardie siding requires corner caps. It is possible to get pre-finished wood shingles that look good. >Suggests getting in contact with the neighboring property owner to work out an agreement for use of shared driveway. Would be a good investment for both properties. >Only issue is the request for the full bath in the garage. Not presuming illegal activity on the part of the applicant. However if the house changes hands and there is a full bathroom at the back of the garage and the large patio doors out to the side, it could lead to wanting to use it as additional living space. The commission has on occasion approved exterior showers for purposes of rinsing off. >Work with the tenant on the logistics and timing of the construction so they will be comfortable knowing their yard will be enclosed, and the shared driveway will not be a problem during construction. >Need to apply zoning regulations consistently and equally. Hard pressed to support the full bathroom in the garage. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1128 Rhinette Ave - FYI for changes to a previously approved application for Design Review for a second story addition. 1128 Rhinette - FYI 1128 Rhinette - FYI plan Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 28, 2017Planning 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 August 28, 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 September 7, 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 9/27/2017