Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.10.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 10, 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, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - a.September 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 11, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Sargent abstained from approving the minutes for the September 11th meeting because he was absent from that meeting. b.September 25, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 25, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Kelly abstained from approving the minutes for the September 25th meeting because he was absent from that meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure to have a bathroom, building height exceeding 11-feet above grade, and skylights more than 10-feet above grade. (Patricia and Michael Bader, applicant and Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property owners; Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, designer) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1220 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1220 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1220 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >The Planning Commission is only evaluating the conditional use permits, and not design review, correct? (Hurin: Correct.) >Unclear how the staff report mentions that the FAR is increasing. (Hurin: Assumes existing garage is demolished, so increase is reflective of adding the new detached garage.) >Still under the allowable FAR? (Hurin: Yes.) >Is a sink in a garage is allowed by right? If they wanted to add a sink in the future it would just need a building permit but not Planning Commission approval? (Hurin: Yes, sink would need to be clear of the 10 x 20 parking area. A toilet would require Planning Commission approval.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Randuenz, Form + One, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the double doors glass? Usually when people work in their garage they work with the garage door opened. (Randuenz: Garage door will not have glass. Will be a solid door.) >Were other designs for the garage considered? (Randuenz: Considered a traditional garage with the ridge in the center, but it would look different from the house. Also wanted additional storage above with the higher ceiling.) >What is the purpose of the shower? (Randuenz: Don't want to have to go into the house if they are in the back yard. In the future could become an inlaw unit if the City allowed it.) >CUP application states it does not affect neighbors visually. How will it not affect them visually? (Randuenz: Neighbors to the right side would see a square rather than a triangle. They'd see roofing.) >Is matching the house more important than matching the interface with the neighbor? (Randuenz: The interface with the neighbor is more important, and the neighbor does not object. It's a "win-win.") Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does not see how the design would have less impact on the neighbor compared to other potential designs. Believes an a-frame roof with a ridgeline parallel to the property line would be less impactful and would not require a CUP. >Does not know the history of the house, but not sure it would make it through design review currently. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Commission has been consistent in not allowing a shower in the garage. Suggests it would be converted into an ADU but could not be done legally because the property would not be able to meet the parking requirement. >The regulations for the roof encourage structures to be further away from the property line as they get taller. >Design may be compatible with the existing house but it is not compatible with adjoining properties in the vicinity. >Feels like a future dwelling unit more than a working garage, from the double doors to the skylight. >Does not accommodate the requirements for the CUP since it creates a visual problem for the neighbors. There was no action on this item since it is a Study Item. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15331 (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report 160 Elm Ave - Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Historic Resource Study 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Project Analysis 160 Elm Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >The changes are appropriate. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (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 - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project architect to get a preview of the revisions. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >None. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Barbara and Terry Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture and landscape architect Stephanie O'Rourke. Commission Questions/Comments: >How tall is the wood-sided surface on the driveway facade? (Pearcy: Estimates a little over 10 feet.) >Would it be possible to move the foundation so the tree could be retained? (Pearcy: It is a tree that deserves a park -like setting. The canopy is 50 feet in diameter. Over time it has outgrown its location . Probably went in at a smaller size. To build with a tree that size it would need a 20 foot setback from the trunk, which would disrupt the consistent street face setbacks. It is difficult to provide landscaping with the root system and shade.) >Any possibility to push the garage back from the fence or lower the massing? (Pearcy: Has added screening trees to the east of the garage along the fence line. Three English laurels are proposed, which are thick canopy trees that grow vertically and retain leaves all year. There are also three existing trees on the neighboring property. The garage is set back 2 feet from the property line, has an 8-foot plate line . Gable is pitch is 6/12 to match the existing house.) >How tall will the laurel trees grow? (Pearcy: Starts in 24-inch boxes, 6-8 feet at planting .)(O'Rourke: Will grow to 15-25 feet.) >How tall will the plantings grow along the driveway? (O'Rourke: About 8 feet.) >Has the gate been pushed back to the point where the existing low landscape wall is? (Pearcy: It is at Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the transition of the existing brick wall and the existing wood fence.) Public Comments: Irv Holmes, neighbor to the north - 15-foot high building will impose over the yard, compromise view, destroy quality of space. Character of the home will be gone forever. Two of the existing trees in the yard are deciduous so will not provide screening. Simultaneously three new home constructions will be going on around the house, on both sides and the rear. The other two sides are installing new high -quality fences, but these plans do not specify a new fence. Should place a new fence to match the others along the border. Kathy Holmes, neighbor next door to 125 Crescent Avenue - Large garage /workroom will significantly impact privacy and views. Existing Burlingame code falls short of protecting the privacy of its current residences. Current code provides incentives for building bigger homes on smaller lots, and incentives for building detached garages with lots of concrete. Needs more restrictive building codes. Two homes are currently under construction in the vicinity, built virtually to the property line with no regard to the privacy of the neighbors and no green space. Desires protection of privacy, space and views of current homeowners. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would like to minimize the apparent massing of the structure in the back yard. Suggests the applicant lower the roofline or ridgeline, or move the garage back further from the fence. >The ordinances were crafted with the implementation of design review over 15 years ago. They were very detailed and meant to address the "monster homes" that were being built at the time. The current design guidelines are creating some very well-crafted homes. >The proposed garage is 2 feet from the property line, which is a greater setback than typical. >The massing of the proposed garage is like many others that have been approved in the past. >The bathroom in the garage has been removed, landscaping has been added, and the gate has been adjusted. The tree in the front yard is the wrong type of tree for that location and has overgrown the property, and is next to two substantial street trees. >The proposed house is consistent with other well -crafted, nicely-detailed, well-proportioned houses that have been approved based on the application of the design review guidelines. >The community may choose to reconsider the design review guidelines in conjunction with the General Plan Update if desired, but that it is not the subject of this application. >The applicant has addressed everything that was brought up in the prior meeting. >Meets the pattern that the community has adopted. >Only concern is the driveway wall facade, but not critical. >Should add a condition that a new property line be built along the property line. The existing sheds will be taken down. >Have met the neighbors more than half way with the concessions, particularly the elimination of the CUP requests. However the unbroken siding on the north facade is a major concern, as well as eliminating the existing tree in the front. >Believes the garage will have minimal impact on the adjacent back yard, particularly with the ridge sloping away. >Needs to fix the wall on the driveway side. It is too long and tall, and not a good neighbor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item . The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 2 - Terrones, Sargent Nay: 3 - Gum, Kelly, Loftis Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the Action Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item with direction to: >Revisit the driveway wall; and >Address the fence issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item, noting a prior business relationship with the property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant and designer after the last meeting to clarify some of the comments from the meeting. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the window trim overlapping the trim board that comes under the rafters? (Raduenz: It can be slid over. It had been centered on the room.) >It is still very vertical. Has there been consideration to reducing the plate heights to 9 feet on the first floor and 8 on the second? (Raduenz: Amicable, but would prefer keep the first floor as proposed.) >Any potential to work around the double tree - even half of it? (Raduenz: The location of the tree makes the site unusable, it is right in the rear middle of the property.) >Would benefit from reducing the plate heights. There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. >It would benefit from reducing the plate heights. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: >The plate heights shall be reduced to 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor, to be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - d.3016 Alcazar Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a Condtitional Use Permit for window and plate height for an approved detached accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Mia Zunni, IwamotoScott Architecture, applicant and architect; Michael Mazza, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 3016 Alcazar Dr - Staff Report 3016 Alcazar Dr - Attachments 3016 Alcazar Dr - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor to the left at at 3024 Alcazar Drive. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Craig Scott, Mia Zinni and Liam Cook of IwamotoScott Architecture represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Does the owner have an idea of what this could cost? It is an ambitious design, and if it is approved it is expected to be built as proposed. (Scott: The team has a civil engineer, a structural engineer and a builder, and has obtained three estimates. It is not an unknown.) >Has the proposed project been shown to the uphill neighbors? (Zinni: Client notified all neighbors with a letter, and has spoken to those who responded. Said he received an email from the uphill neighbor saying that it sounds like an interesting project.) >The two existing pine trees are being removed. (Scott: Those types of trees have had problems in the vicinity, with large limbs falling off. The project will include two new trees to replace those removed.) >Are the root systems of the large trees keeping the hillside stable? (Scott: There is a soils report and geotech engineer on the team, and they have not brought that up. There is other significant vegetation . Will be building some substantial retaining walls with the project.) >Trees provide screening from the street. Any thoughts to mitigate the apparent increased massing of the house and second unit? (Scott: The structure is so low, that the canopies of existing trees are higher than the roofline and therefore would not provide screening. The hedge and the fence provide dense foliage and the unit will be concealed. This is the most buildable part of the lot, and it would not be possible to build there and retain the trees without damaging the root system.) Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Bonnie Menicucci, 3021 Atwater Drive: Would like to know how the excavation may affect drainiage for any pooling of water? Will it be draining to the houses below? (Kane: Under California law, water cannot drain onto another property. Staff can follow up.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the design - it is complementary to the home and serves as an extension of the hillside. >OK with the plate height. It's mostly about the topography of the lot. >Is well-screened from the neighboring properties. >Highly sculptural, introspective project. It does not do a lot for a town or city in terms of urbanity, but the site does not require it to be so it can be supported here. It is a "backyard" project. >Concern it would be noticable from the street, and whether it would have good interface with the neighbors. >Did not find anything else in the neighborhood that matches the style. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Nay:Gum1 - Absent:Gaul1 - e.121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1- Application for Conditional Use Permits to legalize an accessory living space with a full bathroom and windows within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Wei and Shirley Feng, property owners ) (62 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 121 Humboldt Rd - Staff Report and Attachments 121 Humboldt Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is the unit currently occupied, and for how long? (Hurin: Is not aware of the unit being occupied.) >Could it meet the requirements for an ADU? (Hurin: Meets minimum lot size, and parking could be accommodated. It is the applicant's choice not to proceed as an ADU.) >If it is approved, it could be rented out similar to a spare room? (Hurin: Correct.) >Will the window in the rear will be removed? (Hurin: Correct, Condition #3 requires it to be removed.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Straightforward. Could be approved as an ADU. >House is significantly below FAR limits. >Commission has had issues with full baths in garages. This is a full bath in an accessory structure, not a garage. There is nothing that would encourage the conversion of the garage into living space - the house already has a full garage. There is not the issue of converting a garage into living space. >As a single story, it fits right into the neighborhood. >Surrounded by multifamily. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Action Item . Mayor Brownrigg asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - f.722 Crossway Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as built changes to a previously approved application for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 722 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 722 Crossway Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Commissioner Gum was recused from this item. Commissioner Kelly took position as chair of the meeting. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report, There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Kelly opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant, with contractor Bill Buckleman. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Why was this not built as approved? (Buckleman: Aspects of the house created a domino effect with the various roof elements. It could not be physically built and tied into the lower roof, as well as be structurally supported from the face of a 2 x 4 wall. Just wanted to get it finished and the occupants moved in.) >Why not come in for the changes earlier after discovering the problems? (Buckleman: Has not worked in the City before, did not know. Multiple structural changes inside. Decided to wait until it was finished . Has come up with some ideas that would simulate what was originally approved.) >Was the designer involved after construction started? (Buckleman: Yes. She worked on the revisions to the doors. Understood from Planning staff that it would take 2-3 months to go back to the Planning Commission, and could not leave the job unfinished without a roof that long through the winter.) >Was the designer involved when the issues developed with the structural elements? (Buckleman: Structural engineer was involved in the issues related to the structure. After learning from staff and the designer how long it would take to go back to the commission, determined couldn't stop the construction for that long, particularly since changes kept coming and knew there would be more. The roof was built like an umbrella over the top, then worked from the roof down to keep the rain off of the project. Was concerned first with the structural aspects, and the appearance would be the last thing as changes kept coming up. Planned to bring all the changes together at the end.) >Massing coming off the back is odd. Coming down from the gable where the fascia comes down, then kicks out at a different angle, is there a reason why it couldn't have come down at an angle closer to what was approved? Then the rest of the mass would have been a bigger dormer off of the other roof . (Buckleman: Would have had problems with an egress window. The problems started around the other side of the house. Could not tie into the pitch of the lower roof.) >Confused with the jogs on the floor plans. (Buckleman: The construction follows the structural plans . There are floor beams carrying the walls - followed those walls. The jogs were not shown on the original plans but were shown on the structural engineering plans, and the construction followed the structural plans.) >The originally approved design was simple and elegant, and handled the massing nicely. Have the as-builts been looked at to get closer to the original design? (Gann: The louvered vent was moved down to the other gable since it did not work there, and decided to put a band across to break up the massing.) There were no Public Comments. Commissioner Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The original approval was an elegant design, simple and straightforward. Applicant reports they couldn't wait, or be bothered to follow the approved plans. >Would the project be approved as presented now? Probably not. The expectation is that projects should be built as approved. If issues come up, the expectation is for the contractors to come back. >Would not expect the homeowner to manage the construction process, but contractors and designers should know better and manage the process. The contractors and designers need to be held accountable to building to the approved plans. >Difficult to review major changes after the fact. >It appears there may have been some opportunities to come closer to what was approved, in keeping with the aesthetic of the original approval. >Professionals have put the property owner in this position. However the property owner retained the professional and also has responsibility. >The initial design had a simplicity and elegance that was easily approved. >Applicant needs to look at how it can become more in conformance to the initially approved design . Needs to be more than cosmetic changes such as a couple of pieces of new fascia. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Gum1 - g.339 Primrose Road, zoned DAC - Application for a Parking Variance to replace an existing personal service use with an office use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Home Care Assistance, applicant; John Matthews Architects, Architect; Gisela Scigliano, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 339 Primrose Rd - Staff Report 339 Primrose Rd - Attachments 339 Primrose Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Was the applicant asked to stop work? (Hurin: Yes, the space was occupied without a permit. A building permit was applied after the fact.) >Do we know how many employees were in the previous use? (Hurin: One or two.) >How long has the in-lieu fee been in place? (Hurin: Since April 2000.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, John Matthews Architects, represented the applicant, with business operator Denise Garrett. Commission Questions/Comments: >Existing floor plan shows there was less office space than retail. (Matthews: Initially were trying to come in as a retail tenant, but long-term wants to have more office space and be an office tenant.) >Is the business a major corporation, or a "mom-and-pop" start-up? (Matthews: They have offices nationwide.)(Garrett : 40 corporate offices across the country, as well as 100+ franchise offices. Always wants to be in a storefront, so seeks retail space.) >51% retail/49% office is an interim strategy for current operations? (Matthews: Yes. For long-term needs to be approved as office with a parking variance.) >Would the parking in -lieu fee be a hardship? (Matthews: Went into the application knowing what the potential fee could be.)(Hurin: The fee may be full payment, or could be a prorated faction of a space.) >5 employees to start, then will rise to 9. Would the number of visitors stay the same? (Matthews: Most of the staff go to the clients' homes. Not a lot of walk-in traffic.) There were no Public Comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >With other downtown properties have been able to accept variances since there is nowhere to build Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes parking. >Can accept the proportional fraction of the fee as mitigation. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve Action Item with the following condition: >Assessment of the fractional in-lieu fee of $23,286.12 as mitigation for the Parking Variance. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1341 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1341 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1341 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1334, 1336, 1337, and 1340 Vancouver Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant, with developer/contractor Eric Wong. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why the standing-seam metal roof? (Chu: Wanted to be a bit different. Trend is traditional roof form with some modern materials.) >Will the fencing all the way around the property be rebuilt? The landscape plan does not clarify. (Chu: Will check.) When talking to the neighbors, should talk about coordination if the fence is being replaced. >Add some taller specimen plants such as nandina for the driveway rather than only low -lying ground cover. >Clarify the window selection. Plans specify Anderson 400 aluminum clad, but that's a vinyl window. Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Metal roof would expose a long surface of metal facing the street, would have a significant presence on the street. >Siding above and stucco below feels like a wedding cake, with one thing stacked on top of another thing. >The two side elevations do not look organized, like a rambling farm house that has been added onto over the years. >Could tolerate the rambling farmhouse look if it did not have the stark differentiation between the first and second floors. >Left elevation with shed roof below and and pop -out dormer above is literally a wedding cake. Could have a vertical element that breaks the line between the first and second floor, all one material. >Nicely reminiscent of the existing massing. The new house looks like a mirror image of the existing house if it had a second story added. >Special permit for height is justifiable. The overall house is only 24'-6" from adjacent grade, which is typical for a normal house, and the plate heights are acceptable. Fits into the neighborhood since it is in a low point in the block. >Too much metal roof. Not opposed to the metal roof, but there is too much of it. >Materials on the second floor make it stand out too much, would like to see something softer. >Does not like clashing of the second story materials with the roof. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, 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, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling. (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What makes the lot substandard? (Hurin: 50 feet is the minimum for a new lot. Anything less than 50 feet is classified as substandard.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith represented the applicant with designer Jaime Rapadas. Commission Questions/Comments: >(Meredith: are Milgard Montecito windows acceptable?) Commission: The commission has not typically approved vinyl windows, but the applicant may submit a proposal for consideration. In evaluating the window the commission considers the window profile, design details, muntin bars, etc. Providing a Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes sample of the window is more helpful than only a cut sheet. >Why a full bath right across from the powder room on the first floor? (Meredith: The family room, great room and office has a full bath. It's just a half bath coming in from the side door. >Porch is minimal - not much more than a stoop. Have options been explored for having a more gracious porch? Can exempt up to 200 square feet from floor area. (Meredith: The distance between the stairs and the corner at the door is not very large. Making the porch larger would shrink the distance.) Public Comments: Eric Haseleu, 233 Channing Road: Back yard abuts the back yard of the subject property. Eager to see the proposed project built. However back of garage comes almost to the fence, with only 1 foot in between. Leaves will get stuck between the fence and the back of the garage, will be hard to paint, and will attract animals. Requests to move the garage forward 1 foot so there is enough space to get between the fence and the back of the garage, to keep the area clean and be able to keep the back of the garage maintained. Rebecca Haseleu, 232 Stanley Road: Shares a property line with the subject property. Neighbor at 315 has same situation with garage almost to property line. Can only maintain the back of the garage by coming into the adjacent yard. Would prefer that the garage be moved further in to provide enough space for someone to maintain it. Otherwise supports the application. Palm tree is right in the middle of the lot, curious whether it could be moved rather than removed. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Palm tree root ball could be 8-10 feet deep, so could be a big undertaking to move it. Does not like to see it go, but it is right in the middle of the property. >Needs some work in massing and detailing. >Left side elevation is stark and flat, needs to be addressed. >Does not have a hierarchy in the windows from the first floor to the second floor. >Rear elevation is flat - could have an eyebrow or porch roof over the french doors. >A more generous porch could help, even if it is something narrow that extends across the front of the house with a turned gable. >Landscaping is shown as bark - would prefer plantings to help soften the driveway wall. There is enough room for some shrubs or bushes. >Coordinate the fencing with the neighbors, in relation to the position of the garage. Could consider stopping the fencing at the garage so that the back of the garage serves as the edge of the yard and can be maintained. >Would benefit from a design review consultation. >Attention should be given to the small windows on first floor, the size of the porch, articulation on left side. >Side gables on the front elevation seem odd. >Would benefit from articulation and detailing. Rear and left elevations are stark, with tall amounts of solid stucco. >All the eaves on the second floor are the same - gives it a "bath tub ring" effect. Could break the line with a dormer or bay to provide relief and bring down the massing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Gaul1 - Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke with neighbors Paul Bliss and Matt Traduskis. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Does the average setback include 1025 Capuchino, which is way back on the site? (Hurin: When calculating the average setback, corner lots are excluded as well as the highest and lowest setbacks.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has a window type been specified? (Grange: Not a specific brand, but it will be aluminum -clad simulated divided lite.) Public Comments: Paul Bliss, 1041 Capuchino Avenue: Parking is the biggest problem on the street. There are a lot of apartments towards the Broadway side of Carmelita, and duplexes all around. Concern that cannot get streets cleaned. People park cars and take ride hailing service to the airport. Likes the project, but is concerned with the parking. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Rendering establishes a nice presence from the street, but the long elevations on the sides look like motels. The version with the clapboard siding looks more palatable than the stucco /tile roof version. The elevations are unbroken and the ridge line insistent. They are imposing - wonder if they could be broken up or separated with space in between, or breaking up the second floors with decks to break up the continuity. >Setback variance is supportable in that it forms an edge to the street. >Most of the homes in the neighborhood look like single family homes, whether they are single family or duplexes. These look large from the face, not just the side. Seems like it is trying to squeeze too much into the lot. >Likes that they are both different. >Lot is unique with the river traversing, so can support the variance. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Given there are seven protected trees and five to be removed, thought is if the massing is being broken up perhaps another tree or two could be saved. Chair Gum re-opened the public hearing. >Grange: The palm can remain. Public Works requires all the trees to be removed off the top of the culvert, and half of the trunk of the oak tree is sitting over the culvert. Although seven trees are being removed, 21 are being planted. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the application back on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS No Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner reported that there will be a General Plan community meeting on October 11th at 7:00 at the recreation center. a.1601 Sanchez Avenue - FYI for review of an as -built change to a previously approved Design Review project. 1601 Sanchez Ave - Memorandum 1601 Sanchez Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 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 October 10, 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 October 20, 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 16City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017