Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.01.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 11, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes were not available for approval. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Constance Quirk, 605 Lexington Way, spoke on this item: >Consequences of multiple projects on a small area, on a small street. >Four projects slated for spring in the neighborhood, a fifth moving forward. >Commissionn should be aware of approving projects in close proximity that are on a similar timeline . Staff should develop a plan of choreography so neighborhood is not unduly burdened. >Concern with 600 Vernon Way. Would like to talk to applicant about privacy. >Most people when adding second story additions are not living there. The neighbors are and are most impacted. Traffic and noise concerns. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - a.1252 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions and a new detached garage (Jesse Guerse, Geurse Conceptual Design Inc., applicant and designer; Tyler Aguinaldo and Shiva Malek, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b.1357 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Driveway Width Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Eric Korman and Jennifer Wang, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1244 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Chris Day, Day by Day Designs, applicant and designer; Sun Park and Robert Bakin, property owners) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Chris Day, Day By Day Designs, represented the applicant with property owner Robert Bakin. Commission questions/comments: >None. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concern last time it looked like it would appear to be a larger house on top of a smaller house . Having it in the back avoids disrupting the front facade and blends in nicely with the rest of the neighborhood. Concern with massing in back is privacy of neighbors, with potential for second story windows looking down into back yards. However this project ends at the same place as the neighboring houses on each side, so should not be a concern. >Have addressed the previous concerns and questions of articulation and details. Massing is handled well, nicely detailed, good choice of materials, will not impose on the neighbors. >Preserves scale of front facade. 3d image shows it nestles behind the front facade nicely. >Had been concerned with project looking like a house behind a house. Looks like two homes. >Meets the design guidelines. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Nay:DeMartini1 - b.2714 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Floor Area Ratio Variance to convert crawlspace to habitable area (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, Architect; Bill Cunningham-Corso, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Item postponed at the applicant's request. c.1409 Chapin Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a real estate use (David Black, CBRE Inc., applicant; Kevin Cullinane Trust, property owner ) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There are 43 parking spaces, plus 30 on a separate adjacent lot. Is the separate adjacent lot exclusive to this building? (Gardiner: Exclusive to the building tenants.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. David Black, CBRE, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Are the 12 employees agents or staff? (Black: 4 to 6 brokers, 2 to 3 staff, 3 to 4 property/construction managers.) >Meeting place for agents? (Black: Largest conference room is approximately 10 x 15 feet, holds up to 12 people. Four other conference rooms.) >Currently occupying space? (Black: Building owner had not mentioned need for CUP when took occupancy. Has occupied space for about two months.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Surprised they have to go through this process for a real estate office. >The use is consistent with the other uses in the area, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to other uses. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - d.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new 3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber This item was moved to the end of the agenda at the request of the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini had met with the applicant previously. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. >Can conditions of approval require retail on ground floor to remain retail and not convert to office? Parking count is based on assumption of retail space on ground floor. (Gardiner: If calculations are based on retail use and the application is presented with retail use, a condition could be considered.) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Toby Levy and Franco Zaragoza, Levy Design Partners, represented the application with applicant Dimitrios Sogas. Commission questions/comments: >Design looks almost the same as the previous design, but wings are missing. Other than swapping colors what changes were made? (Zaragoza: Square mass as starting point, then the influence of the site having the building step back. The louver system was simplified because it had become too busy and did not feel inviting. Simplified so screen and louver system is more cohesive on all sides of the building.) >What glass will be used? (Zaragoza: Storefront will be fully transparent. There may be head transoms for ventilation, and recessed lighting for a well-lit streetscape at night.) >Have revised plans been shared with the community? (Sogas: Had a site meeting but not with the most recent design.) >What is driving the height of the building? Would it not "pencil" with an extra floor? (Zaragoza: No it would not.)(Levy: Height is driven by the economics but also the desire to have a commercial level . Didn't want the office to be the presence.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Does not like what the project does at the ground level. There are two drives into two different garages which takes up a lot of the ground floor space. The drive that splits the lobby from the retail is undesirable. Retail is on the wrong side. If building was lower would not need as much parking. If could be solved with one parking access that did not split the ground floor spaces would be more desirable. >Building has not changed much from earlier versions. >Thinks retail is in right location. Seeing confluence at corner of Myrtle of retail space and adjacent courtyard space, coupled with commercial spaces across the street as adding urban vibrancy. If retail is on East Lane loses opportunity for retail to contribute to the neighborhood. >Likes simplicity of Myrtle elevation: glass cube as anchor, with band of solid. East Lane elevation has fin walls reintroduced. It is hanging together as a building. >Would prefer to see less parking on ground floor but building needs to work. Offices have been lifted up and retail put below to create some life on the street. >Surrounding buildings are shorter. The market across the street is about 26 feet, as is building to north. Could drop top floor, just have parking underground and have the ground floor be retail and /or office. >Architectural design is supportable. Has been responsive to design suggestions. Commission has not provided clear direction to redesign ground floor. There are buildings within a 1- or 2-block radius that are similar height. >Small streets and varied commercial /residential of Myrtle Road area suggests building that is not as massive and high as this one. Likes architecture but not sure this is the right building for this location. >If retail was on East Lane it would not be successful. Should support neighborhood. Will allow neighbor to walk there without crossing railroad tracks. >Heights are acceptable - needs taller plate heights for office. >Front elevation has not changed much. Was expecting to see something different, more like first design. >Would like more landscaping, more trees. >Issue is not with height, it is with trying to solve the ground floor problem. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and environmental review. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli Nay: 4 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Gaul Project is deemed Denied Without Prejudice. Commission discussion: >Process has resulted in design by committee. >Concern with ground floor glazing, and garage entrances. Has not seen evidence of looking at alternative parking scenarios. >Commission needs to give guidance for why application was denied. Architecture, layout and flow, height? Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commission discussion: >What would approval of the environmental review do in absence of a project approval? >Is concern with the ground floor an environmental issue or design review? Commissioner Terrones withdrew the motion. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application for Conditional Use Permit for building height. Aye: 5 - Sargent, Terrones, DeMartini, Loftis, and Bandrapalli Nay: 2 - Gum and Gaul Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application for Rear Setback Variance. Aye: 7 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commission discussion: >Concern with relation to traffic patterns with ground floor parking garage. If design changes would that impact Mitigated Negative Declaration? (Gardiner: Less productive to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration if there is uncertainty what the form of the project will be.) Commissioner Terrones withdrew the motion. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application for Commercial Design Review. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli Nay: 4 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Gaul Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner discussion: >Liked East Lane elevation on first design, didn't like second. Became too blocky. Expected street elevation to be closer to the original design. >Height and mass too big for gateway location. Is on the edge a residential area. If height was brought down would rectify some of the parking problems. Would like to see more happening on ground floor other than parking. >Massing and size not compatible with neighborhood. >Likes vibrancy with retail on ground floor. >Larger trees. e.1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new assisted living and memory care facility (Joel I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Co ., applicant; Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroupJJR, architect; Peninsula Healthcare District, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant and their construction manager. Commissioners Bandrapalli and DeMartini met with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Cheryl Fama, CEO of the Peninsula Healthcare District, represented the applicant. >Bids for construction cost came in 25% higher than anticipated. >See what can be done without changing the quality and nature of the building. Respect the neighborhood and location across from the hospital. Joel Roos represented the applicant: >Not a traditional value -engineering exercise. Changes will render significant savings but not diminish the product. >Previously approved project had courtyard on top of podium. All plants in raised planting beds or planters, no pervious surfaces. >Revised proposal removes podium, adds parking spaces on grade, allows trees to be planted in the ground and water to penetrate between paving. >43 parking spaces with 33 below grade and 10 on grade. >Less shoring, excavation and below-grade structure. >Some utilities relocated from garage to roof. Penthouse can be seen in elevation but not in perspective from Trousdale Drive. >Change in base material from stone to porcelain tile. Commission questions/comments: >Why were stackers not used in the parking? (Roos: Evaluated but not ideal operationally. Parking is typically for employees or visitors. Can be good for residents but not employees. Would have to go deeper, into water table. Right now 12 feet slab-to-slab, would need 16-17 feet for stackers.) >Any changes to stormwater treatment measures? (Roos: Had evaluated adding water harvesting to previous proposal. As of January 1 water quaility board made decision would need to "pencil" but given $500,000 cost would not pencil. Now pursuing traditional bioretention system with benefit of removing podium.) >Where did the storage units go? (Roos: Lost storage in redesign.) Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >With changes proposed will cost gap be nullified? Expects costs to still be higher than originally anticipated. Will expect to come back for additional changes at a later date? History of other projects on the street. (Fama: Hope not to come back with further value engineering. Has looked at adding more memory care capacity to help with revenue flow, and has looked at financing structure. If it comes in as projected should come in at an amount that the District can handle.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Impact from the street is minimal. Solutions are creative. Improvement to the project and provides the ability to move forward. >Also approve extension of permit. There was a time a few years ago where extensions were common given the economy. Extensions are not uncommon. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - f.Considerations of Amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for amendments to covered porch regulations and mechanical equipment requirements. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Commission questions/comments: >Definition for mechanical equipment should include air conditioner condenser units. Wants to avoid applicants parsing language. >Although discussion is ground -mounted equipment, would not be concerned if some were in below-grade boxes such as irrigation control valves. Some have to be in front. >Fire shutoff valves are required to be in front. >List of equipment is too expansive. Genesis of discussion is air conditioning condensers as creators of noise. >Could limit just to the noise-generating equipment, particularly air conditioning equipment. >Backflow preventers need to be installed above ground in front of the house. >Can screen some of these items such as backflow preventors. >Prioritize air conditioning equipment including condensing units. >Could consider a size or decibel threshold for screening. >Not just noise, an aesthetic component. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Size of unit would not correlate with noise threshold. >Could specify air conditioning equipment including condensing units and other related pieces of equipment. >Not just noise - also aesthetic such as satellite dishes. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can see if other cities use decibel criteria. >Above-grade equipment located in the front, with screening and noise components. >Would not want noise-making equipment on the side between houses. >Can go back to subcommittee for refinement. >Visual clutter vs. sound. >Will this be addressed by the General Plan? (Kane: The General Plan is focused more on land uses.) Porches >Concern with side porches. Could have limitation on square footage, after which special permit applies. >Likes the exemption structure, would support side porches to have a 50 sq ft cap. >Side porches larger than 50 sq ft could be allowed with a Special Permit, such as on corner lots. >Thought emphasis was on front porches, but this encourages larger porches on all sides. Does not need to encourage larger back porches. Would prefer to encourage front porches only. >Originally wanted to break up flat side facades with porches. 50 sq ft is a large side porch, may be too large. Small covered balcony, just large enough to walk out onto. Lighten up the look of the house by giving some transparency. >Larger exemption so it can be spread around. Had not necessarily intended 200 sq ft front porches. >Language seems to encourage side porches. Would prefer the language only apply to front porches - front porches are the issue for neighborhood consistency. >Genesis of exemption was getting tacked -on gratuitous front porches, not large enough to be usable. Wanted to encourage larger and more gracious front porches including wraparound porches . Wraparound porches include side porch elements by definition. Could allow exemption for front porch only to promote community, street and neighborhood attachment. >Does not necessarily need to disallow side porches, but may not need to encourage them through FAR exemptions. >Projects with side porches have been denied. Exemption will encourage them. Should encourage front porches, maybe back but not side. >Does not want back porches to be bigger just to allow bigger houses. Motion to bring back to subcommittee. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the item return to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1516 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Y&W Investment LLC, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant: >Only 5 inches higher than ridge of existing house. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission questions/comments: >There are not a lot of fences on corner lots in that area. >Moving driveway for a two-car garage with a driveway next to neighbor who is not used to it. >Why was garage not on same side as existing? (Chu: Want to have maximum allowed floor area with detached garage.) >Shared with neighbors? (Chu: No. It was during the holidays.) >How many square feet is the front porch? (Chu: 218 square feet.) >Terrace walls on elevation not showing on landscape plan. Public comments: Joe (last name not provided), spoke on this item: >Concerned with proposed ridge and setback. There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Impressed with size of hose not taking away view. >Originally concerned with back left side, however proposed design alleviated concerns. >Would like to see story poles. Public hearing opened: >Want to make sure the proposed project complies with the minimum setback requirements. Public hearing closed. Discussion: >Height of ridge makes sense but the length is a concern. Needs story poles. >Story poles for entire structure or just ridge? Entire length. >Nicely designed house. >Works well with site, rather than put a two-story house on the highest point. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to have the application return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - b.2117 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Setback Variances and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design, applicant and designer; Lin and Sharon Li, property owners) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum had spoken with Rosalind Elster at 2116 Carmelita Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design, represented the applicant with property owner Lin Li. Commission questions/comments: >Design is evolving, but what is intent of design direction? (Medina: Keeping foundation and perimeter of house. Not changing garage. Kitchen not being changed, has clad kitchen volume in wood and extended across to create entry porch. Transforming dark warren -like house to make it more open . Retaining gables would cut into second floor. Modest second floor with no walk -in closets, modest size rooms. Working with proportions, openness and details such as the wood siding.) >Trying for more of a contemporary look? (Medina: Yes, not a historical re-creation.) >Will the clipped corners on the garage door be retained? (Medina: Yes. No changes except paint and a new garage door. Would paint out half -timbering to blend with proposed house rather than remove.) >Shed roof on side elevation is missing the fascia overhang. (Medina: Error in the drawing.) >What is supporting rear deck? (Medina: Cantilevered out 4 feet.) >Is the intention of the glass guard rail to keep the deck light and airy? (Medina: Yes to view into the garden, rather than cables across.) >Solid wood windows? (Medina: Yes.) >Shared plans with neighbors? (Li: Yes, they are fans of the plan.) >How was the second floor massing chosen? Why pulled to the front of the house not the back? (Medina: There is more room towards the front than the back in terms of neighbors. Closest property is at the back. Better option for neighbor privacy. Not much room to pull the volume in either direction. Not trying to hide two-story volume, better to be honest with street side and maximize privacy to rear.) >Makes house boxy, like a salt box. Frontal treatment, more frontal than existing house particularly with the modernist treatment of the kitchen. (Medina: For layout helps to position the stair towards the front of the house and retain one of the existing bedrooms. Approach is like a colonial house on the East Coast - form is more boxy, and detail is on the entrance and windows.) >Thoughts on stained vertical rain screen - is that somewhere else on the block? (Medina: No.) >Front bathroom windows opaque or clear? (Medina: At least the shower would be opaque.) >Is foundation not reinforced? (Medina: It is not reinforced. Would be attaching to the existing foundation.) Should talk to structural engineer to see how much will be able to be retained. (Medina: Would tie the new structure to existing through dowels). Will have bigger issues than just stacking walls . Concerned with variances based on existing foundation. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Should be referred to a design review consultant. Uncomfortable with boxiness. >It is a simple approach to a complex problem to apply for variances. Maybe start over given the structural issues. Too many variances. >Second floor plate height is tall. Concern with declining height envelope. >If there will have to be a lot of structural work there is less justification for stacking walls. >House doesn't fit into the neighborhood. So many variances, as well as declining height envelope. >Lot is small, but not sufficient justification. Other lots nearby are small too. >Could justify some special considerations if can solve the engineering issues. Special considerations are because of the odd configuration of the lot: 80 feet wide by 30 feet deep, so will end up with an odd solution. >Concern with how the pieces hand together, with horizontal siding, vertical stained siding, and painted-over tudor garage - could look like a 1970s renovation that was trying to be contemporary but couldn't go the distance. Stucco could work better with the stained wood siding and the garage. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Design represented as a consequence of constraints. Could support special considerations if the design was compelling. >Some commissioners (Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, Loftis) could support variances in principle . All variances related to the unusual lot configuration. Cannot build a rational building within the second floor setback triangle (as shown on Sheet A2.02). >Some commissioners concerned with variances (Gum, Gaul). Neighbors have a right to expect the house to stay within constraints. Design does not seem to be as consistent with the neighborhood as it could be. Could use some of the space between the house and garage, move some of the second story off the outside of the house to provide some relief. 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:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - c.600 Vernon Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack McCarthy, applicant and property owner; Elaine Lee designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors at 336 Vernon Way, 409 Dwight Road and 603 Lexington Way. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant . Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 605 Lexington Way. Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Elaine Lee represented the applicant, with property owner J.J. McCarthy. Commission questions/comments: >Neighbor at 605 Lexington Way has concerns about second story height and potential views into yard. Could you speak with her? Perhaps create a more developed landscape plan with screening along the back fence that would help all of the rear neighbors. (McCarthy: Has not been able to talk to neighbor yet. Based on how the lot is configured there is 40-50 feet between the houses. Is proposing a mature tree between the houses.) >Is the drought-tolerant turf shown on the plans synthetic or natural? There is a lot of turf shown on the plan. (Lee: Natural turf. Has not selected a species but it will be one that uses less water .)(McCarthy: Has budget concerns, and would like to commit to turf and do more hardcape in the future. Fearful of overcommitting but expects there will be more landscaping within 24 months.) >Are windows simulated true -divided lites? The proposed window model offers grids between the glass, but that would not be allowed. (Lee: There will be grids inside and outside. Will do dividers in between if budget allows.) >Are the pole columns on the right side elevation structurally required? They seem odd. (Lee: No, do not need them. They are meant to be decorative given the visibility of the elevation .)(McCarthy: Had been concerned about the cantilever looking awkward without a support, but it is not necessary.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Handsome-looking home, well done. >Would like to see the landscape plan developed a bit more, address the concerns of the neighbor. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016 January 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >House is unique, has three fronts since it can be seen from everywhere. Likes the posts since that side would be visible. >Top bay is only 1-1/2 feet, but poles suggest it would be deeper. Can be easily cantilevered, and aesthetically could be supported with corbels like on the other side. Otherwise columns would be just a few inches from the house once they are cased out. >House will fit nicely on the corner as a nice piece of architecture. The lot has a broad expanse before reaching Dwight Road. >Massing is handled nicely, detailing is nice. >Could show landscaping in phases so neighbors know what to expect. Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to have the application return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS None. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner reported that the General Plan Update Community Advisory Committee will be increasing its meeting frequency over the next couple of months to consider land uses in specific areas. Alternatives will be presented at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting in March. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:26 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 January 11, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 2016, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/12/2016