Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.04.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 9, 2018 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 Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and TerronesPresent5 - Comaroto, and GumAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - a.Draft February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 26, 2018 Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8c (815 Maple Avenue) has been continued to the April 23, 2018 meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1541 Adrian Road and 960 David Road, zoned RR- Application for Conditional Use Permit for a building materials supply store in an existing commercial building, a Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Conditional Use Permit and a Parking Variance to provide required parking off -site in the drainage right-of-way. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Floor and Decor c /o CenterPoint Integrated Solutions LLC, applicant; Frank Edwards Co. Inc, property owners; SRA, architect) (126 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1540 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Staff Report 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Study Minutes and Response 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Application 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Parking and Trip Gen Study 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Traffic Response 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Staff Comments 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Resolution, Notice and Aerial 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Plans - 03.26.18 Received after - 1541 Adrian Rd 3.23.18- K. Manning Received after - 1541 Adrian Rd - 960 David Rd -4.5.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Greg Saia, CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: Juan Vasquez, All Natural Stone: Concern with the parking space, had a prior agreement with the previous tenant on the use of the parking space. Already a conflict in the area with Tez Marble. GoKart utilized parking in back, but overflow was all the way down to the BMW service center. Has there been research into impact on businesses in Burlingame? Concern with businesses with part -time help. Cost of providing full-time employment with benefits is high, employees commute long distances. Big impact for a smaller business. Can only get so much taxes out of tile businesses. Busy at lunch times, lots fill up and overflow onto the street. Ali Cengiz, Tez Marble: Concern with traffic. There are problems when multiple deliveries are made at the same time. Parking is limited, the parking lots are full. Tez is a local company, compared to national company with 86 locations. Expects income losses of $50,000 to $100,000 monthly . Big loss on their side. Will cause traffic problems. Doesn't know how the future effect will be for Tez Marble, bought the building three years ago and made investment for the future. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Good that the bypass lane has been worked out in the pickup area. >Parking variance is for location, not quantity. Parking for employees will be in a satellite location. >Sympathetic to local businesses, but there is a a large vacant building with parking not being utilized . Existing businesses seem to be underparked, but this project has the quantity of parking required. >Use will be synergistic with other uses in the area. >New use will attract additional business from outside the area, which can increase the business of neighboring businesses. Starbucks and Il Piccolo have been able to coexist. >Concern of traffic at David and Adrian Roads is not the responsibility of the owners of this business, as noted in the letter from the City's engineer. >Trip generation will have negligible impact on traffic, per the engineer's letter. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - b.2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height, an attached garage, and basement. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Warren Donald, property owner and applicant; Kevin O'Brien, architect) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2208 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2208 Summit Dr - Attachments 2208 Summit Dr - Plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Warren Donald represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a plan that shows the edge of the existing asphalt drive that goes past the property? Will there need to be bollards to protect the corner of the house? (Donald: The easement line corresponds to the driveway. Houses in Burlingame with garages in the rear are accustomed to driving past their houses on narrow driveways. This is similar, but the driveway is quite a bit wider.) >Was there consideration of lowering the plate on the first floor as well as the upper floors? Still looks really vertical. (Donald: 9' first floor, 8' upper floor, tower reduced.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is imposing on the lot, but that is due to the lot restrictions. It is a narrow lot. >Well articulated, and the detailing meets the design guidelines. >Four easements and upsloping lot gives it a vertical feeling, but it is within the height requirements . Meets the height requirements even though the top of curb is lower than if it were a flat lot. >Story poles are typically used to determine limits on views. Does not believe that would inform distant views in this construction. >Can support the project but is not a fan of the project, because not a fan of the site. It has been improved by lowering it from the initial design. >Would be a better site for a one-story house, but can't punish for the lot they have to work with. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.815 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(2). (Michael Cafferkey, applicant and designer; Michael and Margaret Cafferkey, property owners) (181 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.) 815 Maple Ave - Staff Report.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Attachments.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Plans - 04.23.18.pdf Attachments: This item was continued to the April 23, 2018 meeting. d.Proposed Acquisition of Property Located at 858-860 Hinckley Road by the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for Construction of a New Continuation High School/Alternative High School. (SMUHSD, applicant; Hinckley Properties LLC, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: William Meeker Staff Report SMUHSD Notice of Intent to Acquire Property Public Hearing Notice Inner Bayshore (IB) Zoning Regulations Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent exchanged emails with a neighboring property owner. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >To clarify, this is not a Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit, or anything similar that we'd be acting on? We're just being asked to receive this information, and if so moved make a determination that there is not an objection to the intended purchase of the property? (Kane: The legislature requires a check-in with the Planning Commission about the suitability with the site. The assessment is not constrained, but the district may go ahead regardless of the findings. There would be a delay built in if the commission has a negative finding about the appropriateness. The district is allowed to be exempt from other zoning restrictions by state law, but the check -in is a requirement. Rather than a resolution, the meeting minutes will serve as the findings with a motion with the recommendation.) >If the public has concerns with the proposal, the proper body to voice the concerns would be the school district? (Kane: Correct. The school district is in charge of the development of this site. The scope for the commission is the general planning compatibility of the site with the intended use.) >For the record, because this would be defined as a project under CEQA, the school district would be taking any CEQA action in regards to the project. (Kane: Yes, the district is the lead agency.) >What public transportation is available? (Gardiner: Samtrans Route 292 travels on Bayshore Highway, and there is also the Caltrain shuttle from the Millbrae internodal station. The site is within walking distance of both of these routes. These are the existing facilities that are available now.) >What would the parking requirement be for this type of use? (Gardiner: We have not evaluated the parking for the students themselves. It would be based on square footage, but plans have not yet been developed to that level of detail. At this point the consideration is the suitability of the land use to the property, but not the specific details of the proposal.) Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Elizabeth McManus, San Mateo Union High School District, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >At some point in the future the district will put together plans for the development of the site? The district will also need to take action with regards to CEQA? There will be public hearings like those of any other public entity? Review of the project and action on the project? (McManus: Correct.) >How many students drive right now? (McManus: Less than five. This group is credit deficient, take public transit and leave school around 1:30 because they work in the afternoon to support their families . Will not be driving to school because they do not have a car to drive.) Public Comments: John Lund, 850 Hinkley Road: Has been a tenant at 850 Hinkley for two decades. Clients are radio and television managers and staff, and they visit their offices and their parking lot is full. Curious why this location was chosen? This is an area with all businesses. Has the school been approved yet? 225 students and 30 faculty is 255 people with 32 parking spaces. There is no street parking; between the Coit cleaning vans down the street and the high school administration building across the street, virtually all on-street parking is taken. Concern they will parking in the lot at 850 Hinkley. The buses are infrequent, has had employees come and go. Concern that the City will rent buses to come down the street, but there is no room on either side since parking is full. Nobody lives in the area, and there is no room for a school in the area. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Peninsula High School needs a new home. The existing school is remote to the places where the students live. >The students need some specialized attention with independent education plans to succeed. Knows the district has long been looking for a site for the school. >The school district selected the site, not the City. A project has not been approved; this item is in regards to the intent of the district to purchase the property. >The City does not oversee the school district, they are separate governing bodies. The City does not have jurisdiction to say how a public school property is developed. >Can accept the information as presented so far. Details of how the students get to school will be put forth and vetted before the school district. >Not sure what to comment on without a project. >Would like to hear more from the district why this site was selected. Public hearing re-opened: McManus: Very difficult to find a property that is centrally located within the district. Wanted to be in a commercial area since the school wants to find jobs for these students. Usually in the fall the school starts off with about 120 students, and currently there are about 170 students. 225 is anticipating maximum growth. Looking at this as an opportunity for the most challenged students to see opportunities for careers and get into a direction to find their passion. Public hearing closed. >Had not understood that there would be a further process that would involve community input. Feels more comfortable. >There are challenges with the site. There are real parking issues, but heartened to hear from the district representative that most of these students do not drive. Otherwise that would be a real concern. >While the applicant says no parking will be provided for students, would not use that as a design criteria if there is a chance for more parking including for maintenance vehicles. >In trying to envision a school here, need to recognize it is for this particular type of school . Encourages people to visit Peninsula High School to understand the profile of the students. These are students that need to work to support their family, or have fallen behind and need specific attention . Because of the socioeconomics don't have a lot of access to autos. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, that the Planning Commission acknowledges receipt of the notice, has held a public hearing and taken public testimony, and does not have objection to the intended purchase as set forth in the notice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1432 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope along the left side for a second story addition. (Geurse Conceptual Design, Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Kareem Fahmy, property owner) (124 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1432 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1432 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kareem Fahmy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was the existing family room an addition? (Fahmy: Believe so. It was there when purchased the home in 2012 but doesn't know who built it. Want to make it more consistent architecturally.) >Bulk of the work is on the interior and the back of the house, but the front of the house is unchanged? (Fahmy: Yes.) >Bay window on the second floor in Bedroom #3 turns back with a new wall. Was there consideration of just straightening the wall? (Ms. Fahmy: Did consider it, but that would entail breaking up an existing room. There are two rooms that will remain untouched upstairs. Chose to leave it as is, not include it in the remodel.)(Mr. Fahmy: Wanted to minimize impact to the rooms not being effected.) >Sheet A.5 left elevation should say right side, since A .6 also mentions left side elevation and front . The front is noted as the left side or north, but in fact it is the west elevation. >On Sheet A.6 there are a couple of windows missing on the north elevation, and they are shown as casements when they should be shown as double-hung. >Front porch roofliness don't line up as shown. The front porch roof is lower than the roof of the bedroom over the garage. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Straightforward project, readily supportable. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1316 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a second story addition and a new detached garage (Xie Guan , Xie Associate, applicant and architect; Carolyn Bao, property owner) (134 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1316 Laguna Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1316 Laguna Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Xie Guan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Windows on the east elevation have been removed, and the proposed elevation shows a blank wall. Is there a reason for removing the windows? (Guan: Existing wall is less is than 3 feet from the property line . Cannot meet the fire rating.) >First floor plate height appears to be 10 feet currently. Because the first floor is raised it gives a vertical feeling to the building. (Guan: Plate height is 9 feet.) >There is no driveway space or usable off -street parking available. Parking in the driveway would block the sidewalk. (Guan: Corner lot. Wants to keep yard space. If the garage were pushed back 3 or 4 feet it would reduce the yard.) Could instead have a single -car garage moved further back towards the left property line with a longer driveway. (Guan: Can check with the client, see if the garage could be moved 4 or 5 feet so a car could be parked in the driveway.) >Windows on Bedrooms #1 and #2 look different on the elevations compared to plans. They are very close to the corners on the elevations. Is the intention to have the windows so close to the corners? (Guan: Can shift them over.) >Are the wood details painted, or natural finished wood? (Guan: Natural finished wood.) Should be called out on the drawings consistently. >Is the type of window noted? (Guan: Noted on A3.0 note 5.) >Why metal railing on the balconies? There is a lot of wood trim, and wood railings on the front porch . Could replicate what is on the front, particularly the second floor balcony. (Guan: Yes, that makes sense.) >With double garage could offset the garage doors so there would be room for at least one car in the driveway. (Guan: Can consider.) >Make sure the notes on the plans are consistent and the leaders are accurate. >Needs to note that the exterior material is stucco. Public Comments: Isabelle Spano, 1124 Lincoln Avenue: Box on top of a box home. 1336 Laguna has been added on, with an upstairs smaller than the downstairs so it looks less massive in the neighborhood. Not a single house on Summer is two story. Just a little too big for that lot; if it matched the house at 1336 Laguna it would fit better. Has lived in the house for almost 45 years, supports renovation, but would like to look at a nice home. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Back of house could use more attention to break it up. Since it is a corner lot, sees a lot of the sides of the house. Railing changing to wood, and vertical balisters would help, maybe stepping it in slightly and giving it a roof edge, something to break up the massing. >Garage provides two covered parking spaces. There are other houses nearby that also have garages Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes close to the sidewalk. >Back of the house is a sheer surface and needs more work, but the other sides are well articulated . Otherwise a tidy little project, not an overly large house. The two very exposed faces seem well articulated, with step backs and bays, recesses and new front porch. 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:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - c.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (John Nguyen, Dulon, Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments 834 Crossway Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. John Nguyen represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the material product been selected for the siding and shingles? (Nguyen: No, except for the shake on the roof.) >Why corner boards? (Nguyen: To give it a clean edge.) Traditional homes have mitered corners. >Hard to know where the front is. The two -story elements on the front and side are very vertical, without a lot of definition between the top floor and the bottom. Has there been consideration of additional articulation, perhaps a bay on the top floor projecting out, or some other details such as knee braces or corbels in the corners and ridges? (Nguyen: Looked at some options with stepping the top floor back, but with such a narrow lot, it made it look weird.) Would encourage projecting out a bay on the front of the second floor with some corbels underneath it, knee braces in the corners, to articulate the front elevation and give it more presence. >On the side two-story elevation there is a blank wall below with stairs on the interior. Could break the sill line, get another section of window? Otherwise looks like an infill blank piece, looks plain. >Why so much concrete? (Nguyen: Extra space for parking. Needs 20 feet in front of the garage for the additional space.) Makes a harsh back yard, paves more than what is needed to meet the parking requirement. Could consider breaking it up with pavers to help soften. >Aluminum-clad windows are noted with "grids" - need to clarify that they should be simulated true-divided lites. (Nguyen: Correct.) >Site Plan shows a tree in the rear setback of the property as 4-inch, but on the survey it is indicated as 30-inches. May need permit to remove. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >On the front elevation the porch and entry is lost. The flat front and sloping roof on the porch makes it look like an apartment building. Encourages breaking up the front facade. Allowed 200 square feet for a front porch, maybe bring it further up the driveway. Public Comments: Jim Baleix, 831 Edgehill Road, located behind: Agrees with commission comments on lack of exciting character of the home. Current home is very unique and has some character. This looks like it belongs in rural Indiana. The facade is flush, it does not have large overhangs or architectural interest, the windows aren't inset or popped out. Looks very flat. Wants to make sure there is enough vegetation, there is no street tree and there is a lot of concrete, however currently there is a really nice mature water -sensitive front yard. Does not show the levels of investment that neighbors have been putting into their homes. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project looks formulaic. Does a lot of right things but lacks the charm it should have given the amount of articulation. Has some good decisions, but also some that are implemented badly. >Constrained by the lot being very narrow in the back, and the lot being long, so the house takes on that character. The proposal is below maximum floor area so there is some opportunity to add things around that could add to the character of the project. >Should consider reworking the front, not just adding a bay. Could move the front porch forward, create more of a presence on the street and add some articulation. >With other projects there have been privacy concerns with having a side -facing front door, and could potentially be an issue here with the front door being glass. 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:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - d.401 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new attached two-car garage (Robert Boles, Beausoleil Architects, applicant and architect; Jeremy and Margret Werner TR, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 401 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 401 Occidental Ave - Attachments 401 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 401 Occidental Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Robert Boles, Beausoleil Architects, represented the applicant. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >What will serve as powder room for the pool? (Boles: Powder room in the mud room.) >What is purpose for the large doors coming from the back of the garage on the West Elevation? (Boles: Owner is a maker person, has lots of hobbies, wants garage that can be used as a workshop.) >Is the exterior door into the water heater space really going to be as tall as shown? (Boles: Yes, space will have a water heater on the top level and other equipment on the lower level, is a split level mechanical room.) >Landscape plan shows a new 7 foot tall fence along the right hand side of the property, have your clients had a chance to talk to the neighbors about rebuilding that fence? (Boles: Yes, have discussed the fence with them.) >Are people confident they can pull in an out of the garage at an odd angle? Suggest testing it to make sure cars will be able to park in the garage. (Boles: Yes, believe they can. A pull -out area is provided adjacent to the garage which will help pulling out.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice job...will be interesting to build. >Applicant understands the questions that have been raised, none of which seem problematic. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - e.118 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Kevin O'Sullivan, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 118 Loma Vista Drive - Staff Report 118 Loma Vista Drive - Attachments 118 Loma Vista Drive - Plans - 3.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones reported that he met Commissioner Sargent on the property but did not discuss the project. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant, with property owner Kevin O' Sullivan. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Where did the eyebrow entry archway come from? Seems alien to the rest of the building. (Chu: Can be reconsidered.) >Reason for the blank wall on the right side elevation along the kitchen? Consider adding windows to either side of the cooktop? (O'Sullivan: Wanted room for kitchen cabinet space.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Eyebrow seems alien to the rest of building. Does not seem to fit the style of the rest of the building. >House is nicely articulated. >Rest of house is consistent with itself. >Kitchen is large and long with windows on just one side. Encourages some small windows. Blank wall is not a highly visible part of the facade, but kitchen would be nicer with light on a couple of sides. >Talk to neighbors about new fencing on both sides. >Has the level of complexity that is expected. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - f.1010 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story house and a Conditional Use Permit for a detached new garage with a half bath (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jessica Casey, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 1010 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1010 Cabrillo Ave -Attachments 1010 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant, with property owner Ramon Arce. Commission Questions/Comments: >The staff report says this is new construction, but there will be some walls remaining? (Grange: Started out designing as a remodel. Owners did not just want to wipe the site clean. Keeping the subfloor Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and the framing, and expanding on that.) >Is the bathroom in the garage for the kids? (Arce: Has a lot of family stuff in the backyard and kitchen, so this is so they do not need to go in and out. Something more than a sink.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. >Well articulated. >Great to see a shared hall bath. >If replacing fencing coordinate and cooperate with the adjacent neighbors. >Landscape plan needs to be updated. The side door on the garage is different than what is shown on the floor plan. >Questioning whether the CUP half bath in the garage could be approved here; have they not been approved in other applications? >Full bath has not been allowed on other applications, but there have been various instances where a half bath has been approved. >Fully-developed back yard justifies a CUP for the half bath. It looks like a place where there will be a lot of family activity. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - g.841 Rollins Road, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope and for an attached garage (Joe Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant; Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property owners) (125 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 841 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 841 Rollins Rd - Attachments 841 Rollins Rd - plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kevin Peng represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The east elevation does not properly show the side of the garage. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The declining height envelope is shown on wrong place on one of the elevations. It should not be on the drawing on the right side. (Hurin: Staff can work with the applicant to make sure it is shown correctly.) >Needs a cricket along the garage for the drainage, otherwise there will be water intrusion. It also does not look very good aesthetically. (Peng: Yes, will need a cricket or flashing.) >Window selection would want to match traditional windows styles, either with a wood window or a clad-wood window. Vinyl sliders don't typically match traditional building stock. (Peng: Has selected Milgard Montecito.) >Should bring a sample. Montecito and Tuscany are good windows. >East elevation second floor is catilvered over the deck. That does not show on the south elevation . Could help to break it up, perhaps with a trim board to help set it off. >Could consider extending the far slope of the garage up to the house. Would tie it together and eliminate some of the boxiness. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would benefit from consultation with a design review consultant. >Loses the charm of the existing house. >Proposal almost blends with the apartment buildings, but those have more detail and articulation. >The size of the house compared to the garage is odd. Doesn't need to increase the size of the garage, but could decrease the size of the house. >A two-story house in the area can look fine, but doesn't need to look like an apartment building. >Declining height envelope encroachment runs the full length of the house. Creates a big tall blank wall. >No articulation in the window detailing. >No hierarchy between the first floor and second floor. >Second floor plate height is taller than the first floor, making the mass and bulk taller. >Garage roof should be reconsided, will need a huge cricket that will change the character. >Cantilever of the second floor along the side needs to get articulated and detailed properly. >Front porch could be added to help bring down the massing. Up to 100 square feet of porch square footage will be exempt from the FAR. >Garage needs to be revisited; it is a detached garage that happened to bump into house and then became attached. Ordinarily the attached garage is well integrated with the design of the house. Could consider a detached garage with minimal separation. >Could support the special permit for an attached garage if it is well integrated into the massing of the house. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones reported on his attendance at the Planning Commissioners' academy. It was worthwhile and encourages commissioners to attend in the future. 425 attendees. Two tracks: fundamentals, and emerging issues. Opening general session with speaker Dan Walters, a political columnist from Sacramento, speaking on housing crisis in the state, noting that state needs to be Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building 180,000 units per year to meet demand. There was a session on modernizing design guidelines, to accommodate contemporary and modern projects. Also infill projects, form -based codes, privacy guidelines, specialized zone districts for historic areas and designated neighborhoods. Case study of Calabassas community engagement process for all projects. Discussion of SB 35, public records act, encouragement to use city emails for commission business. Presentation on free tools and resources : city GIS systems, League of California Cities, Western Cities, Institute for Local Government training videos and white papers, historicaerials .com, communitycommons open source website with gis data, USGS with topographical maps, and visualizing density. Will provide a link to the materials. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted that there will be a focus group for the Parks Master Plan on April 18th, and they would like a representative from the Planning Commission to attend. a.305 Burlingame Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 305 Burlingame Ave - fyiAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 9, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 19, 2018, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018