Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.11.25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California November 25, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the November 25, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, and Terrones. Absent: Commissioners Davis and Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Assistant Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 4, Item 2 (1378 DeSoto Avenue); bullet #2 should read, “there is nothing holding up approval of the project.”  Page 6, Item 3 (122 Stanley Road); bullet #5 should read, “Willing to change it to windows however.”  Page 10, Item 4 (960 David Road); last bullet in first list should read, “Would those other vehicles be subject to the peak and off-peak hours?”  Page 10, Item 4 (960 David Road); last bullet on page, delete the word “may.” Motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1. 114 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JOE SABEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JULIE AND LONO BELLOMO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Consent Calendar, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, ARCHITECT; MAYA EYDELMAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner DeMartini recused himself from this item, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He left the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. William Pashelinsky represented the applicant:  Concurred with the comments from last meeting  Brought the height down to 9’-6”  Great improvement, nice addition to what is there.  Gives nice presence. Commission questions/comments:  Consider a hip rather than gable on the porch roof? (Pashelinsky: A hip is difficult and would bring the roof right on top of the doors. It would be unattractive and incongruous. Proportion would be problematic.)  Why couldn’t it come straight from where it is now? (Pashelinsky: Because it is too small relative to the top of the arch. It could be a nice look, but it is problematic. You would have to raise the whole thing up.)  Could you clarify the overall height of the addition? (Strohmeier: 9” lower than the previous proposal, but the plate height is 1’ lower.)  So height would be 14’-3”? (Pashelinsky: Yes)  Have you considered a single door rather than double doors in order to tie into the neighborhood? (Pashelinsky: Owner would prefer double doors) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 3 Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Appreciate that they are trying to make the look of the house better. It is a big boxy design.  Has nice proportions, makes it a bit better. The public hearing was re-opened.  On the landscape plan it appears there is a tree missing. Is this a new tree or is an existing tree being removed? (Pashelinsky: It is a new tree. Will include the required tree.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  OK approving, but make sure dimensions are corrected on the plans.  New tree should be included as a condition  Do the corrections need to come back as an FYI? (Strohmeier: When the plans are submitted to the Building Division, if these are conditions of approval will make sure on the Building Permit set that these match.) Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 12, 2013, sheets A-1.01 through A-3.02 and sheet L1, with the following amendments: a. The maximum height shall be 14’-3” to the top of the gable at the front entry porch. b. A new landscape tree shall be added to the landscape plan, consistent with previously submitted plans; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s June 25, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 21, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s June 25, 2013 and September 24, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's June 20, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 19, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 4 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 5 Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused.). Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. 3. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 15, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Commissioner DeMartini indicated he met with owner prior to first meeting. Commissioner Sargent was not at the meeting but watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no other ex- parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner questions to staff:  The revised plan shows what is being considered for the final proposal? (Strohmeier: Yes.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant:  Building is an odd shape with an odd lot.  All variances from the approved design were made with the intention of making the building look better.  Building suffered because it was being reviewed in not quite finished condition. Some of the landscaping and trim not installed. Judged harsher than if brought finished product with colored renderings.  Without landscaping it looks harsh – hard to warm up to the building. Building looks much different and inviting with landscaping.  Owner has agreed to adopt nearly all the changes suggested from the design review consultant.  When the owner got the stucco sample she was not happy – too rough in her mind. Currently it is a 30 mesh stucco finish, but a 15 or 20 mesh will look better, smoother.  Hallmark of Downtown Burlingame that not all buildings look alike. Owner is happy with how building is progressing, the trim is coming together, and the canopies are lining up.  Nobody from community or neighbors have said they don’t like the building. Many people have complimented the building.  The owner got ahead of herself, but now the design has integrity and style. Commission questions/comments:  After visiting the site, it looks like there are stone bands near the parapet which aren’t shown on the plans. Is there more stone that will be going on? Or are there plans to take stone off? (Hudak: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 6 Those stone bands are being covered over by stucco. Understanding is that yes there is stone there now, but it will be covered by stucco trim.)  Has the balcony from what was there previously been eliminated? Or is it just inaccessible? (Hudak: There is no change to the envelope of the building, but the door to the balcony has been eliminated.  Interest in adding creeping vine to the building to soften it up? (Hudak: Would like to give the landscaping being put in now a chance, rather than making a decision now. The owner would be amenable to making changes later.)  Is there another way to soften it up? An evergreen creeper or ivy? (Hudak: Let us talk with our landscaper and it looks like something that could work, we can bring it back as an FYI. Loathe to agree to a change in landscaping without consulting with the landscape architect.)  Was expecting the design to have less stone. Concerned that the reason more stone is being proposed this design is because it costs more to take off the stone and replace the stucco. Thought the owner was going to take care of this with the contractor. (Hudak: The contractor misread the plans and put on too much stone. That was an unintended addition of stone. They considered all the parameters, and the design review consultant decided to leave the full stone on the first floor as it made the most sense.)  The logic of the stone seems to make sense now.  On the front canopy, the lettering is different on the plans and renderings. It says “401 California Drive.” How will this be constructed? What are the proportions? (Hudak: These will be cast letters.)  The landscaping is really good. When the magnolia trees grow up they will look really good. Public comments: David Mendell, 214 Lorton Ave spoke on this item:  Long time businessman in downtown.  A great improvement to the city.  Anxious that this project goes forward.  Will be a great entrance to downtown. It’s really appealing and inviting. Niko Longmore, 333 Lorton Ave spoke on this item:  Across the street for 12 years  Happy to have this new building. It was an eyesore before, beautiful now.  Rockwork is unbelievable. Would not want to cover the rock work.  Burlingame turning a new page for the better. Theresa Lindhartsen spoke on this item:  Resident and business owner.  Full support of the building being redone.  Old-world looking, charming.  Whole Downtown area is up and coming. Francesca Tashjian spoke on this item:  Owns Alana’s and Sixto’s.  Extremely supportive of the project.  Previous building was an eyesore.  Done a great job, loves the stone.  Gorgeous building. Once the plantings went in, it really made a difference. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 7 John Constantino spoke on this item:  Owns Kingfish, corner of San Mateo  This building is a higher standard. The look is gorgeous. Commission questions:  Is the stucco sample intended to be the stucco trim which will cover the few miscellaneous pieces of stone? (Palatella: We would like to resurface it, but I think that stucco is a heavy finish. We will use a 15-20 grade silica and we don’t have a sample of it. That actually will not be the color, and it is a 30 grade finish.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Bringing in the design consultant was a good idea, he was a terrific architect.  Building is different than where it started off. Depends on what it will look like with landscaping.  Did not like last design, and going against what was approved. But design is better than the last time.  Add condition that the address designation on the front canopy shall read “401 California Drive”, be cast letters, and be in the proportions as shown on the canopy on the front elevation. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 15, 2013, sheets A-1.0 and A-4.0 through A-4.5; and date stamped November 2, 2012, sheets A-2.0 through A-3.1 and A-4.6 through A-6.2; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2. that the address designation on the front canopy shall read “401 California Drive”, be cast letters, and be in the proportions as shown on the canopy on the front elevation; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 11, 2012, September 14, 2012 and July 26, 2012 memos, the Park Supervisor’s July 26, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's August 8, 2012 and September 17, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal’s July 30, 2012 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator’s July 26, 2012 memo shall be met; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 8 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0. (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4. 960 DAVID ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE STORAGE (KEVIN PETROVIC/FLIGHTCAR, APPLICANT; FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES D. VALENTI, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 12, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 9 Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Kevin Petrovic represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Where is main site? (Petrovic: Millbrae.)  Is there an operable site now? (Petrovic: At current time, the site is operable. Doing best to remain operable.)  Thought the Conditional Use Permit in Millbrae was revoked. (Petrovic: Disputing the revocation. Latest status is to ask the City to make an offer for back payment. It will be discussed in a closed session of the City Council tomorrow.)  One of the conditions is to store only 28 cars. There were 43 cars and two temporary structures this morning, and this evening the structures had been removed but there were 51 cars. It is not following the conditions of approval.  Don’t want to approve something that is not going to work, and put a code enforcement burden on staff. There has already been a lot of staff time spent on this. (Petrovic: Reason for things not moving expediently in Millbrae was staff. Staff took a long time to review applications and reports. We played our part in submitting what we had to ASAP, but unfortunately it wasn’t enough for us to do that. In Burlingame when it is approved, we will follow the permit for 28 cars.)  Applaud the idea, but it seems that there should be a business plan first. This sounds like it’s evolving as you go. These parking lots are jammed with cars. I don’t know if this site is right – it’s like 10 lbs of tomatoes in a 20 lb bag. (Petrovic: We’re searching for a 20 pound bag, but we can’t find one for the right price. We hope people will be open to our idea. It’s hard to draft a business plan when you’re only hoping for people to come. It’s not reasonable for a start-up.)  Start-ups have business plans and project their growth all the time: “build it and they will come.” (Petrovic: There is the concept of “MVP” – Minimum Viable Product. You’re supposed to launch with an MVP because you don’t know what customers will want down the line. We have no play- book to follow. We have to do it as we go. Our site in LA is more than 6 times larger than the Millbrae site. Since Millbrae was the first, we didn’t have too much foresight.)  Concerned because if you don’t have any idea what’s going to happen, would you end up relocating the main operations to the David road site? (Petrovic: We can wait it out until we see what happens in Millbrae. Or you can approve, it’s your choice. We will continue to meet the requirements.)  Likes the business concept, but concerned with how the Burlingame property is being treated. Was there an understanding that there would be more than 28 cars? (Petrovic: Over the past while, there haven’t been more than 25 to 30 cars. The site is laid out so that there are 28 spaces. In reality, since each car is smaller, if you park in such a way, it leaves room to park more cars. There is space to park more than 28 cars there.)  Only proposing to occupy 28 striped spaces? Why were there were more than 28 cars parked there today? (Petrovic: There were more due to logistics, moving cars around from another city.)  If there are 28 spaces, you are only supposed to have 28 cars. Concerned that you are not following the rules and haven’t learned your lesson. (Petrovic: I did not authorize more than 28 cars there, not sure how that happened. W ill have it rectified tomorrow.)  Hearing a lot of uncertainly. We need to be sure that these cars can be moved quickly, so we’re concerned about the number of cars – the site is in a floodplain, so we need to be able to move the cars quickly.  If they were to request more parking spaces, could that be allowed? (Gardiner: Might be able to, but that was not the proposal in the application. The application proposed 28 vehicles.)  Would all the cars need to be operable? (Gardiner: Yes.) Amy Chung, Chief Operating Officer at Anza Parking, spoke on this item: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 10  I have had some run-ins with this operation. They sent someone over with a placard sending our customers to their lot. We had to call the police.  It happened again last month. They were doing the same thing at the Hilton. They also called the police.  It shows a lack of respect for the law and playing fast with the rules. We have to observe the rules or there is chaos.  I am concerned if they get the Conditional Use Permit for this lot. I am not sure they are licensed to operate in Burlingame or at the Airport. At the Commission’s request, Kevin Petrovic responded as the applicant:  It is true, in March there was an unauthorized person soliciting. Last month, we cleared it with Burlingame Police in advance. The first time we made an error. The second time we were following all applicable rules and cleared it with the authorities. Amy Chung responded:  We never gave permission for them to do this on our property. They were blocking the sidewalk and driveway and that’s a problem. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  In a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission would need to be able to make specific findings in terms of how this might impact the community. One of those concerns is staff time in administering the permit, another is how they are working in the community.  We have an application before us, but it is not clear that the application is what they are intending to do on the site.  I came to the meeting expecting to hear something different. I expected to hear about how great the property in Burlingame has been, irregardless of what is going on in Millbrae, but that is not what I have heard.  Findings need to be made that the use would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.  Findings need to show that the use would be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the General Plan. The General Plan community development goals include maintaining and enhancing the identity of the city, maintaining and improving the quality of the environment for residents and visitors.  The lot is generally full, beyond capacity. Don’t see where the applicant has been prudent in establishing themselves as one who is going to abide by the rules.  Should be concerned strictly with the application before us, not what has happened in Millbrae. The only reason to look to that issue is in terms of what this would be a satellite operation for. If this is a satellite operation for a main operation that is somewhere but we don’t know if that main operation is going to remain in Millbrae or somewhere else, concern is that puts increased pressure on this site. There is a lack of predictability, as expressed by the applicant, and it would potentially burden the neighborhood with some inconvenience as pointed out for the Conditional Use Permit findings.  Love the idea, but needs to have a better business plan in place to show that they are really parking just 28 cars. Does not want to approve as proposed – it should not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity.  What are the options? Can the Commission deny, or deny without prejudice to allow them to re- apply? (Kane: The Commission could approve, approve with conditions, deny without prejudice, or deny. A denial is effectively a denial without prejudice in that the applicant can re-apply if there is a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 11 new application with something different than was previously submitted. The Commission might want to clarify it would have a different analysis under a different set of circumstances. It can’t be pre-judged, but if the door is open for the applicant to re-apply with some different, new information that would assuage the hesitations of the commission, it would be good to state that. In making the motion it should be tied to the findings of the Conditional Use Permit for clarity of the record so that, should the applicant re-apply or the matter gets appealed, it is clear on what basis the commission is making its decision.)  Cannot make the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, in terms of the neighborhood impact, impact on the community as a whole, and accordance with the General Plan. Commissioner Sargent moved to deny the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 5-0-2-0. (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent.) Appeal procedures were advised. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 604 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; HAKAN & ESRA DANIS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated she met the neighbor when she visited the property. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  What is the block average for the front setback? (Strohmeier: The block average is less than 15 feet, but the 15-foot requirement applies.)  Is the variance needed because it is considered new construction? (Strohmeier: Yes, because of the significant construction due to dry rot. If they have to tear the bay window out there will be a variance. The front porch is projecting out more than matching the bay window.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Hakan Danis represented the applicant:  When bought the house knew that back of house was needing renovation.  Designer told us the front wall would need a variance.  Intention is to make significant improvements to the house.  Rebuild with the same look and the same position.  If pushed back, would have to move everything to the back.  Not too big – there is a second floor set back. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 12  On right hand side the space is more than 10 feet, where the requirement is 4 feet. The left side has a 6 foot setback.  Asking for permission to keep the window and porch as it is. Commission questions/comments:  The houses on the block are more typically wood sided. Have you considered it? (Danis: Yes, but like stucco for maintenance. Had a stucco house in Texas and liked it. There are some other houses in the neighborhood which are also stucco.)  The flavor of the neighborhood is wood siding. Some have been redone with stucco, but this isn’t the original style . Would like to still see that flavor, hence asking if considered wood or even composite. (Danis: We considered wood or composite. The windows are selected to match other houses in the neighborhood.)  Like the details, particularly trim on the rear elevation. Could put more trim on the front to mask the stucco. (Danis: Wanted to keep the front looking similar – keep the porch and window similar.) (Strohmeier: Regarding the front set-back, we do not include corner parcels when we determine the block average. In this instance the front set-back average is 11.25 feet. The house itself has a 15- foot front setback. The bay window projects 1’-9” into the front setback. In the R-1 code there is an exemption for bay windows for 1’-6” inches; if this window projected 1’-6” a variance would not be required.)  Might talk to the designer about breaking up the mass. Could consider wood siding on the second floor, or portions of the second floor, just to reference the neighborhood. (Danis: With the second floor setback it will not look like a very big house.) Could add more trim across front gable.  Massing is handled nicely, but it’s a matter of the details. The second floor has a lot of stucco space, a lot of free area. The massing is handled nicely, but it’s the details. (Danis: We put the triangular trim at the top to cover up the stucco, but we didn’t want to overdo or cover up everything.)  The staff report says the existing house set back 13’-3”. (Strohmeier: The existing house is set back 13’-3” to the bay. The proposed addition of the covered front porch comes out to match the bay, at 13’-3”. The requirement in the code is 15 feet or the block average, whichever is greater. In this instance the block average is less than 15 feet but the 15 foot setback requirement applies.)  Not comfortable with the variance – having trouble making a finding that there are unique circumstances here. The bay window will be replaced anyway, but won’t be maintaining the actual historic piece of the house. (Danis: It is hard to move the whole house two feet back. We are not changing the walls inside. If we move two feet backward, we have to change everything. It was built that way – we are not changing anything.)  Some walls are being maintained, but skeptical that they won’t be taken down anyway. It’s close to building a new house.  The neighborhood has a warm feeling. A two-story stucco house doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood. Two stories is OK, but not two stories of stucco. Don’t have a problem with the variance, and expect that all the walls probably will come down, but the stucco will take something away from the neighborhood. The house needs to be warmed up with siding. Sonja Shevelyov, 600 Bayswater Avenue, spoke on this item:  Lives to the right, at the corner of Clarendon and Bayswater Avenue.  Neighborhood has a cozy feel with shingles.  Concern with the amount of congestion, workers, debris and its effect on children in the neighborhood. There is a licensed child care facility across the street.  Concern with speeding on the street.  The plans show a 40” existing tree, but the real diameter is 72”. Tree is more than 100 years old. Concerned that when you have a 100 year old tree, the roots fan out, and any construction will affect the roots of the tree. That tree is on our property and it is a safety issue. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 13 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Massing is handled well, but still has concern with siding. Would like to add some siding in some areas. There is a good way to add siding to stucco.  The fabric of the neighborhood is that the houses are closer to the street. Keeping the wall in front would fit with neighborhood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Not OK with variance. The requirement is the block average or 15 feet, whichever is greater. In other cases have been able to make specific findings about the lot, and the unnecessary burden on the owner. The interior walls will probably be taken down to the foundation.  With regards to the neighbor, would be good to meet and come up with solutions. Should work with the arborist on the tree. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 6. 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY, 10- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (IRIS2 LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Gaul recused himself from this item, as he has a clubhouse within 500 feet of the subject property. He left the dais. Commissioner DeMartini indicated he had a conversation with the arborist. There were no other ex parte communications, and all Commissioners had visited the property. Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Commission questions:  Is the code requirement for the service vehicle for a standard sized vehicle? (Gardiner: It is a space for a service vehicle, and that’s all the Code says, so it is open for interpretation. As long as it isn’t blocking driveways or other spaces, it’s open for interpretation. It’s geared for a Comcast van, for example, rather than a UPS truck.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Toby Levy represented the applicant:  Took a lot of comments to heart in redesign. Significantly revised the front layout of the building.  Bordered by buildings with narrow side setbacks. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 14  Architecture in neighborhood is varied.  Palm tree to be relocated. Side trees to be removed, have already been trimmed back.  Wants to have the BMR unit be the middle unit.  Have attempted different configurations for a service vehicle space.  Stackers allowed the garage to be reduced in size. They have been sized to accommodate a Ford Explorer. Can better clear the electrical pole behind.  Re-did a lot of the exits and stairwells.  Massing stayed the same from the previous design – highlight the smaller buildings to each side.  Contextual architecture is a “mish-mash.”  Materials and colors to change massing on the side.  Simulated limestone in front, to match the neighborhood and help diminish the mass. Commission questions/discussion:  How would the parking lift spaces be assigned? (Levy: The whole lift will be assigned to a unit. Your car will be below you. You will not be negotiating with you neighbor.) The assignment of the lifts should be on the plans.  Would having a vegetable garden be appropriate? (Levy: It was omitted from the plans by mistake. Typically there are one or two people who usually take these on, and if not, the gardeners will plant rosemary, non-deciduous, bay leaves, an herb garden. We want something that a gardener could also take care of.)  Could you walk me through the entry, once I go through the doors? (Levy: There will be a bench, and a nice paving pattern with possibly a water feature. There will also be windows out the right side, with the stairs spilling out, the mail room, and the elevator. We cannot have furniture, but we can build in things that won’t burn. We can’t put in couches.)  Is the left wall which separates the two pathways a solid wall? (Yes, it had to be a solid wall.)  It would be a great project if there weren’t two big oak trees on the site. Is there a design solution that would preserve the existing trees? I called the arborist, and I understand that the trees have been trimmed on both sides by the current owner. The arborist told me that the trees are being taken out due to the project, and that a differently designed project could save them. (Levy: When we started, we looked at the implications of keeping the oaks. In saving them, it would have rendered most of our lot useless due to the drip lines of the trees. You might go through the effort to save them with a different design and they still might die because the root balls are under the driveway, and in construction. You’d want to build at least five units on this site, and we’d have to build in the setbacks and be asking for variances. Our hands were tied.)  I would have liked to see something else. It seems to be a question of profit. Is there another design? I don’t want people coming in here and saying the reason they are cutting trees down is that they have to do the project. (Levy: I wish I would have heard this last time. The parking was a challenge and we redid the whole scheme. We are relocating the palm. The oaks are on the property line. The burden is not only on us, but on our neighbors.)  The site is only about 45 feet wide. Although oak trees are my favorite trees, I’m accepting of the argument. To keep the trees we’d have to stay out of the drip line, which means you’re cutting the site in half. Granting a variance would be difficult since it is new construction.  Would like to see a design that retained the trees. It’s hard to make this decision without seeing this other design. It is a special situation here. It doesn’t seem like a Burlingame kind of thing to be to cut the trees down.  Does the tree removal requires a separate permit? (Strohmeier: Yes, it requires a permit from the arborist, though it would be appealable. Anyone may appeal it to the Beautification Commission.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 15 Public comments: John Constantino, 1137 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on this item:  Owns the 11 unit building to the right, and we have 17 cars which park in our property and on the street (12 on the lot).  If the trees are going to be taken down, there are no trees which are going to be put back to replace the trees which are going to be removed. The trees are 75-100 years old.  We have five tenants which asked me to come tonight and ask that trees be put where the trees are going to be removed. They look out on the oaks and they really love those trees.  The trees in the back, how can you grow vegetables under trees? I would not have trees in the back.  There is no extra parking and you are going from 5 units to 10. There is a major parking problem on Floribunda. Would like to see the building set back a little with guest parking. The problem on the block is that the City has allowed large buildings to be built with no parking for friends or family.  If the fence is going to come down, our concrete walkway is going to be affected, and we just put it in. Our PG&E and gas lines also run on that side of the building.  The new building is going to shade our building.  If you take down those trees, replace them with something that will grow big. Toby Levy responded as the applicant:  In deference to the neighbors, we indented our building. We always tried to keep the living areas set back 15 feet from the neighbors.  We could get some taller planting but can’t commit until speaking to the landscaper.  There is space between the trees for the vegetable garden. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. There was no need for a motion regarding this item, as the item will automatically be placed on the Regular Action calendar when the applicant has modified the project as suggested and the environmental analysis is complete. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dias. 7. 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE- STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND A NEW SINGLE-STORY MAINTENANCE OFFICE BUILDING FOR ANZA AIRPORT PARKING (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND ENGINEER; ANZA PARKING CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the general manager. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Amy Chung represented the applicant.  Land was originally developed by the Keystone brothers and they placed the parking on the site.  Existing mobile office building has been in place since the 1960’s and is deteriorating. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 16  Would like to replace existing mobile building with another mobile building.  Existing office is too small, feel cramped, need more space to accommodate staff meetings; maintenance building is intended to provide a place for maintenance staff to meet and have lunch.  Existing building has a lot of water intrusion.  Two years ago had a plan approved to remodel the existing building, but it turned out to be too costly; makes more economic sense to install new modular buildings. Commission questions/comments:  During the Conditional Use Permit hearing earlier this year, there was discussion regarding developing site. Has there been any consideration to developing the lot with a use besides long tern airport parking? (Chung: Formed a development committee with 8-10 people who are actively meeting with others and looking at development options. The economy is better now than it was a year ago; have started to look at development but not sure yet what the best use is for the property. Would like to retain the airport parking use and find a use that would be compatible. Have started a dialogue with the Millennium Partners to see what would be compatible with their development. Concerned about the setback requirements on this long narrow lot, development would be pencil- thin, may need to request some exceptions to the code. Does not want develop more hotel rooms and create vacancies or standards office space, would like to offer something unique to the area within the established guidelines.)  Have you considered a retail use? (Chung: Concerned with the lack of foot traffic in the area, it would only work if it was a destination project. Have considered a Chinese restaurant on the top floor of a building that would offer nice views.)  Could also consider a smaller boutique hotel mixed in with some retail. Glad to hear applicant is open to different uses for this site.  Reason for asking if the applicant is pursuing developing the site is the relative permanence of building; understand existing building is deteriorating and needs to be replaced, design is utilitarian, proposed buildings fit in with the existing architecture. Question is how detailed should this design review be given the relative permanence of the buildings. Am a little more relaxed in reviewing the design details of this project since we know that a new development is being considered in the relative near future.  May want to replace or repair the front fence. (Chung: The existing front fence will be replaced or repaired; a new disable-accessible gate will also be installed.) Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.  Note and clarify on plans the proposed improvements for the front fencing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Davis and Yie CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes November 25, 2013 17 absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:57 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of November 18, 2013:  None to report. FYI: 1310 Columbus Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Residential Design Review project.  Accepted. FYI: 1440 Cabrillo Avenue - Review of as-built changes to a previously approved Residential Design Review project.  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary