Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.03.25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 25, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the March 25, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier, City Attorney Gus Guinan and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 5, Item 3 (1800 Trousdale Drive), Commission comments, eighth bullet; replace “cornice” with “sunscreen”.  Page 15, Item 4 (1017 Laguna Avenue), Commission comments, sixth bullet; replace “R-1” with “R-2”. Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for discussion. 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 2 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1312 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW , TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK BARRALOZA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Shouldn’t the wainscoting around the bottom terminate at the bump-out on the right-hand side? (Geurse – no problem making this change.)  Good looking project. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul 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 March 18, 2013, sheets A.1, A.4 and G.1 and date stamped February 13, 2013, sheets T.0, BMP.1, GB.1, GB.2, SP.1, LS.1, A.1.SF, A.2, A.2.SF, A.3, A.5, A.6 and AD.2 through AD.4; 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 the wainscoting wrapping around the bottom of the structure shall be designed to terminate at the bump-outs; 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 17, 2012 memo, the Parks Division’s February 20, 2013 and December 27, 2012 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 27, 2012 memo, the Fire Division’s December 17, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s February 21, 2013 and December 19, 2012 memos shall be met; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 3 6. 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; 7. 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; 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 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 4 16. 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 17. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1017 Laguna Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 2. 1017 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DOMINIC AND AGNES LAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, San Mateo; represented the applicant.  Didn’t address the comment regarding the porch columns; have a tapered column so it would look odd on the corner and would make the gable look unbalanced, but addressed all other comments.  Added revised details, including landscaping. Commission comments:  The current fireplace material jumps out; it was shown as stone before. (Chu – it’s tedious to construct an angled fireplace out of stone veneer, so stucco will now be used.)  Will the fireplace be a similar color as the rest of the home? (Chu – yes.)  Would it be possible to use another texture? (Chu – in reality, the color will tend to be darker; it won’t continue to jump out when viewed on the actual project.)  Is not very concerned about the fireplace, but it will not be too visible as it is situated about three- quarters of the way down the site of the home.  Could use a stone base, then spot a view stones on the remainder. (Chu – can consider that approach.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 5  May not need the stones to be spotted on the fireplace, just keep the fireplace in a similar color palette.  Likes the copper roof on the porch.  Hopefully the copper roof will not be changed and brought back as an FYI.  Likes the outrigger. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 14, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1, L.2 and Topographic and Boundary Survey; 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 Building Division’s January 23, 2013 memo, the Parks Division’s February 27 and January 30, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s February 21, 2013 memo, the Fire Division's January 23, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s February 1, 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 6 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 foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. 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; 15. 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 16. 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 Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 7 3. 1444 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW FULL-SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (PIZZERIA DELFINA) (CRAIG & ANNE STOLL, DELFINA RESTAURANT GROUP, APPLICANT; PATRICK FLYNN, ENVELOPE A + D, ARCHITECT; DOROTHY WURLITZER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Requested clarification of the area occupied by the second floor seating area. (Strohmeier – suggested asking the applicant.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Patrick Flynn, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Because of the increase in the area of the second floor seating area, will the applicant need to receive approval of a stairway to the second floor in the future? (Flynn – this has already been reviewed by the Building Official.)  What will the rear area be used for? (Flynn – back of house items.)  How will signage be designed in the front; will a blade sign be used? (Flynn – yes, it’ll be a blade sign.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 12, 2013, sheets a0.00 through a4.00.; 2. that this business location shall only be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 1,384 SF of seating area, and may not change its food establishment classification to a limited food service food establishment, bar or specialty food shop food establishment; 3. that the 1,384 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 8 5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 13, 2013, March 7, 2013, November 20, November 5 and June 29, 2012 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s June 26, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's July 10, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshall’s March 7, 2013 and June 25, 2012 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator’s June 20, 2012 memo shall be met; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2010 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 11. 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; 12. 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); 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 9 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 17. 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 Department; and 18. 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 4. 270 EAST LANE, ZONED MMU – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW MEZZANINE SPACE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (GARY COHN, CA DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY DIEBEL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Clarified that the number of spaces provided exceeds the minimum required, but the City doesn’t recognize the spaces because they are tandem? (Strohmeier – confirmed.)  Does the City allow a property owner to rent spaces elsewhere? (Strohmeier – this can be done as mitigation. In this instance tandem spaces are proposed.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Cohen, Burlingame and Josh McFarland, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  How many tenants are in the building? (Cohen – three.)  What is the plan for the future? (Cohen – would like to expand into the rest of the building.)  Are there tenants in suites 2, 3 and 4 currently? (Cohen – there is a small start-up in suite 1 and another in suites 2, 3 and 4.)  How many people are anticipated to be on-site? (Cohen – do not anticipate adding more employees to the space, but are reconfiguring the space.)  Are the other tenants moving out of those spaces? (Cohen – eventually, those tenants would move out and his business will occupy the entire building.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 10  Additional parking spaces would open up from the other tenancies and become available for Tellapart? (Cohen – yes. McFarland – the density of employees per square foot for the other tenants is higher than for his business. The other tenants have a slightly older workforce that is more reliant on vehicles; his employees are more likely to use transit. Cohen – an employee has created a mobile app that allows those tandem parking to notify persons that are blocked by vehicles how to contact one another to move vehicles. Can also use the old-school approach of using a whiteboard.)  What if Tellapart leaves and a more old-fashioned company moves in with a higher parking demand? (Cohen – have considered this; have 86 parking spaces on the property. The size of the mezzanine space was pegged to the maximum number of parking spaces that are provided on the property. Doesn’t want to ask for more area than can be accommodated by the parking.)  Excited that the building is working; likes the concept and the improvements.  In the afternoon observed that the parking lot was nearly full with 8 to 10 vacant spaces.  Looks like things are striped at the far end of the parking lot, near the railroad, but are not fully striped for tandem spaces. Wants to be confident with what is happening on the property.  The variance will run with the property and will be applicable to other subsequent users.  Cars are not being parked as closely spaced as shown on the diagram provided by the applicant. The drive aisle doesn’t look like it is 24-feet wide. This is mitigated by the fact that all of the spaces are used by the employees, not the general public – all of this comes into play in consideration of the variance request.  The parking is being used intensively. Would like to observe a bit more. (Cohen – at first glance it appears that the spaces are being heavily used. Observed that the vacancy rate is as low as 16 spaces, at another time 31 vacant spaces were observed.)  Would not believe that a mid-day count is accurate; need to ensure that counts are conducted during peak times. (Cohen – have been in the parking area during peak times. At first glance it looks like the deck is fully used, but when investigating further there can be anywhere from 12 to 31 space empty. The tandem parking on the deck is actually working.)  Would like to have parking counts done at mid-morning and at mid-afternoon. Want to make certain that there is an accurate parking plan (showing the actual marked spaces) before taking action on the request. (Cohen – believes that the plan does show 86 spaces, but will confirm that the spaces actually exist.)  Don’t want to create more of a neighborhood parking impact than already exists.  How many employees are in the building including all three tenants? (Cohen – doesn’t know.)  Not everyone parks in a manner that allows the parking spaces to be used as designed.  The end parking spaces are difficult to maneuver in and out of.  No one can control the behavior of the employees parking on the deck. (McFarland – chose Burlingame for the location of the business given the location and the ability to use transit systems and the amenities of the City. Believes more and more people will gravitate toward car-sharing and use of CalTrain. If done correctly, this will be a legacy building out of which successful start-ups can rise.)  If company cars were available during the day, would this reduce the need for employees to have vehicles? (McFarland – is working on having ZipCars at the location as an amenity for employees and the public.)  Is not as uncomfortable as some of the Commissioners. As an example, Google employees usually take shuttles.  Would like to see Burlingame become a tech hub.  Wouldn’t believe that tenants would move to the location if they were parking intensive.  Is excited about the use, but just wants to be certain that the parking will work.  The Commission previously allowed the tandem spaces as mitigation for the variance. Just wants to be certain of the utility of the spaces that are to be provided. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 11  There will be some less desirable stalls; parking counts typically account for a certain level of fullness; for example. The usable number of stalls will dictate the maximum area of the mezzanine. (Cohen – is amenable to eliminating stalls adjacent to the walls if necessary.)  Is there any way to condition the variance if there is a neighborhood impact, then the variance is re- examined? (Guinan – can impose specific conditions on a variance; if the conditions are not met, then it may be called up for review. Typically, consideration of revocation generally necessitates the creation of a nuisance.)  Would like to see a condition that requires the issuance of CalTrain passes for all employees. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Asked that someone from City staff visit the property and verify the marking of the parking stalls to confirm compliance with the approved plan. (Strohmeier – noted that staff does not verify the findings of the parking analysis provided by the applicant.)  Typically, CalTrain passes are only purchased for those employees that use it; doesn’t believe that a condition needs to be imposed to require passes for all employees.  Could a condition related to a nuisance be imposed as a means of calling the item up for review. (Guinan – yes, but the law allows this to occur anyway.)  Suggested that if a tenant changed to one with more employees, then the variance could be revisited.  Is more concerned about the usability of the parking spaces. (Strohmeier – noted that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the design of tandem parking spaces.)  Could a transportation demand management plan be required for the project? (Guinan – usually required for much larger developments. Could at least get a clearer sense of the number of spaces, how they work, can require a parking study, etc. to make a determination regarding whether or not to grant the request. There are required findings that must be made for a variance. Need to articulate the findings if granted.)  Could impose a condition requiring a parking attendant.  Shares the same concerns regarding the first three or four tandem spaces and their utility; observed only a single car in that area. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  There is support for the variance, but need a more accurate count of the parking spaces and how they function before taking action.  The number of spaces will inform the size of the mezzanine that can be built.  The mezzanine will not be used as intensely as a usual office space.  Would like more information regarding how many tenants are in the building currently.  Perhaps the parking ratios need to be re-examined; they can be inaccurate based upon the character of some uses. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 12 Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. 5. 1675 SKYLINE BOULEVARD – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW TEMPORARY FIRE STATION CONSISTING OF A FIREHOUSE BUILDING, FIRE STATION OFFICES AND AN APPARATUS BUILDING (MARK GRAHAM, G2 SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CITY OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued to a future date at the request of the applicant. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (1047 Balboa Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 6. 1047 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND MAJOR RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH QUALIFIES AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSHUA AND LISA FRIEDMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Clarified that the variance is necessitated because the existing condition doesn’t comply with the requirement and the proposed change further encroaches. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, San Mateo and Josh Friedman, Burlingame; represented the applicant.  If only 1-foot, 10-inches were being added to the home, then a variance would not be required – disputed staff’s interpretation.  Didn’t want to push the home further toward the rear.  Limited budget.  Attempted to retain the style of the home. Commission comments:  If the project were keeping the same line at the front of the building and were still doing all of the major additions and retaining the existing front setback, then because it would be new construction, would a variance be required? (Strohmeier – clarified that any time that the front wall is demolished and rebuilt, then a variance would be required.)  Is concerned about the logic for granting a variance; not certain it can be supported.  Likes the changes that are being made, particularly the new entry.  The street is busy, it is hard to have a front porch facing Carmelita. The stoop that is planned is handsome and can be supported. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 13  Concerned with the variance request; don’t know if can accept demolition of the existing wall and replacement with a new wall at even a lesser setback.  It looks like the design could be shifted up to two feet into the rear yard. Given the number of walls that are being removed, would appear feasible to shift the home rearward without the need for a front-yard variance. (Chu – initially were planning to only add a bathroom, but at subsequent meetings, the project was expanded substantially. Friedman – original intention was to move into the home and use it as a starter home, but eventually decided to expand the home since they love the neighborhood. Chu – can easily add the space at the rear, without affecting the front setback.)  If the project were redesigned to keep the existing front setback, then it would be easier to consider retention of the front-yard setback as it is currently.  The existing front setback looks like it matches the adjacent home on Balboa Avenue.  Clarified that a 2 x 6 fascia board will be installed on the elevations. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The design is acceptable. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned the dais. 7. 2346 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN TAM AND LANA LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff:  Clarified that the height measurement is generally taken from top of curb. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 14 Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Audrey Tse, Burlingame and Lana Lee, Burlingame; represented the applicant.  The current configuration of the home doesn’t meet the family’s needs; wish to have rooms for each child.  There is no option for adding another bedroom on the first floor.  The Tudor-style home presents challenges to designing a second floor.  The owners have requested that the dining room and living room remain untouched as they contain much of the home’s character.  The front of the property has a 28% slope; this creates a challenge from a height standpoint.  The existing room slope presents a challenge to making the second story fit.  The existing home is about 70 square feet over the lot coverage requirement. There is a greater overhang proposed on the rear in order to prevent a flat appearing wall. Commission comments:  Complimented the applicant on the justification for the variance request.  Is the home to the left higher than the applicant’s property? How will the ridge line of the proposed renovated home compare to that home? (Tse – Assumes that the applicant’s home will be taller than that on the home to the left; five feet is being added to the existing ridge height. The neighbors have a single-story home. Are burying a lot of the new addition into the existing roofline. Are following the architectural character of the house. Viewed from the street, the additional may match to the existing roof line.)  There is no way to reduce the ridge height since they are following the architectural character of the house.  Have handled the design well.  The dormer looks a bit small in comparison to the roof, it just matches the window. Would like to see the dormer enlarged. (Tse – have maximized the floor area on the lot. The point at which the dormer intersects the roof is critical.)  The dormer is at a two foot depth; this could be reduced to allow the width to increase. (Tse – where the dormer intersects the roofline is an issue. Tried to maximize the amount of light into the bedroom. Looking at the feature in section, a change in depth is not feasible.)  Is the dormer already cutting into the roof? (Tse – the proposed dormer will be buried into the roof below.) The roof of the dormer would be buried into the roof if it is reduced in depth. (Tse – are at the maximum header height in the room.)  Perhaps reduce the size of the window so that it doesn’t take up the entire face of the dormer; there is another window into the room. (Tse – the dormer is set back quite a distance from the front elevation and will not be that visible.)  The original floor plan shows a stairway into a lower level; is there a basement? (Tse – there is a small pad for mechanical equipment.) Will access to this area be provided with the renovated home? (Tse – yes.)  What are the existing window types? (Tse – existing windows are dual-pane wood. The living room picture window is being replaced.  What will the new windows be? (Tse – dual pane, aluminum-clad wood with painted interior.)  Is the existing fireplace wood-burning? (Tse – is wood burning, but is to be converted to gas. The fireplace will not need to be altered.)  How will the ridge height relate to the house on the right; has any consideration been given? (Tse – there is screening along this side by trees and other vegetation. Don’t really even notice the house. There was no concerted effort to relate the applicant’s home to this home.)  Is concerned about completely overpowering the home to the right. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 15  Asked if there is a response to the concerns expressed in the letter submitted by the property owner to the right? (Tse – doesn’t see that there will be storm drainage issues with the property to the right.)  Clarified that the average top of curve is 109.8-feet. The first floor elevation is shown at about a 10- foot greater elevation. The ridge line is roughly 26-feet above the first floor.  Can support the height variance due to the slope of the lot. The house is only 26-feet above grade at the rear where the addition will be placed.  There is no way to reduce the height and still maintain the existing Tudor character of the home. (Tse – have designed the second story in a manner to reduce the height impact as much as possible.)  Feels like the window composition on the left side is somewhat random; doesn’t feel balanced. (Tse – if the opportunity existed to raise the ceiling height, then would place clerestory windows in the bathroom and also place a window in the closet.)  The City may wish to consider revising the method for measuring height. Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Note the window type on the plans. Chair Gaul 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:04 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 March 18, 2013:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 25, 2013 16 FYI: 401 California Drive – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary