Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.04.08 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 8, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the April 8, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. (Jeff DeMartini has been appointed to the Planning Commission but has not yet been sworn in, and was not in attendance.) III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the March 25, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 4, Item 2 (1017 Laguna Avenue), Commission comments, first bullet, in applicant’s response replace “stone” with “stucco” – stucco will now be used, not stone.  Page 14, Item 7 (2346 Hale Drive), Commission comments, 11th bullet, “pane” is misspelled. Motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Bandrapalli recused since she was not at the March 25, 2013 meeting). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor: VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 3088 ALCAZAR DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A CABANA AND FOR ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TOM MCCARVILLE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; HAROLD ROMANOWITZ, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 2 Associate Planner Strohmeier, presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 8, 2013. Questions of staff:  What would prohibit using the structure as secondary dwelling unit? They have the parking, and they have the lot size. (Strohmeier: Would need to compare with the secondary dwelling unit regulations require. The applicant is specific in not wanting it to be a secondary dwelling unit. There would need to have a kitchen.)  What defines a kitchen? (Strohmeier: Stove and oven. Can have an under counter fridge and sink without it being considered a kitchen.)  We changed our ordinance to allow for secondary dwelling units. Given certain criteria, wondering if the applicant would want to take advantage of that instead of restricting it unnecessarily.  1720 Hunt Drive, it seems like the cabana would be really close to them. I would want to make sure that they been notified to see if there were any issues about the windows, height. Anything related to the cabana.  Are no setbacks required? It looks like it is only 1’-10” to one corner. (Strohmeier: If an accessory structure is built in the rear 30 percent of the lot it is not subject to the setback regulations. However if it is within one foot of any property line there need to have a survey conducted of the property. If it is at least one foot from the property line there does not need to be a survey.) It looks like they will need a survey since there is a portion that is only a couple of inches away. (Strohmeier: They might have had one conducted.)  Can they clarify if there be heat, and how will that be provided?  If there were standard overhangs, would it comply? Is that including the atrium or not including the atrium? (Strohmeier: The way the report was written it sounds like it is just the eaves. If they just didn’t have those eaves that wide, they would comply.)  The entire eave is counted, not just the portion beyond two feet? (Strohmeier: Once the eave extends 24 inches past the building, the entire eave area counts towards the lot coverage.)  What are the lengths of the eaves? (Strohmeier: It is indicated on the plans. Even if the eave was 25 inches would count the entire area.)  Would like to verify that the eave length is shown on the plan. Commission comments:  Support letters would be helpful. Want to make sure neighbors are aware of the project and OK with it – specifically the adjacent neighbors. The one downhill from it that is going to have that large window on the property line, seems like that could potentially have a lot of impact on a neighbor.  Pictures of the existing rear yard would be helpful – from the street can only just see the front elevation. There’s no way to get an understanding of what it looks like back there. Get a sense of how steep it is and get a sense of what the landscape is like.  I’m pretty sure the applicant would be open to site visits. (Strohmeier: The phone numbers is listed on the application.) This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 3 There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1047 Balboa Avenue), as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 2. 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 April 8, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, San Mateo represented the applicant:  Eliminated the encroachment, kept the existing front setback as suggested at the last meeting. Commission comments:  The landscape plan is really nice.  Worked out well to remove the condition in the front. Also glad to see another single story home. Kind of nice that everything isn’t getting maxed out in two stories as well.  W ill be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Did you just move the whole thing over a foot? (Chu: As far as the layout goes. We are planning to keep the foundation.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  None Commissioner Gaul 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 26, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.7, G.1, L.1 and L.2; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 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 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 Chief Building Official's March 6 and January 24, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's February 21, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 28, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's March 11 and January 30, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's March 21 and February 1, 2013 memos 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 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; 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 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 11. 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; 12. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 5 documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. 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 14. 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 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 PM. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. 3. 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 April 8, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse, InSite Design, Burlingame, represented the applicant:  Here to address any of the comments brought up in the last meeting, identified in the response letter: the size of the dormer window in the front elevation, noting the type of windows that will be installed around the house, and addressing the window patterns along the left elevation. Commission comments:  That little change to the window made a big difference. The proportions will be much better.  Because the roof is being extended and it is a lot of roof, don’t make the material thin – make sure the roof shingles have a little “meat” to them. (Tse: “Beefiness”, I agree.)  Under the general notes for the windows, normally we require simulated true divided lights, versus simulated. It’s missing the word “true” part, it just says simulated. (Strohmeier: Simulated true divided lights is with the spacers.)(Tse: Yes, not the tape.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 6  Variance was for an increase in the FAR. Massing is improved, reduces the bulk.  Does a nice job, blends in well with the existing house and the neighborhood as well. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  None Commissioner Yie 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 28, 2013, sheets A2.1 and A2.4; and date stamped March 12, 2013, sheets A1.0 through A1.2, A2.3, A2.5 and A2.6; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Lot Coverage Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 18, 2012, memo, the Chief Building Official's February 25, 2013 and December 4, 2012, memos, the Parks Supervisor’s December 7, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 3, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 4, 2012 memo shall be met; 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 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 7 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 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. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 PM. 4. 355 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A BATHROOM, A WINDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY LINE, AND TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES (DANIEL CRAY, APPLICANT AND OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated April 8, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Staff report says that there is an attached one-car garage, but in the drawing provided by the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 8 applicant it says “existing two car garage.” (Strohmeier: That depends on the clear interior dimensions. It’s considered a one-car garage. It doesn’t meet our clearance dimensions for a two- car garage because it’s only 18’-3” exterior which means it would be only a maximum 17’-3” wide interior, which is only a one-car – oversized one-car.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Daniel Cray, Burlingame represented himself as the property owner and applicant. Commission comments:  Does the hot water for the bathroom come from the hot water for the house? (Cray: Comes from the hot water from the main house.) Electrical, is there a subpanel for this structure? (Cray: Comes from main house, underground.)  Would like to remove the condition with the window. How far is it from property line? (Cray: about seven feet from the property line. The structure is two feet from the property line, and it’s another four to five feet to the window.) Not sure what the process is after this, but Building is going to have to go through building permit review and be issued a permit. Structural, electrical, plumbing will be met. (Strohmeier: It will all be reviewed by the Building Division. Generally structural drawings are not prepared at this point since the use needs to be approved prior.)  Building Department would verify codes, clearances etc.? These drawings are not accurate. (Strohmeier: There is a note here that stated that the applicant was going to make some revisions to the structure in order to meet Building Code requirements. For example, the roof is one of them.)  Are gutters not allowed in the setback or is it just the structure? (Strohmeier: It is a Building Code question.) Plan to cut the gutters? (Cray: Yes, plans to cut the eaves back to Code specifications.)  Seems like a lot of properties in the neighborhood have accessory structures. (Cray: yes) Do you know if people are renting them out, or are they just using them as recreation rooms? (Cray: From his knowledge they are used for family, for recreation, not for rental.)  Any plans to cook in the structure? (Cray: No cooking facilities whatsoever.) Microwave? (Cray: No.) Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The window issue is something we’re looking at on the subcommittee level. The concern is usually when a window is close to the property line, it could intrude on the neighbor’s privacy. But in this case there is a fence there so it is not going to have that much impact on the neighbor.  To echo Commissioner Terrones, if this would come before us as a new application, would we be able to approve it? Location is not bad, and it is not encroaching on the privacy of a neighbor. It seems like there are a lot of these structures in the neighborhood so I can’t see how we can just single one person out.  We have had several hearings on this item and no neighbor has come forward to complain.  The original concern was that someone was living in it. There is self-policing, people will report you if you do.  That is the concern, that it is not a secondary living unit. If it is not a secondary living unit, it can be supported as it is. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 9  These are all Conditional Use permits – if there is a problem like that there could be another hearing and the permit would not be renewed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans and the Scope of Work submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped March 28, 2013; 2. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen with a permanent cooking fixture, as this would change the use of the accessory structure to a second dwelling unit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes or be rented out as a second dwelling unit; 3. that the accessory structure shall have a single recreation room and a bathroom with a toilet and a shower; if the accessory structure is demolished, the envelope changed at a later date, or should the use in the structure change, the conditional use permit may require an amendment or may become void; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012, memo, the City Arborist’s and the Fire Marshal’s January 12, 2012, memos, the City Engineer’s and the NPDES Coordinator's January 18, 2012, memos, shall be met; 5. 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; 6. 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; and 7. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 PM. 5. 2301 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED W ITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TIM RADUENZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILOMENA TERRY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) This item was continued to May 13, 2013 at the applicant’s request. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 10 6. 50 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE CRITERIA FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MATT MEFFORD, TESLA MOTORS, APPLICANT; FINN-DANIELS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Staff requested to continue this item to April 22, 2013. The applicant has agreed to the continuance. Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the item to the April 22, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 7:36 PM. 7. 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PRESCHOOL USE OPERATED ON-SITE BY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH (MARK SEEVERS, APPLICANT; DAN IONESCU, ARCHITECT; AND TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated April 8, 2023, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Should address in staff report be 1248 Balboa, rather than 1249? (Gardiner: Yes) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dan Ionescu, San Mateo, represented the applicant:  Our goal is to clarify the situation and solve it a friendly and definitive manner. We feel the church has done way more than what is needed. Anonymous letters do not serve the community, church, or children.  As a professional, believes there is not a traffic problem.  Does not believe there is a parking problem.  People from the neighborhood doubted whether the school would take off. It is booked until 2016. Some children get there from walking, the rest come by car.  The Baden Hall is separate building. The land is more than adequate and is fenced off. It already exceeds licensing requirements.  The children have access to the large hall, also the playground and the parking lot with the gates. Instead of leaving the parking lot empty, it should be a share area for balls.  The license granted by Board of Social Services gave the license allowed the school to use the grand hall, playground, and parking area at the discretion of the pastor and director of school. They are the professionals who know what they are doing; they have done it for ages.  On January 16, 2013 the church wrote an invitation to the whole neighborhood to see if there were any problems. Have encouraged the neighbors to communicate with the preschool and pastor to resolve any complaints. Had meeting, no complaints.  A complaint was made about a car parked in front of 1519 Sherman, ended up being a grandparent CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 11 waiting for a student who did not know the rules.  The church will accept the conditions, just wants the issue resolved. Pastor Jeffrey Schufreider, Burlingame, also represented the applicant:  People drop off and leave. At the beginning there were people coming from different places who were not enrolled, and would have parked on the street. Once people know how the parking works they park on site. Fences have been there for 30 years, never had complaints about closing the gates. Bible study is held Tuesday mornings, sometime gates are closed and then opened to let them out. People can leave by opening the gate themselves. There are two spaces outside the gate in front of garages. Commission comments:  Question (via Terrones email) – Gates are closed for 45 minutes in the morning, about an hour in the afternoon. (Schufreider: We would also like the privilege of closing those gates during the day because it adds a level of security for the children. At the same time, we could open them up.) The question is, if a parent comes to pick up child during day would they come in off of Balboa and leave their car there, then back out onto Balboa? (Schufreider: No – come in off El Camino Real south of the parking lot. This has been laid out to parents.)  There are only nine spots on site. Where do the five staff members park? (Schufreider: One walks, some staff park on site, some park off the site.)  Have there been more kids than planned? No, asking for more room not because it’s needed, but because they have it. (Schufreider: Surprised it was not a condition initially. Issues centered on parking, traffic, and the building. These issues got left behind.)  Is the request to close the gates at will during the day, or just between these hours? (Schufreider: W e figure if we can close the gates there are people who can open the gates if they want to come in and park.)  So is it those four parking spots have flexible hours? You can park there during the day except during 11 and 11:45, and 3 and 4? So the gates are independent. (Schufreider: There are not that many events that we would need those parking spaces, because we have the other parking areas.)  Having the ability to close the gate is a safety precaution for the kids. If they’re kicking balls and running into the street to fetch them… you want the gates to be closed to contain the activity.  Is there a lock on the gate? (Schufreider: No, there are no locks on the gates. Anyone can just push them open.)  Is someone stationed at the gates to make sure the kids don’t get out? (Schufreider: There is another gate system in between the Baden Hall and the church property. Then there is a locked door into the preschool.)  The kids aren’t unattended when they’re playing? (Schufreider: There is always a staff person.)  There was a play structure there before so it’s not like the playground is new. It’s not like that use has changed either. (Schufreider: Yes, that play yard has been there since the preschool of 1983, the same with the gate system.)  Can staff clarify the comment that has been said that it is a State regulated property, and what is our jurisdiction? (Strohmeier: Previously approved for a Conditional Use Permit. There is a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for a school in this zone. They were already approved for that. Schufreider: The State analyst looked at the property to determine if it was OK to use, and she approved that as play area for the children.)  The description of the hours on page 2 of the staff report the pick-up hours are 4 p.m to 6 p.m., on page 3 it says 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. (Strohmeier: The description does not match the Condition of Approval. We need to update that.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 12  It sounds like there is an additional pick-up and drop-off midday, that’s not included in this. (Schufreider: We have three or four part-time children. Some of them walk because they live in the neighborhood.) Just to make sure this is accurate, we should amend this to include that information. Is there a window for that pick-up and drop-off? (Schufreider: Pick-up at 1:00).  The license from the Department of Social Services says the hours of operation are Monday though Friday 8:45 to 3:30 p.m. (Schufreider: That is the old license.) The updated license needs to be included. Public comments: Based on the number of requests to speak, Chair Gaul has requested to limit each public speaker’s comments to three minutes. Joyce Mooney Chavez, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  There are only seven or eight preschools in Burlingame. This one is affordable, has extended hours, is a great resource for dual-employed parents.  Parents are aware of the parking, nobody parks on street, never seen an overlap of parents or a mass of parents picking up children.  Closing gates is a safety concern when kids playing outside. Louise Lien, spoke regarding this item:  Son has attended the school since February. It is a loving environment, dedicated to providing a nurturing environment to kids. Kids can play in the courtyard on tricycles, learn monkey bars.  Affordable childcare is so crucial; wonderful schedule.  Parking allows to park inside to drop kids, never have to use street. Only once had to use parking by the church side.  Gate is important for son, as he has a history of running into street. Eddie Busracamway spoke regarding this item:  Loving environment, limited number of preschools in Burlingame. Ming Jang, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Has a daughter at the school, loves school a lot.  Kids are kids, like to explore.  Appreciate getting this thing going, finished and done. Nina Hahm, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  New to area, from LA. Had been looking for preschool that is affordable. Other schools full or out of reach. Warm reception, like a family.  Like ability to run around, room to roam, appreciates preschool accommodating needs of children, appreciate things like the added gates.  When driving there, was concerned about the 2-way stop but it is very peaceful. Never been a problem. Terry Wu, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 13  Was here last year for the hearing.  Daughter is 2½, is in first month in school. Really enjoys preschool.  Last Friday came in around noon to walk around and look at parking. On the north side of Balboa there were three spaces, on the west side of Sherman two more were available. Right in front of 1248 the whole block was empty, with about ten spots.  Can understand that the neighborhood is concerned about space but there are lots of spaces.  Tried to drive through gate, could open gate – took 2 minutes. Natalie Wu spoke regarding this item:  Really care about next generations. 3 out of 5 moms work outside homes. Affordable quality childcare is important.  If choice is to open gate or keep it closed to protect kids, choose to protect kids.  Some neighbors might not have children and might not understand. Wants to be treated the same as the whole neighborhood. Liz Parker, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  We have heard there is no traffic problem but we don’t know. Just wants traffic study. Had asked for it before, just wants it done. Robert Sanchez, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Parent of a 4-year-old child.  Two issues: the play structure, and whether to close gates during play time.  Trying to figure out what the issue is. Not traffic – traffic has already been addressed. Finding is that there was no detriment to traffic. Not a parking issue.  Just as simple as should allow children to play on play structure that is on property. No brainier, should be able to play on the structure. Asked child, said she wished they could play on it.  Concern of headline that Planning Commission didn’t allow gate to be closed and resulted in child being hit. Amy Wang, Millbrae, spoke regarding this item:  Echo need for quality affordable childcare. School was filled up four months after opening, filled to 2016.  Current space within fenced area does not accommodate that number of children so additional play structure is important as well as the area of the four parking spaces.  The parking spaces would only be closed for 1 hour 45 minutes per day. On times he’s seen it there has been plenty of parking available during those hours.  Noise is part of the complaint but there are children in the area making noise so there is not a big difference. Mariam Sayed, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Daughter has been attending the school since November.  Wonderful Montessori education that comes with it. Single parent would not be able to afford this otherwise.  Would like to see school uninterrupted and not harmed. Never had an issue with dropping off or finding parking. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 14 Peter Lau, Millbrae, spoke regarding this item:  Safety of the children is most important. Common sense is to protect the property during hours so that the children can play. The safety of the children should come first before other issues. Jasmine Lau (Director of the School), Millbrae, spoke regarding this item:  Status of the children dropped off: - Between 7:00 to 8:00 about 6 children. - From 8:00 to 9:00 10 children. - 8:30-9:00 has the most parents dropping off, but still only 7 being dropped during that time. - 9:00-9:30 4-5 children. - 4-5 families walk to school.  The four parking spaces after 9:30 do not have parents coming to use them. Maybe one coming for medical appointments but otherwise none after 9:30.  Status of pick-ups: - 1:00 to 1:30 PM 3 children leave. - 8 leave between 3:00 and 5:00 PM - 12 leave from 5-6 PM.  Parking will be sufficient because the gate open after 4:30. If picking up earlier parents can park outside the parish hall.  Children are our treasures, safety important. Joselyn Lee, San Bruno, spoke regarding this item:  Agrees with the other parents.  Has 4 year old going to the school. Anecdote: child said “if they close my school where will I learn about God?” Appreciate that it is a Christian school, raising next generation to be kind respectful individuals. Dinesh Shimire, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  The parking issue is a surprise – lives just two buildings away, never seen any traffic during the daytime. If it was issue at nighttime, could see that. Parking can be a problem at 11:00 PM. The school allows us to park there at night when there is no parking on the street. During daytime there is no parking problem.  Nice school. Moved to Burlingame for child, can afford this school.  Closing the gate is important. Linda King Byrnes, Burlingame, had to leave and Reverend Schufreider spoke for her regarding this item:  Lives on Balboa, has only ever seen one or two cars parked there on weekdays.  It is so quiet, she did not know a school had opened.  Never a demand for parking; demand for parking only rises after 7 PM, after the school closes. Kellie Kemp, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Lives on Bernal Avenue. Concern is safety. OK with traffic studies, watchful with traffic.  Feels preschool is benefit to city. If someone works, they need to have child care. Allows people to invest back in the town. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 15 Kenneth Newman, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Obvious that preschools are needed. There are more children that need them than there are schools that offer them.  Has an operation here to serve them, could serve three times as many.  School is not going to do anything that would jeopardize having the permit pulled. Only have disgruntled neighbors. Rob Chen, Millbrae, spoke regarding this item:  Gate closing no brainer after Sandy Hook.  Parked on street once before joining school. There is more than enough parking.  School has done so much. Letters, meetings with neighbors.  Grateful what school offers, good things going on, keep momentum. Benjamin Garosi spoke regarding this item:  Turnout shows nearly every parent showed up to this meeting. Shows a passion for the school.  If all students came in within one half-hour period, there would only be one every three minutes. It is much ado about nothing. Kenny Chow, Millbrae, spoke regarding this item:  Never had a problem finding parking, have not seen an issue. Richard Williams (Chairman of Preschool Committee), Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Not asking for exclusion of the play area from the CUP.  During other activities closes gates not for protection, but gives notice.  Blessed to have parents. Kids have turned it into the Church’s mission. Jamie Bates, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Has a 3-year-old son at the school.  Never issues with parking. Perplexed with keeping the gate open, would cause parents to park on street. Mark Seevers (Member of Preschool Board), San Mateo, spoke regarding this item:  At neighborhood meeting there was a new class of participant: neighbor who was also a parent.  When gate between parking and inner courtyard needed replacing, within 3 weeks a new wrought- iron self-closing gate was installed. Member of the Public (unidentified), spoke regarding this item:  The school is great. That has never been an issue.  Focus is on what are they being allowed to do. In the past outside the permit, 16 things. 12 people or so said it is a great school.  Now going to neighbors who have to live nearby, now 3 months outside of CUP. Now saying they want unlimited hours. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 16  Not disgruntled, just wants to know what are they doing and what works, so that community knows what is going to be allowed.  Wants to know how to fix traffic flow and parking when activities and conditions keep changing.  Neighbors were told that they were allowed to block off and use play structure, told let it run to see what it would be like. They were allowed to do it, but only did it intermittently.  Neighbors were told this was the plan, but now the school needs more. Could it be framed so they understand?  (Commissioner Yie asked if the speaker had noticed a traffic problem.) Not home during day, but sees someone once or so. Not objecting to where they are parking, it’s that they were promised there would be a pick-up and drop-off plan. It’s going in that direction so is good, but it does not appear they are in compliance 100%. W orried about blocking off the parking for longer periods. Dan Ionescu, San Mateo, responded as the applicant:  Many of school parents do not know that there had been a preliminary traffic report, then had a full traffic report, approved by the City, at a cost of $5000. The reports show there is no problem. No traffic study was required for the current request. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Play structure on site was dated and possibly dangerous. The new one is an improvement and necessary for a pre-school. No problems with the structure.  Parking and traffic do not appear to be issues. Times of arrival is spread out enough that there is not the density that would create a clog on the adjoining streets. Even if there was, the church owns the corner property and they should have the right to have cars parked temporarily in front of their own property. It should be able to have the discretion to open and close the gates for the safety of the children. They know the operations, their first priority is to have the kids be safe and to accommodate the traffic. As the gentleman said, they understand that they have a Conditional Use Permit and that if they violate things they know that they’ve got watchdogs watching every move. Don’t have a problem with amending the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to open the gate; would be comfortable letting them do it at their discretion.  Thing to remember is that they already have a Conditional Use Permit. This is just an amendment. There is a preschool, it’s going to stay. Agrees gates are open during the pick-up and drop-off, which are clearly defined and it seems to be working. The parents seem to feel that it works. There isn’t a big outcry that there’s a big problem here.  The play structure is a moot point. It probably should have been included before and might have been an oversight. Assumed it was probably part of the original application.  Don’t see a huge impact – there is a place to pull in and park if you need to during those times of the day. The gates don’t need to be open at that time. It’s probably a good idea to close those gates at discretion when there are kids playing. There are rules set up – that’s what this whole Conditional Use Permit has. It has the hours, it has the enrollment, the traffic flow, the pick-up and drop-off times, it has the compliance with the neighborhood’s requests for people to be out there. Supports both conditions for the play structure and for the gates being closed at certain times during the day.  Can support both amendments. Share the concern about the traffic in the neighborhood but doesn’t see anything that’s really changed since the traffic study was done that would change that. Agrees with closing the gate at the applicant’s discretion. The play structure has a fence around it that shields it the street, that should be noted as well. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 17  Drove around the school today, stood there for 20 minutes to observe. Saw traffic was very smooth, parents were coming in and picking up their kids. The gates were open at that time, around 4:30. Also saw the play yard, with the shield around the play structure.  Sounds like it is a wonderful school. We are lucky to have it in Burlingame. Knows it is hard to find a preschool, and wants to make it work as smoothly as possible. Does not sound like there is a parking problem. Issues could be solved directly between the parties – for the record, encourages any issues to be resolved between parties. Sounds like the applicant is very responsive.  Can we amend the proposed amendment to broaden it? If we limit them to those hours and they need more than that, and we’re comfortable giving them more than that, can’t we just amend the amendment? (Strohmeier: You want to amend the hours that are outlined in the Conditions of Approval?) To allow it to be at the applicant’s discretion.  The applicant has stated that they close the gates when the kids are inside, and then if a parent comes they open the gate and they pull in if they need to. What we don’t want to see is the neighbors coming back and saying, “Hey wait a minute, it was 10:30 and the gate was closed, when it says it’s supposed to be closed from 11 to 11:45.” So we’re saying the applicant should be allowed to close the gates at their discretion. They aren’t locked.  My only concern is that they do have a parking plan, and if they are closing the gate then people start parking on the street and dropping them off on the street.  The gate is not locked so parents can stop, open the gate to go in.  Part of this Conditional Use Permit is that it comes back in a year from the time it was issued. Is that right? (Strohmeier: Yes)  There is an additional overflow parking lot, so it’s not like this is the only parking. Plus they own the property on the corner.  (Strohmeier: One thing I wanted to bring up that you had noted earlier in the meeting is that there were two typos in the Conditions of Approval. You should request that those be amended. The first was the address in Condition #6, it was brought up that it should be 1248 Balboa. Also I double- checked in the staff report, there was a typo in Condition #5 that talks about the pick-up. It says between 5 and 6 in the condition, but it says between 4 and 6 in the report and that is what the request is – the pickup is between 4 and 6.)  So when we make a motion, we’ll add these changes to it.  So are we changing that second amendment part of this to allow the closing of the gates at the discretion of the director? Can we do that?  (City Attorney Kane: Yes, it is within the scope of the Planning Commission to make what would amount to a minor amendment to Condition #6. You could simply strike “during the times between 11 and 11:45 and 3 to 4” and instead say something like “consistent with the parking plan as originally approved.” So that it is clear that if exercise of the discretion creates a conflict with the parking plan, that the parking plan trumps and is enforceable.) Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the preschool shall be limited to the Baden Hall building and the adjacent fenced play yard of Trinity Lutheran Church at 1505 Sherman Avenue, to the play structure at the rear of 1519 Sherman area, and to the paved area behind 1249 1248 Balboa Avenue, used as a play area during stipulated hours, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 6, 2013; and as shown on the previously approved drop-off and pick-up plans, dated March 27, 2012; 2. that the applicant’s compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission one-year following the date of approval, in April 2014; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 18 3. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to a preschool and shall become void if the preschool is replaced by a permitted use, is expanded into other buildings or play areas, or is demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster; 4. that the preschool may be open Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with a maximum of 24 students and 5 staff persons on site at one time; 5. that a preschool staff member will escort all children to and from their vehicles to the building during the drop-off hours designated in the parking plan between 7:00 a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and between 5:00 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.; 6. that the paved parking area striped for four (4) parking spaces, located behind 1249 1248 Balboa Avenue, shall be gated and used as a play area for the children only outside of drop-off and pick-up hours for the preschool, during the times between -11:45 a.m. and 3:00 p.m at the discretion of the applicant, consistent with the parking plan as originally approved; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, number of employees, or the number of students which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 8. that drop-off and pick-up of children for the preschool shall occur on-site in the driveway space located at the rear of the Baden Hall building, that vehicles associated with the preschool use shall access the site only through the entry points on Balboa Avenue and on El Camino Real, and that vehicles shall exit the site only through the driveway on Sherman Avenue; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s July 18, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal’s March 20 and April 2, 2012 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 10. that any interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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; 11. 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; and 12. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 19 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND A NEW DECK AREA OFF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 8. 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier, briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  none Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, Burlingame, represented the applicant:  The purpose of the deck is not only to gather more space off the pool, but also replace existing guardrails that are deteriorating at the back of the residence.  We’ve designed the deck extension that curves away from the adjacent neighbor down below.  Reason for the design orientation of the deck is a public utility easement, so our area for expanding the existing pool deck is very limited. Designed for minimal impact on the neighbor down below. Questions of applicant:  It says it’s 30 feet above natural grade on the site plan, but then on the section and elevation it doesn’t look like it’s anything close to that. (Geurse: No, it should be 30 inches.)  Does the deck step down? (Geurse: Yes, it steps down 18 inches lower.)  Can you clarify the trees? It looks like there are some oak trees on the survey. (Geurse: The survey is a different orientation than the site plan. The survey is on the site plan. The other vegetation below deck is vast area of trees, brushes.)  Does the shaded area on the plans indicate the area of new deck? (Geurse: All the shaded area is new deck. It distinguishes the area that would be 30 inches above grade and outward. There is a dashed/hidden line, and beyond that would be anything above 30 inches over natural grade.)  In the proposed revision it says there will be added 484 square feet to the overall lot coverage, but the deck shows 1,305 square feet. The difference is the area that is not 30 inches above grade? (Geurse: yes) Commission comments:  Curious how this is going to impact the property below, because I know there was some discussion when they were doing an addition as well. Would it be possible to see the footprint or a portion of the adjacent house on the site plan so we can get a better idea of how these two interface? (Strohmeier: Yes, we have plans for that house that you can use for that purpose.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 20  Looks like house next door has a deck that extends out pretty far too, as a plane of reference. (Guerse: We could show that also. The idea of curving the deck was to get the majority of that deck to sway away, and also the view overlooking the city.) Public comments: Anne Menken, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:  Concerned project might block view. They are above, we are down low. We look out on a view of a hill.  Can’t read plan, can’t tell where it is going. (Submitted exhibit to the Commission). Diagonal lines show the views. Additional Commission comments:  It seems like something that would be very easy to stake out. Story poles would not need to be very high because it’s not a roof ridge that is being defined.  A story pole could show a height of a rail, and potentially where someone could be standing.  (Strohmeier: For a railing in a hillside area you have requested story poles.)  Would it be possible to visit the property and get a sense of what they are doing?  The contractor could spray a board and put it where the deck would be to give the neighbor a sense of whether she would be able to see it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  If we request story poles do they need to be surveyed ? (Strohmeier: Only if you request that) Chair Gaul re-opened the public comment period.  Is there a way to explain to the neighbor what the impacts might be? (Geurse: Yes, can place some 4 x 4s, stakes in a perimeter measured. Could have it surveyed so we know exactly where to show the arch and throw in some stakes, paint them orange, 10 feet on center.  It does not have to be certified by a surveyor. Go for the most extreme points. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Don’t understand what the big deal is with the story poles, if they’re not surveyed. With the story poles it’s black and white. It’s not that big a deal to do.  Looking to save them some money and time and keep the project moving.  Wants to make sure the neighbor is able to see it clearly.  Either way this is going to be coming back to us. This is a design review study.  There will be another hearing, so if there is an issue then we can call for story poles.  We can do site visits ourselves.  The neighbor came not saying that there would be a view blockage, but saying that she did not know what the view impact would be. In that case it’s just a clarification, and then if there is an issue we can take it to the next step. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 21 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. 9. 1361 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (ANDREA VAN HOORHIS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHARLES AND MARY THIBAULT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated April 8, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Andrea Van Voorhis, Burlingame represented the applicant:  The ambition is to leave it exactly as is from the street.  The owners love the historic character of the house and aim to maintain it.  Challenge in maintaining the historic character is the big single-paned windows in the front. To meet the City’s GreenPoint requirements, needs sizable roof plane for solar.  Home has lots of beautiful windows, keeping all the original windows. The aluminum windows will be replaced with wood, except the bathroom window.  There is also a letter of support from a neighbor (Gary Diebel letter dated 4/7/2013, submitted after preparation of the staff report.) Commission comments:  It is a really special house. Glad it is being preserved, and old windows are being maintained.  Addition is a bit squared off, looks bulky. (Van Voorhis: Regarding massing knows City likes to see articulated façade, but there are challenges, particularly meeting energy compliance. Needs to get 25 points with solar, so needs adequate roof area for solar. Would also like to have additional capacity in the future for an electric car. Also using back plane for sheer wall, otherwise would have to take out original plaster and stucco walls inside. The side is compliant with the declining envelope, but if it is pushed back the bathroom would have a ceiling less than 7 feet and the adjacent bedroom becomes too small for a comfortable space.  Have they talked to the neighbor at 1365 Bernal? Concern about light blockage. (Van Voorhis: Invited all adjacent neighbors to tour the house and come look at plans. None came. The owner of 1365 Bernal sounded amenable to changes, did not review plans but said it sounded favorable. Did make an effort to engage in dialog.) Glad you reached out to them. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 22  Elevations Sheet 8 shows the carport roof is coming off, but what about trellis? Are the posts on the property line? (Van Voorhis: Just a tall fence to screen the cars Posts are an existing condition.)  Brise soleil, will there be plantings growing on it? (Van Voorhis: Intent is to have bougainvillea grow on it from planter. Can add planters on the side next to driveway on the corner so it can grow up from side of house.  Agrees with the comments about boxing it off. Not sure likes blank wall but looks better with trellis.  On the plans posted in front of the house there is a circular window over tub. How about a rectangular/oblong window? Like the stairway window but sideways, horizontal. (Van Voorhis: Amenable to changing window.) Public comments:  none There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Change the bathroom window, add planter.  Should this be referred to a design consultant for massing?  Would like to see it not as boxed off. Chair Gaul re-opened the public comment period.  Recessed but with roofline projecting? (Van Voorhis: It would be awkward, wants roof to follow the wall of the building.)  Cut out at covered porch helps.  Proportion of window panes in the front is different. Grid at front is different. (Van Voorhis: Windows are already big. Three over grids might work better, less square.)  Maybe make double-hung windows taller? (Van Voorhis: That big of a window would not work for the interior.)  Might be better with original windows than replacing in terms of sustainability. New double-hungs don’t fit in with everything else. (Van Voorhis: Happy with balance, preserves the majority of house but is also efficient.)  Looking at the window patterns, can tell which are the new ones (6 over) and which are the originals, especially on East elevation.  Keep with undivided lights.  Bathroom also not a divided window? (Van Voorhis: Yes.)  Trying not to differentiate between old and new? (Van Voorhis: Yes, love the house.) Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  Bring back on action with grids removed from the windows, and a different bathroom window.  Should massing go to design consultant?  No, understands the applicants reasoning. It’s not as broken up as we’d like to see it but I also think it’s helpful that it’s not the front of the house. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 23  Normally when we send things to design review it’s because the architect does not understand the guidelines or what we’re after. In this case they understand what we’re after, but she’s hamstrung by our requirements as a city to have the GreenPoint rating. 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:51 p.m. 10. 1616 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (FORM + ONE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MATTHEW WOLFE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 8, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Matthew Wolfe, Burlingame, represented himself as the property owner:  First home for he and his wife, expecting their first child in September.  Excited about the home and neighborhood. Excited to get the project underway. Johnny Moss, San Francisco, represented the applicant:  Available to answer questions.  Seeking variance for parking reduction, plate height increase. Commission comments:  Concern about side yard setback, just seems close to sidewalk. Having the Master Bedroom so close to the sidewalk seems awkward. Having a hard time with side setback variance – it’s a foot and one half. Easier to approve without.  Existing fence remains, which is tall? (Wolfe: Majority of addition is behind the fence. Intention was to keep the aesthetic and not just have one wall. The bump-out is meant to be consistent with the existing architecture.)  Will the fence be replaced? (Wolfe: Yes the fence will be replaced. It’s old, needs replacement. Deciding what to do with hedges etc.)  Feels like it is “cloaked.” Wants to see more of the house on Cortez. Cortez elevation is very important.  Likes the bump-out. Good that did not push as close as could have with existing setback. Will want to maintain fence for privacy, with planting.  Existing windows being replaced, but Easton Drive will have the only vinyl window left. (Wolfe: Will replace the window, budget allowing.)  Half of the property is fenced off along Cortez. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 24  If windows in the Master Bedroom were transoms, could have a wider strip of window, but not require so much fencing.  Not sure transom windows fit this style of house.  If the fence is brought back a bit, more of the house could be exposed. (Wolfe: Could have hedges removed to create more sense of space.)  OK with the green fencing… it’s like a “secret garden.” It is their backyard. The hedge and vegetation soften the fence. If that’s where the bedroom is, can see why there would be a need for privacy.  Are fences to be discussed in design review? (Strohmeier: Typically no.)  Not concerned about bump-out  Concerned about bump-out. Not wanting to approve this.  This is different. There is already something coming out, it’s like a bookend.  Not sure what the hardship is for a variance, since it is less than maximum square footage.  Not seeing hardship for the variance. There is a lot of lot space and area to work with. Has a hard time with it so close to the sidewalk, almost 70 feet of wall. (Wolfe: Sees no way around it. W alks down that sidewalk every day and does not feel it is claustrophobic. We thought it was an improvement on the design. On a non-corner lot it would not be an issue. It creates a nice architectural symmetry.)  But it is a corner lot, not an interior lot.  Wolfe: Looked at layout of rooms, not sure other layouts would work.  Wolfe: What is right for the house? No neighbors have raised concerns. Public comments:  None Additional Commission comments:  W ould prefer not to grant a variance. Corner lots are a little different. Would like to see another option so that does not need a variance.  Remains untroubled. The fence would block most of what you’d see. The bump-out provides architectural relief. The existing structure is being improved, rather than knocking down and starting over.  Also does not see hardship for variance, just because it is a corner lot.  Sees hardship as working with existing house with existing non-conforming structure. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  Wants to review variance findings to see if this is needed. Concerned to see if there is a hardship.  Would like to come back with investigating options that do not require a variance. 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 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:21 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 25 Agenda Item 11 (1448 Cabrillo Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. 11. 1448 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES EXISTING ON SITE FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN ROCHE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 8, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  none Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, San Mateo, represented the applicant:  This is a spec home, 4 bedrooms 3 ½ baths.  In order to have larger rear yard, applying for a one car garage.  Has articulation, lots of ins and outs. Brian Roche, Burlingame, was in attendance as the property owner. Commission comments:  Nice house but not sure this is right house for this lot. Seems to be mirror image of the house at 1456 Cabrillo. The architect has a signature style, but when two houses he has designed are too close together doesn’t want it to look like a tract. (Chu: Could use different finishes and roofline at the Living Room, maybe put the plate height higher. Purposely has massing with single story element for neighbor on the right. May look the same but all these things have been considered, not the same.)  Can see similarities. Would like to see something different. Maybe come up with something to make it not look like the other house so much. (Chu: Completely different second story floorplan.)  Does not want uniformity. Would like to push to expand range. (Roche: Liked another house on Vancouver, based this design on that house. Chu: Can look into revising front elevation and roofline.)  Likes side elevations, articulates well. Appreciates the two chimneys. Work on the front elevation a bit. Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  None CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 8, 2013 26 Commissioner Yie 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 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 1, 2013:  Nothing to report. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary