Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.04.22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 22, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the April 22, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Davis, Gaul, Sargent (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), and Terrones Absent: Commissioner Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Chair Gaul moved, seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 5, last bullet at the bottom of the page; revise Strohmeier response by inserting “true divided lights” after “Simulated”.  Page 8, fourth bullet under Commission comments; revise Cray response to read: “Yes, plans to cut the eaves back to Code specifications”.  Page 16, under Dan Ionescu’s response to the applicant; add “No traffic study was required for the current request.” Motion passed 3-0-2-2 (Commissioners Yie and Sargent absent, Commissioners Terrones and DeMartini abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that the applicant for Agenda Item 5 (270 East Lane) requested a continuance until the meeting of May 13, 2013. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 2 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. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 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 (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 8, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Matthew Mefford represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Has the Menlo Park facility been closed? (Mefford – will be closed around June 30th and all operations will be relocated to Burlingame.)  What is the plan for accommodating all of the people (16) coming into the property at any time? (Mefford – based upon the Menlo Park location, it is felt that the parking is sufficient for the operation. Took their numbers for parking from that location and rolled them into the Burlingame location. The parking lot has never been full, and there has never been a congestion issue.)  Noted that the project appears to comply with the City’s parking requirements. (Mefford – yes.) Public comments: Pat Giorni spoke from the floor:  Encouraged Tesla to take advantage of BART and CalTrain services available to employees and employers; contact www.commute.org.  Sought more information regarding how sales taxes are paid by the use.  Referenced how sales taxes are typically paid to the community where the product is purchased.  A lot of cache with Auto Row in Burlingame; is a highly desirable place to sell cars.  The Edwards Court property is highly visible and allows for good product placement.  Burlingame’s proximity to SFO is such that someone can fly in in their private jet to the Tesla showroom and test drive a vehicle, but buy and pay the sales tax for the product elsewhere.  Would like to know where the other ordering stations are in the Bay Area. Should be a delineation of how far you can be from the Burlingame showroom before you are allowed to pay the sales tax elsewhere. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 3 City Attorney Kane noted that the apportionment of sales tax is determined under State law as “at the point of sale”. Tesla believes that the majority of the sales tax will be booked in Burlingame, but this could vary. The City retains the right to appeal to the State regarding the apportionment of sales tax; the Finance Department will be monitoring the matter. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Are supportive of the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit for automotive sales on a lot that is smaller than normal, given the unique operating characteristics of Tesla. 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 and date stamped March 29, 2013, sheets A0.0a, A0.0c, A0.0d, A2.1a, A2.1b, A2.2, A3.0 and A3.1; 2. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed in any required on-site parking spaces, driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; 3. that no vehicles shall be loaded or off-loaded from trucks, trailers or vehicle carriers on Edwards Court or Rollins Road or any other public right-of-way; vehicles shall be loaded and off-loaded on- site; and 4. 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 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 Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 2. 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 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted three e-mails received after preparation of the staff report that are supportive of the project. Questions of staff:  On the variance application, must all four findings be made? (Meeker – yes, all findings must be made.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 4  For the front setback, how was the setback average determined? (Hurin – Just pointed out that the front setback is 15-feet or the block average for reference purposes. The variance is from side setback requirements.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.  Tim Raduenz and Matthew Wolfe represented the applicant. Commission comments:  It is agreed that the bump out on the side is a good architectural solution, but can’t conclude that it is the only solution that exists. Cannot conclude that that is enough of a hardship to grant the variance.  Is adherence to our design guidelines enough of an issue to trump the findings necessary for a variance? The findings for a variance are a very high hurdle; doesn’t feel that they can be made in this instance.  If it were an issue of extending an existing condition that is already non-conforming, then there could be support; but that is not the case in this instance. (Raduenz – are attempting to work within the client’s budget and trying to construct a sensitive addition to the existing house; there are no other second-story additions present in the neighborhood. The hardship is to retain the existing aesthetics of the existing structure.)  Noted the special criteria that apply to requests for a special permit. Allow for design and aesthetic considerations, different from a vaiance.  Understands that there is a wealth of support from the neighbors.  Is a slippery slope to approve the request based upon neighborhood support, consistency with existing architecture, etc.  Have set up the parameters for the design on corner lots for a reason. The reduced setback is contrary to the rationale for these parameters. (Raduenz – understands the design concept for a new design, but are trying to work within the client’s budget and within the design for existing home. Cortez doesn’t have any second-story buildings; a second story is not appropriate for this house. The hardship is that the existing, old structure has aesthetics that are being preserved; are not wishing to disrupt the entire building for the addition.)  Appreciates that the project is well below the maximum lot coverage and FAR.  The Commission is not pushing for a second story; but the criteria referenced related to respect for the existing architecture comes in to play when considering requests for a special permit.  Noted that the addition does not extend out as far as the front corner of the house; there is an existing non-compliant condition that is greater than the request.  Clarified that the reference to extending an existing condition is an extension of an existing wall in the same plane.  Is a handsome design, but cannot arrive at the decision that this is the only solution available for this property.  Noted that the findings must be met in order to grant the variance as it could set a precedent for other properties in the future. Need to be certain that the same findings can be met with every future request.  Requests for variance are considered on a case by case basis; the applicant has arrived at the best solution for the property. Referenced a recent request for a variance to increase the maximum FAR that was readily approved.  The flat wall is not the only design solution; appreciates the applicant’s attempt to develop a solution without removing the existing structure.  Looks at a corner lot differently from an interior lot. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 5  The design is good looking, but is having difficulty with bringing the wall closer to the property line. (Raduenz – asked if the initial request was for a minor modification. Hurin – clarified that when such an application is submitted with a request for design review, it is considered a variance. Meeker – noted that the standard of review is much greater for approval of a variance.)  Noted that the single-story addition requires a special permit due to the increase in plate height, but that plays into the request for a variance. (Hurin – affirmed that the plate height triggered design review.)  If the matter still qualified as a minor modification, the matter would not be considered by the Planning Commission. (Raduenz – felt that a hardship exists. Wolfe – noted that the entire side of the building is already situated within the side setback. There is already a portion of the property that is non-compliant. Wouldn’t believe that that is precedent setting. If not allowed to use the additional setback area, would need to push the building back more and impact the rear of the lot.)  Can very easily see that this is precedent setting; relief from the setback standards because it is a corner lot is not justification for the variance.  If the variance were granted, one could state that the design guidelines trumped the development standards; this could be used by others to request relief in similar circumstances.  The existing wall was erected prior to the current setback requirements; could more easily consider rebuilding or extending a wall where one existed previously. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Not in favor of the setback variance; there should be another review of the layout in an effort to eliminate the need for a variance.  Feels that given the existing conditions, the design is the best architectural solution. An alternate solution may be contrary to the City’s design guidelines.  Completely agrees with the comments regarding the desirability of the design, but there is a very high standard that must be met to justify the variance. Chair Gaul moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-1-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Davis dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (1448 Cabrillo Avenue) as he lives within 500-feet of the property. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 6 3. 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 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Noted an error in the applicant’s application for a special permit as it appears to reference another property. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Feels the design has changed substantially.  Was there a reason for deleting the trellis over the right-side doors? (Chu – this was changed as the design was being refined.)  With respect to the direct vent fireplace, noted that the direct vent chimney could go to the top, doesn’t need to vent out the side. (Chu – that is his intention.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis 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 April 12, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Boundary and Topographic 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 basement, 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 27 and March 7, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's April 1, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 7, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's March 13, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's March 28, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 7 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 8 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 Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 4. 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 VANVOORHIS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHARLES AND MARY THIBAULT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Andrea Van Voorhis represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Listened to the recording from the design review discussion; believes the design massing has been handled well.  The existing home is a gem.  The design works well with the proposed pallet of materials.  Given the sloped lot, there is support for the special permit.  Can support the project as revised.  As long as the neighbor to the rear is supportive, has no problem with the project. 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 April 11, 2013, sheets 1 through 9; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 9 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 basement, 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 February, 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s and the Stormwater Coordinator's February 25, 2013 memos, the City Arborist’s February 27, 2013 memo, and the City Engineer’s March 5, 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; 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 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 April 22, 2013 10 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 5. 270 EAST LANE, ZONED MMU – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW MEZZANINE ADDITION IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (GARY COHN, CA DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY DIEBEL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Gaul moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 13, 2013 at the request of the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (SIGN CODE) – PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE SIGN CODE WOULD AMEND THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO APPLICABLE PROPERTIES WITH PARCEL FRONTAGES OF LESS THAN 100 FEET AND 150 FEET, DEPENDENT UPON ZONING CLASSIFICATION. STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Commission comments:  Wondered when the Peninsula Museum of Art came to Burlingame? (Meeker – it moved here from Belmont recently.)  Are there standards for illumination? (Meeker – will be dictated by the current Sign Ordinance.) Public comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 11  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved recommend to the City Council, adoption of the proposed amendments to Title 22 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance) as stated in the draft resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 748 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (MAXWELL BEAUMONT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GORLAT BAINS PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Maxwell Beaumont represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is not seeing cohesion in the design; there is inconsistency in the window design, sizes and placement.  Biggest concern is that most homes in the block are predominantly single-story, bungalow type houses. Is looking for a distinct style that is more in keeping with the neighborhood aesthetic.  Concerned with the massing; is really a bit of a layer-cake. Almost one uniform gutter-line on the second floor.  The massing needs to be broken down a bit more.  On the front elevation, there is no real hierarchy between the windows between the first and second floors.  Can’t ask for a one-story solution, but a two-story solution requires better articulation and integration with the existing home.  Seems like a good candidate for having a front porch; could create a gathering space that could make it a bit more compatible. The current design eliminates the small porch and replaces it with a CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 12 small stoop. (Beaumont – is the intent of the owner to capture the small porch space as interior living space.)  The neighborhood is active with pedestrians.  A porch could assist in giving the design some relief.  The first floor elevation causes the second story to appear even more massive. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The design is far enough away from being approvable that referral to a design review consultant appears appropriate.  Noted that simulated true divided light windows are also acceptable; true divided light windows are not required. Chair Gaul made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8 (2415 Hillside Drive) as he is the project applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. 8. 2415 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SARGENT CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 13  Handsome design; feels the architectural style is appropriate for the area.  Clarified that a wood lattice vent will be provided in the gable.  Suggested that consideration be given to not installing shingles along the base of the porch; could be stucco to avoid deterioration of the finishing material. This could also be repeated on the pedestals of the columns. (Chu – had stone originally, but revised to be shingles.)  On the garage, with respect to the stucco on the rear and side, will there be a fence that turns to the garage turning the one-foot setback to the neighbor. Encouraged working with the neighbor so that the neighbor can assist in maintaining this side of the garage.  Encouraged pulling the garage even greater than one-foot off of the property line to provide more room for maintenance when needed.  Requested clarification regarding the material to be used on the window trim.  Echoed prior comments regarding the direct vent fireplace.  Feels that the Oak tree will fit well with the neighborhood, but encouraged placing something other than lawn under the tree as turf will not grow in that area.  Likes the design and the window proportions. Public comments: A resident from the neighboring property at 1328 Castillo Avenue spoke:  Noted that the twelve-inch gap between the property line and the garage is currently a problem.  With respect to bedroom number four on the second floor, looks like there is a pop-out for the window; will cause the loss of light to the neighboring property; encouraged doing anything to minimize the blocking of light. Is that feature necessary for the design? W ould be acceptable if flush. (Commissioners – noted that the pop-out is on the driveway side so it is removed quite a bit more from the neighboring property. Not certain that this feature will make a difference. The overall roof line of the structure will extend further than the pop-out.)  The windows in the pop-out will look onto the neighboring property. (Commissioners – can ensure that the windows are of a design that will preserve the neighbor’s privacy. Can ask the applicant to consider a slightly lower roof pitch to reduce light impacts. Chu – feels that the neighbor’s property will be creating more shade impacts than the new home.)  With respect to the shingle finish on the new home; encouraged a lighter color that will throw a lot of light onto the neighboring property.  Encouraged design features that will reduce potential damage in the case of a fire.  Add massing diagram. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  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 Yie absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 14 Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 9. 2315 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILIP KAHN TR AND MARILYN ELPERIN TR, PROPERTY OWNERS (STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN) Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Appreciates attempting to emulate the design of the existing house.  Not certain that all of the trees noted should be removed; are there any that could be preserved? (Grange – the new home is larger than the existing home; roots will interfere with placement of the new structure. The tree in the middle of the front-yard is large, but is not that spectacular.)  On the rear elevation, where is the chimney for the fireplace? (Grange – is working on the design of the venting for the fireplace, will be running it up the wall. Is all gas so there will be a gas flu.)  Suggested installing a chimney feature on the rear elevation.  On the front elevation, there is a gable end vent on the end of the garage, but there is not a vent on the main gable; suggested placing a vent at that location.  Handsome design.  On the front entry gable, feels a bit plain. Perhaps revisit this element of the design to add more detail or character.  Likes the landscape plan.  Agrees with the rationale for the special permit for the attached garage.  The lot is so large that the attached garage will work well. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 15 have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 10. 1450 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED CAC – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR FAÇADE CHANGES TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KEN LIDICKER, MBH ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICHARD DEWEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 22, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Andres Grechi represented the applicant. Commission comments:  On Chapin Avenue elevation, with respect to the louver details, will the vertical fins on the ends be cantilevered, or built as shown on the renderings? (Grechi – will be tied into the louvers on the inside.)  Is the metal fascia along the roofline just flashing? (Grechi – will be aluminum trim that is painted to match the louver system.)  On the front elevation, is a glass-panel guard rail being provided? (Grechi – yes.)  What are the sizes of the metal panel modules? Suggested that the panels be sized to remain consistent with the scale of other design features. (Grechi – are pursuing a smaller sized module than that shown.)  Likes the direction of the design; encouraged precision in detailing.  Noted that the font used with signage on the building currently should be something that works well with Neutra-style architecture.  Clarified that the cladding on the east side will be continued as shown on the rest of the structure. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair 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 Yie absent). The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 22, 2013 16 Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  The Planning Commission’s annual rotation of officers on May 13, 2013; Community Development Director Meeker noted that the following members will be the new officers commencing with that meeting: Chair: Rich Sargent Vice-Chair: Jeanne Davis Secretary: Nirmala Bandrapalli  Commencing with the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 13, 2013; Planning Commission meetings will be broadcast live in the same manner as City Council meetings. Residents will be able to watch the meetings live, on-line via the City’s website and will be able to watch recordings of past meetings from the website. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 15, 2013:  Accepted. FYI: 2525 Easton Drive – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project.  Accepted. FYI: 2508 Valdivia Way – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project:  Accepted. XII. AD JOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Davis, Secretary