Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.10.27Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, October 27, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 2748 Burlingview Dr Staff Report 2748 Burlingview Dr Attachments Attachments: 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2014 October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (J. Deal, J. Deal Associates, designer and appilcant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed) StaffContact: Erika Lewit a. 1548 Meadow Ln Staff Report 1548 Meadow Ln Attachments Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1521 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for a new single family dwelling with an attached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., designer; Eric Mainini, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner a. 1521 Cabrillo staff report 1521 Cabrillo attachments Attachments: 2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye, applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner b. 2308 Hillside staff report 2308 Hillside attachments Attachments: 1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a new, two -story dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height, and exiting (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and applicant; Scott and Brooke Hill, proerty owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit c. 1908 Easton Dr Staff Report 1908 Easton Dr Attachments Attachments: 1426 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC – Application for Variance for Required Business Access for a new retail space in an existing commercial building (Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property owner ) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner d. 1426 Burlingame staff report 1426 Burlingame Ave attachments Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2014 October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1813 Ray Dr Staff Report 1813 Ray Dr Attachments Attachments: 1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (Julie Carlson, JCarlson Architectural Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 1547 Vancouver Ave Staff Report 1547 Vancouver Ave Attachments Attachments: 1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and applicant; 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit c. 1025 Cabrillo Ave Staff Report 1025 Cabrillo Ave Attachments 1025 Cabrillo Ave - 10.27.14 - recd after 1 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission Communicationsa. City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014b. FYI: 1529 Bernal Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. c. 1529 Bernal Ave Memorandum 1529 Bernal Ave Attachments Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 27, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2014 October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2014 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 14, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.September 22, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes of September 23, 2014: >Page 4; last bullet; revise second half of first sentence to read: "verify that is standard practice to consider the incremental increase from actual users. >Page 5; eleventh bullet; revise "sheer" to be "shear". >Page 5; fifteenth bullet; insert "and intermediate school" between "school" and "traffic". >Page 6; Planning Commission comments questions; first bullet, line two; replace "conditions" with "hotels". >Page 8; adjournment; deleted second "meeting adjourned". Chair Bandrapalli voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 9a (1548 Meadow Lane) and Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8b (1224 Capuchino Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance - Staff Contact: Kevin Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Commission comments/questions: >Are the incentives required by State law? (Gardiner - incentives are required. A menu as is proposed is not always the case. Staff has used the existing incentives from the current municipal code since they have been analyzed previously. The State also requires the City to provide a discretionary option.) >With respect to the stepping back of upper floor setbacks, is it correct that the option proposed is to add the item as an additional incentive? (Gardiner - correct. The applicant could still request the waiver through the discretionary approach.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke: >Reviewed the comments contained in her October 12, 2014 letter expressing concerns regarding spacing/setbacks between structures. >A reduction in the space between structures would impact the ability to provide adequate landscaping as well as impact light to adjacent structures. >Is aware of certain designs compliant with code provisions that have resulted in ungainly designs; this section should be refined. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Perhaps the spacing between buildings should be revisited during the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update; withdraw the incentive regarding upper floor setbacks. >Could an applicant request a variance from the standards? (Gardiner - yes, if conditions warranted consideration.) >Seems that the initial intent of the interior finishing being the same was to ensure the dignity of the tenants; feels this should remain. >With respect to parking reductions near transit; seems like the radius for application could be expanded to one-half mile. (Gardiner - mentioned the Priority Development Area since it is a defined boundary already. Better to address the larger issue of transit -oriented development through the General Plan process.) >Car-sharing should be compared with the ownership costs for a car. There could still be a valid argument for this type of incentive. (Kane - the problem comes with conditioning the parking of the building based upon a continuing agreement with an independent company that may or may not exist in the future. Becomes an issue because no one has control over the third party. Easier from an enforcement standpoint to maintain enforcement only over the housing provider.) >With respect to the R 4 District, does the 46-foot height need to remain an option? Would rather find another way to help a developer save money. >Concerned with the vagueness of the section requiring dispersal of the units within the development . Is there some way to be more specific? (Gardiner - will work on the wording to make it more explicit . Meeker - would have the ability to review locations as part of the design review.) >Have any projects been completed under the Downtown Specific Plan's reduced parking standards for residential? (Meeker - nothing yet, though one is under construction. Gardiner - there is a project on Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Bayswater that is completed that uses a slightly higher standard than in the remainder of the area.) Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the proposed Density Bonus regulations, with the following amendments: >Do not include proposal to allow waiver of upper-story stepbacks >Without third-party carshare option. >Revert back to original language regarding finishing of affordable units to ensure that they placed and finished in the same manner as all other units Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1205 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage; project includes enlarging an existing detached garage (Lori Potter, applicant and property owner; McGriff Architects, architect) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the property owners. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Commission comments/questions: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Lori Potter presented the request on behalf of the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Was the loft kept under the maximum height to maintain an appropriate aesthetics? (Potter - yes.) >The sliding doors on the side of the garage make it look like the space could be used for other purposes. >Believes the sliding doors are excessive. >The rear yard is not that large. Public comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Further Commission comments/questions: >Doesn't have a problem with the request for the bathroom in the garage. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.1361 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permit for a reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces for a project consisting of adding on the first floor, converting the existing attached garage to habitable area and building a new detached garage (John Kloster and Laura Ayala, applicants and property owners; TRG Architects, architect) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. Commission comments/questions: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Randy Grange presented the project on the part of the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Have the project plans been shared with the neighbor? (Grange - believes the property owner has done so.) >Can a vehicle do a multi-point turn to leave the garage? (Grange - no, must back out completely.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the applicant subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - d.1224 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Davina and Ron Drabkin, applicants and property owners; Carl Groch, architect) (86 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (Commissioner Terrones recused himself from participation in the following discussion as he has a quasi-business relationship. He left the City Council Chambers.) All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Questions of staff: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Carl Groch and Ron Drabkin represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Thanked the application for reviewing the overall height and the window design. Are window grids proposed? (Groch - no.) If grids are proposed in the future, choose the simulated true divided -light Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes option. (Groch - there are two windows aside the new front door; these will have an actual grid system.) >The submission notes that the window cladding is Fiberglas; it is actually a vinyl finish on the window that is specified on the plans. This type of window has been approved by the Commission before. >With respect to the plate height; was a reduction to eight feet plate height considered? (Groch - the ceiling height in the remainder of the house is nine feet. The master bedroom is a good sized room; felt that a reduction to eight feet would feel quite a bit lower. The added trees have really taken care of the scale problem.) Feels that given the setting next to the apartment building is a mitigating factor. >Appreciates the improvements that have been made. >Requested clarification regarding the porch; it is to accommodate a plant? (Groch - there is an Olive tree at the location that is quite healthy.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve with amended conditions: >If the windows are changed to include grids, then this should be called out on the plans. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Recused:Terrones1 - e.1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height, and exiting (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and appliant; Scott and Brooke Hill, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. Commission comments/questions: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Scott Hill presented the project on behalf of the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Will the basement be completely water proofed, or will a sump pump be installed? (Geurse - the basement will be completely water proofed. The soils report shows no evidence of groundwater. Hill - the soils report was from last year; there has never been any evidence of water in the basement . Doesn't know if a sump pump will be required.) >Very handsome design. >Concerned about the height. The Commission hasn't recently allowed special permits for additional height. Seems that there needs to be a pretty involved discussion with respect to the building height . Though the homeowner is accustomed to greater ceiling heights, this is not necessarily enough to warrant the increased height. (Geurse - the finished floor of the existing residence is at a certain height . The first floor for the new residence will be one foot lower. Noted that the building height is measured from the average top of curb, not the actual grade. Have looked at dropping ceiling heights, but would still require a special permit for the height.) >Could dig the basement further into the ground or could terrace the rear yard considering the significance of the modifications being made to the site. Hard to support the special permit without Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes seeing everything done to attempt to design the project to comply with the maximum height. >Confirmed that the Commission had discussed the need to clearly demonstrate the need to increase ceiling heights and hence overall building height. There are a lot of single -story homes in the neighborhood. The increased plate heights will cause the structure to be out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. (Hill - cited the slope of the lot as a contributing factor to the lot that creates a special circumstance that warrants the special permit. Thought about sinking the home even further below grade, but would then have an underground garage and greater potential for water infiltration into the basement. There are a number of homes in the area on similar lots that have main floors level with the rear yard.) >Clarified that at the design review study meeting that the first floor ceiling height was and still remains nine-feet, six-inches. >The references to the existing height are not relevant since this is new construction. >If the house is moved forward, wouldn't that lower the home? (Hill - would not solve the situation.) >The applicant is correct that special permits have been approved for similar sloped lots. Where this has been done, the applicant has done everything possible to reduce the height as much as possible. >There are means of interior design that could be used to minimize the height impact on the neighborhood while still providing greater ceiling heights inside the structure. >Feels that reducing the first floor to nine -feet and the second floor to eight -feet would go along way towards addressing the concerns. >Doesn't see much movement towards reducing the overall height. >Is the family room counting twice because of 12-foot ceiling heights? (Geurse - it is actually less than that height.) Public comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as provided in the discussion regarding the building height. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - f.1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (John Stewart, applicant and architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Commission comments/questions: None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. John Stewart represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Has the location of the garage been resolved with the neighbor? (Stewart - has been resolved, there will be no fence installed.) Public Comments: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tom Harold, neighbor on the right: >Curious about what is being reviewed. In the exhibit shows plans that are dated August 6, 2014. The drawings show plans from June 24th. Not consistent. >Still has a problem with the location of the garage to the property line. Not having a fence in the immediate term is not a problem, but could be a problem in the future if he chooses to have a dog in the future. Feels the garage could be moved a bit more. (Commissioner - sometimes encourage property owners to have a fence terminate at the garage so that the neighbor's property is fully enclosed. Are effectively giving the neighbor an additional several inches of property. Suggested that that detail could be resolved as a condition of approval.) >Wants to be certain that the construction results in a situation acceptable to the parties. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - g.325 Chapin Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (Nick Rogers, applicant and property owner; Chris Spaulding, architect) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Questions of staff: >How will the City ensure that the circular driveway is not used for parking? (Meeker - through receipt of code enforcement complaints.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Chris Spaulding and Nick Rogers presented the project on behalf of the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >The Commission discussed the application of the Secretary of Interior Standards for renovation of historic structures and its applicability to the project. Public comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, designer and applicant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (Chair Bandrapalli was recused from participating in the discussion regarding this item as she resides within 500-feet of the project site. She left the City Council Chambers.) All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the property owner. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. Commission comments/questions: >None. Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and Aimee Foster represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Believes the massing of the design is handled well. >Noted that the drawing for the bay window is drawn incorrectly. (Deal - will have this item corrected.) >With respect to the planter box, how are the plants secured? (Deal - there is a recess in the boxes that will secure the plants.) >Could windows be provided above the splash line in the two second -floor bathrooms /showers? Also asked for the garage window to be installed even if only with obscured glass. (Deal - okay.) >Clarify whether or not the garage door is going to be changed. >Likes the planter shelves all around, but feels the brackets on the projecting mass on the second floor seems out of character. (Deal - thought it looked better than just having stucco area project without apparent support.) Perhaps the projection brackets should be more substantial. >Will the front, master bathroom windows be obscured? (Foster - likely with a privacy glaze.) Vice-Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the project plans are ready for review. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Recused:Bandrapalli1 - b.14 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Variance for Lot Coverage for a first floor addition that qualifies as substantial construction (Samuel Sinnott, architect and applicant; Christy and Jesse Lindeman, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission questions/comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Samuel Sinnott and Christy Lindeman represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Questioned the adequacy of the findings made in the application for the variance. Feels that additional coverage would normally not be allowed for smaller lots. Also doesn't feel that there is an adequate response to the question regarding infringement on the property right. (Sinnott - the lot is below the standard lot size in Burlingame. Spoke to the desire to keep the design single -story. There is less than a one-percent deviation from the code standard.) >Feels that keeping the design single-story reduces the neighborhood impact. >Agrees that the variance findings require strengthening. Likes the design and massing, but the design is taking away the porch amenity. The amenity to the neighborhood is lost; they are typically encouraged. The large foyer is not a lot of useable space. In addition, the great room could be reduced a bit to bring the project into the code standard. Trying to determine if the house is truly constrained, but there appear to be areas where the design could be made more efficient and comply. (Sinnott - agrees that the front porch is very homey. Are trying to achieve the indoor -outdoor room feel for the enclosed porch. To break the hip roof, the gable roof needed to project out a bit more. The dining room cantilevers out but doesn't count towards lot coverage. Feels they are being treated uniquely because the exception would normally be approved at staff level.) >Is conflicted because staff would be allowed to approve up to 41% for the lot coverage. >The house is really modest and falls far below the maximum floor area. Public comments: >None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Further Commission comments/questions: >Feels that the finding responses that are included in the variance application are consistently rejected by the Commission. There may be other ways to word the response to the findings that may be more supportable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - c.770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and Tamara Miller, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, and Jonathan and Tamara Miller represented the applicant. Additional Commission questions/comments: >Handsome design. Likes that it is designed with an eyed towards sustainability. >Asked how the dominant characteristics of the home are consistent with the neighborhood? (Grange - the massing could be used with a more traditional design. Across the street are a number of Craftsman homes that are similar in massing.) >What is the dominant structural characteristic of the home? (Grange - it is a mix of one and two story elements.) >How does this home blend in with other homes in the block; doesn't see any other contemporary homes in the block. It doesn't seem to fit into the consistency with the neighborhood. >Feels it is a very interesting design, believes that the massing does a good job of blending in and fitting the character of Burlingame neighborhoods. Could the amount of glazing on the front and the rear of the house be reviewed? The front windows are particularly large when compared to the rest of the neighborhood. It is not hyper-modern. >Is real limestone proposed? It is a very "mansion-like" material. (Grange - yes.) >What is the rhyme or reason for the use of materials? Suspects this will work itself out as the design moves forward. >The two large (tall) windows on the front create somewhat of a pylon element. >Not crazy about the design. The design replaces a porch with a garage. Feels the proportion at the rear could be a bit more acceptable. >Could the front design be similar to the rear with the garage pushed back to the rear of hte home to de-emphasize it. >Agrees with the architect on the massing; the architectural details could be changed to another style . The plate heights cause incompatibility with the neighborhood. >Not certain that massing is sufficient to make a design compatible with the neighborhood. (Grange - thinks the massing is a big part of compatibility. Over time the mix of houses in a given block will change.) >Windows are oversized with minimal trim. >The colored rendering is better proportioned. How tall is the garage door? (Grange - eight feet.) >The character of the neighborhood breaks down into three groups: original with garage in the back, new, and those built before the design guidelines. >Feels the predominant feature is the garage door. Is there any way to soften the appearance of the garage door? (Grange - looked at having two single -car doors, but draws the eye even more. Simple seemed to be the best approach.) >Feels like the existing house fits in perfectly. >Were there any thoughts of expanding the current house to make it fit? (Grange - also likes the existing house. Would take a considerable amount of money to renovate it. Would not be able to achieve the clients' goals. T. Miller - the house is in a considerable state of disrepair. Would be prohibitive.) >Could do two single -car garages to mitigate the appearance of the garage? (Grange - considered it but didn't appear to work.) >Is the front door wood or glass? (Grange - will be wood, as shown on the plan.) >On the rear elevation, it appears that the wood siding on the rear is not the same dimension as shown on the plan. (Grange - would be 1" x 4".) >Not a huge fan of two-car attached garages. The last architect that designed in the neighborhood did a staggered garage arrangement.) >Would help to include the landscape plan on the elevation to show how it may appear when built. >What is the plan for removal of groundwater from the basement. (Grange - the basement will be designed to not require drainage.) >Would be more helpful on the rendering to see the garage door head-on. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The new design is interesting, needs some tweaking to fit in. >Not necessarily opposed to introducing a more contemporary approach into a neighborhood . Although all designs need to conform to massing and scale in the neighborhood. However, there are some issues of scale and amenity with the proposed design. >Agrees with the argument for the attached garage. Perhaps bring the plate height of the garage down to reduce the overall scale of the garage. Feels that a two door arrangement shouldn't be ruled out. >Feels they could still achieve a contemporary style while maintaining the scale with the neighborhood. Revisit the scale of the windows. >There are ways to use the same design details and have more of a porch on the front of the property; this would also assist with the scale of the structure and compatibility with the neighborhood. >Not certain that the plate heights are necessarily the problem. >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (T. Miller - with some.) Public comments: Peter Mirosnkoff, 717 Walnut: >Has lived in neighborhood for 36 years. New homes have maintained the character of the neighborhood. >Had hoped that someone would retain the existing home or at least proposed a design that is consistent with the neighborhood. Ellen Mazzoni, 885 Walnut: >Sold the property to the applicants. >Need to be cognizant of the changes that are occurring within the community, and the people that are moving into the neighborhood. >Has sold contemporary homes in Burlingame in various neighborhoods. Challenging to understand what the aesthetics of change area are. >New property owners have different needs. The problem with the detached garage concept is that everyone parks on the street.) >There is a variety of architectural styles in the block. >Sees it as a modern interpretation of Craftsman. Unidentified speaker: >Lives in a post-earthquake structure. >Likes modern architecture, but this design doesn't fit with the neighborhood. >The people moving into Burlingame do not only want modern styles; they are drawn by the variety of housing styles. >Most homes in the area don't have attached garages. >There is no charm in the design. Robert, 766 Walnut: >Lives next door to the property. >Pleased that the property will be demolished. >The street is congested. >Will be helpful to take a couple of cars off of the street. >The majority of homes on this side of the street have attached garages. >None of the homes look like the house next door. >Feels that the design is a much better option than what exists on the property currently. Unidentified speaker: Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Doesn't care about the garage door; is concerned that the design doesn't fit into the neighborhood. >A house like this shouldn't be allowed in Burlingame. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Further Commission comments/questions: >The debate regarding modern forms of architecture will continue. >Believes that the issue is a matter of scale. >If the scale issues are addressed and built, it would eventually fade into the background. >Doesn't see the logic that the existing house can only be replaced with a Craftsman -style. Is a matter of scale and details. >Is reflective of the demand for architectural styles in the community that are not clearly addressed by the Design Guidelines. >The profile of applicants coming forward now is different from before; not speculators, but people who are building to address their personal tastes and desires. >Would be helpful to lower the garage door and roof. Believes that the plate heights also need to be addressed to bring down the scale. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to bring the matter back on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - d.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners ) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director presented the staff report. Questions of staff: >Would the retaining wall between the properties need to be addressed? (Meeker - would be addressed as part of the plan check prior to issuance of a building permit.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Farnaz Khadiv, and Jiries and Suhair Hanhan represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Feels that the fascia caps are very heavy looking. They seem to make the building seem disjointed and broken into many pieces. Detracts from the design. >Would help to see the new design overlain on the existing design to get a sense for the relationship between the massing. >Feels the curved roof is very strange; doesn't go well with the design. >Feels that some relief is warranted from the declining height envelope on side -sloping lots. That in conjunction with the Hillside Area Permit and the need for story poles will determine what is acceptable. >Seems that the siding materials are disjointed. How will the Cedar siding be finished? (Khadiv - will likely be stained.) >Perhaps the vertical siding is not the best choice for the lower level. >The fascias seem out of scale with the modern style that is being sought. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Feels that some of the finishing details detract from the modern character; perhaps clean up the design to eliminate some of the disjointed character. >Look at corner window designs that help the modern details come to the forefront. >The curved roof element doesn't appear to be necessary. Could be an issue relative to the story poles. >Not too much of an issue with the massing because it doesn't deviate too far from the current massing. >Feels the stucco band could be eliminated. >Clean up the disparate elements to clean up the facade. >On the front elevation, show how the existing house complies with the declining height envelope . (Khadiv - the area for compliance with the declining height envelope is completely outside even the current building design.) >Did the designer try to get closer to compliance with the declining height envelope? (Khadiv - Yes. Brought walls in on both the first and second floors. Included a balcony to move further in.) >Did he visit the neighbor's house across the street to determine what the view impact may be? (Khadiv - doesn't appear to be significantly impacting the view of the neighbors.) >Would appreciate seeing a color rendering of the project. >Work with staff to clarify the requests for the declining height envelope. Public comments: Greg Goldman, 1523 Alturas Drive: >Has no problem with the look of the house. >Was hoping that the roofline of the house would not increase; appears to be increasing by seven feet. >The view will be directly at the house from the rear of his property. >Also concerned about drainage. >Not opposed to the square footage. Winnie Tan, speaking for the right side neighbor at 1344 Los Montes: >Provided sets of drawings for each of the Commissioners to show the impact upon the property adjacent. >Concern of windows being blocked by addition. >Requested story poles to see if any views would be blocked. (Commissioner - requested contact information for the neighbor.) Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes: >Biggest concern is the potential for a blocked view. Can see the lights of the bayfront area from their home; can also see the planes taking off. Greg Lim: >Welcomed them to the neighborhood. >Only concerned about the retaining wall and the drainage. >Looks forward to seeing the new home. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project to a design reviewer and to require the installation of story poles for the project. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director Reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 14, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 24, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1521 Cabrillo Avenue APN: 025-224-150 APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Eric Mainini GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Low Density Residential/R-1 LOT AREA: 16,942 SF ENVIRONM ENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single famil y residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An application for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Parking Variance for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2013 (August 26, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on January 7, 2014 and construction is currently underway. The property owner is proposing alterations to three of the windows on the dwelling:  Front Elevation, Bath #2 window – substitute approved round window with square window  Left Side Elevation, stairwell window – replace stained/obscure glazing with clear glazing  Left Side Elevation, Bedroom #4 window – replace 4’-6” (approx.) window with 7’-0” (approx.) window, and replace stained/obscure glazing with clear glazing The property owner submitted a letter and photographs accompanied by originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped October 15, 2014, to explain the proposed changes to the previously approved Design Review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. BACKGROUND The proposed house and attached garage, currently under construction, will have a total floor area of 4,438.9 SF (0.26 FAR) where 6,521 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum that could allowed for the 16,942 SF property (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at three separate meetings, first as a Design Review Study item on July 22, 2013, and then an Action item on August 12 and August 26, 2013. The Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 2 Planning Commission approved the project at its August 26 meeting. Minutes from the August 26th meeting are attached for reference. An “FYI” application to reduce the size of the house at the back in order to save an existing protected size Oak tree in the rear yard was approved by the Planning Commission on May 27, 2014. The FYI memorandum is attached for reference. DISCUSSION With any new construction approved by the Planning Commission, Planning Division staff will conduct a final inspection prior to finalization of building permits. Should there be any significant discrepancies between the built dwelling and the plans approved by the Planning Commission, the matter will be brought back to Planning Commission for consideration either as an “FYI” memorandum or as a Design Review Amendment request before building permits can be finalized. Because the dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue is currently under construction, Planning staff has not yet conducted a final inspection. However if unanticipated issues are encountered during construction it is not unusual for applicants to request FYI or Design Review Amendments prior to final inspections. In this instance the request is limited to the three windows identified in the property owner’s letter and the proposed revised plans. Staff notes that while the approved plans have an annotation on the Left Elevation specifying “stained/obscured glazing shown shaded typ.” a specific method for obscuring the glazing was not included in either the approved plans or the Conditions of Approval. However the expectation would be that such treatment (whether frosted glass or applied privacy film) would be intended to be fixed permanently. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the proposal to modify the windows of the approved project, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Alternatives the Planning Commission may consider include but are not limited to: A. Approval of the modifications to all three windows as requested; B. Approval of some but not all of the modifications as requested; C. Denial of all modification requests. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered. Underlined conditions would be consistent with the amendments requested by the property owner in the application; the Planning Commission may choose to retain, modify, and/or delete such conditions consistent with its findings. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 14, 2013 sheets A.1 through G.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Partial Topographic Map, with the clarification that the particular species planted along the fence line shall be the Prunus Caroliniana standard; and as modified on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 19, 2014 sheets A.1 through A.7, and as modified on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2014 sheets A.4, A.4a, A5.a and A.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 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 City Engineer’s April 1, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's March 7, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s June 28, 2013 and March 12, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 1, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 25, 2013 and March 5, 2013 memos shall be met; 5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated February 27, 2013; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 4 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. that 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structur e(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 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 5 certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403, designer. Eric Mainini, property owner Attachments:  E-mail letter and photos from property owner, dated October 22, 2014  Minutes from the August 26, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting  FYI memorandum to the Planning Commission dated May 27, 2014  Planning Commission resolution (proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 17, 2014  Aerial Photo Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2308 Hillside Drive APN: 027-166-110 APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: Mike Ma/March Design PROPERTY OWNER: Harumitsu Inouye GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Low Density Residential/R-1 LOT AREA: 6,000 SF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single story house on the property with a detached garage, to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and to convert the existing detached garage into a secondary dwelling unit. The proposed house, attached garage and secondary dwelling unit will have a total floor area of 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is at the maximum allowed FAR. Staff notes that the application includes a new secondary dwelling unit, and that the design of the unit remains unchanged from the previous plan submittal. Per State law, review of the secondary dwelling unit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff will review the design of the secondary dwelling unit for conformance with the City’s Secondary Dwelling Unit ordinance (C.S. 25.59) requirements. The ordinance includes a number of performance standards, including the requirement that the secondary dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary dwelling located on the property. The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms and the new secondary dwelling unit will contain one bedroom. The main dwelling requires three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, and the secondary dwelling unit requires one parking space. Two covered spaces will be provided in the attached garage (20’ x 20’ clear interior measurements) and two uncovered parking spaces are provided in the driveway (each space measures 9’ x 20’). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010); and  Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035, (a)). Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 2 2308 Hillside Drive Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: October 15, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 20'-2” 26'-9” 26’-9” 1 19'-10” (block average) 20'-0” 25’-0” (for side by side) Side (left): (right): 4'-2" 4’-2” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 52’-8” 63’-4” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,283 SF 38% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 3,020 SF 0.50 FAR 3,020 SF 2 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 (in main dwelling) 1 (in 2nd unit) --- Parking: 2 covered + 1 uncovered (main dwelling) 1 uncovered (2nd unit) 2 covered + 1 uncovered (main dwelling) 1 uncovered (2nd unit) Height: 25’-3” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035, (a)). 2 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) DESIGN REVIEW STUDY MEETING At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 8, 2014, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (September 8, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated stamped October 15, 2014. Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses by the applicant. 1. The roof pitch on the second floor is very steep, and is inconsistent with the first floor . Steep and various roof slopes have been changed to 4.5:12 slope, consistent throughout. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 3 2. The plate heights should be lowered to reduce the tall appearance of the house. The plate heights throughout both floors have been lowered. With the shallower roof pitch, the overall building height is 2’-6” lower than previous design. 3. The gable end on left looks flat. The edge of the roof tile should wrap around. The front gable roof at the second floor has been updated to show the roof tiles wrapping around to the stucco wall. 4. Three-part arched windows on the ground floor in front look inconsistent with the rest of the design. The three arched windows at front foyer has been changed to rectangular window. 5. On the front elevation would it be possible to center the porch window? The front living window has been adjusted to be centered at front porch. 6. Could the front center window at the stair be modified to be more interesting? The square window at front elevation above stairway has been changed to rectangular window with a special pre-cast window sill. 7. Concern the garage is a dominant feature. The design review consultant references a trellis over the garage doors but it does not appear on the plans. A wood trellis has been added in front of the garage. 8. Porch columns needs more detail. Perhaps knee-brace corbels or ornament to add some special detail. Square columns and beams have been changed to stained wood. Knee brace corbels have also been added. 9. Window headers are inconsistent. All exposed wood headers and corbels at windows will be stained. Pre-cast stone sill has been added for two downstairs windows at front. Members of the Planning Commission also had questions about the design of the secondary dwelling unit, noting that the design of the unit remains unchanged from the previous plan submittal and is not consistent with the primary dwelling. Although review of the secondary dwelling unit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff notes that as currently shown in the plans the design of the secondary dwelling unit is not consistent with the performance standards outlined in the City’s Secondary Dwelling Unit ordinance (C.S. 25.59) requirements. Among the Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 4 performance standards is a requirement that the secondary dwelling unit incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary dwelling located on the property. Staff will coordinate with the applicant on providing architectural consistency with the primary dwelling as part of the review of the secondary dwelling unit application. STAFF COMMENTS See attached memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, Parks Supervisor, Fire Marshal and Stormwater Coordinator. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Coun cil on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. FINDINGS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. The secondary dwelling unit is not subject to Planning Commission review and should not be discussed. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.2, sheet C.0, and landscape plans sheets 2, 5 and 8; 2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate administrative review, and is not included in this permit; 3. 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 11 and September 9, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's December 16 and March 13, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 17 and September 11, 2013 memos 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; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 6 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that 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. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager c. Michael Ma / March Design, 20660 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA ., 95014, architect. Harumitsu Inouye, property owner Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(b) 7 Attachments:  September 8, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes  Applicant letter, dated October 22, 2014  Design review consultant letter (Jerry Winges), dated October 23, 2014  Application to the Planning Commission  Special Permit Application and accompanying documents, date stamped December 18, 2013  Secondary Dwelling Unit Application, date stamped September 4, 2013  Staff Comments  Planning Commission resolution (proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed October 17, 2014  Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 2308 Hillside Drive Item No. 8b Regular Action BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 6:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 8, 2014 a.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye, applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Commissioner Sargent noted that when this application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission he owned property within 500 feet, however he has since sold the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted he had spoken with the neighbors to each side, and Commissioner Bandrapalli had spoken with the applicant. Questions of staff: >If the secondary dwelling unit does not match, are we not allowed to talk about it? (Gardiner - State law requires secondary dwelling units to be reviewed administratively and not be subject to discretionary review. However communities may have performance standards, which the Burlingame code has. In the administrative review staff will review the application using the criteria, including the criterion that the architectural styles need to match. The applicant has been advised of this requirement.) Mike Ma represented applicant: >Previously the application had been designed in a contemporary style, by another architect. Commissioner questions/comments: >Gable end on left looks flat. Will the edge of the roof tile be wrapped around? (Ma - Yes.) >On the front elevation would it be possible to center the porch window? (Ma - Yes, could shift it over.) >Could the front center window at the stair be modified to be more interesting? Round, wrought iron, or bars - something special. (Ma: Yes. Open to suggestions.) >Neighbors to the right are concerned with shrubbery that would be between the driveway and their property. Would it be possible to retain the existing shrubbery? Would help to screen the driveway. (Ma - Agrees but not sure if it ’s on their property or not. Would need to be trimmed so it does not block the driveway but could overhang a bit.) >Staff report had letter from design review consultant. Handful of comments related to windows, plate heights and garage. (Ma - Property owner just got back before submittal, has not had a chance to discuss.) >Maple tree may grow too large to be next to driveway. >Special Permit application for attached garage notes that it is common in the area. However looking at Hillside Drive, 10 of the 11 examples shown on the map provided in the application were corner lots with attached garages. The only midblock example is a 1-car garage, there are no 2-car front garages on midblock lots. (Ma - Could mitigate with narrower driveway and curb cut, especially at street down to 12 or 15 feet. Past sidewalk can widen to 18 feet to access garage. Also can have landscaping with low - to medium- shrubs, using landscaping to mitigate visual and provide screening.) >Important to address some of the issues from the design review consultant letter. Close to being approvable, but important aspect consultant raises is pitch of roof 6:12 on upper floor vs 4:12 on lower – Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/22/2014 September 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes why steeper on second floor? 6:12 looks more like a tract home. (Ma - Could make upper slope 4:12, will also help massing.) Addressing roof height will help with overall massing. >Rake fascia detail important to have tile detail. Same detail as on existing front porch. >Inconsistency with window headers. Should have special window over the stairs. >3-part arched windows on the ground floor in front look inconsistent. Revisit, could reference shape from garage and upper window, or square off with a header. >Porch columns needs more detail. Perhaps knee -brace corbels or ornament to add some special detail. Otherwise too plain. >Commission has strong preference away from vinyl windows. Should be solid wood window with or without cladding, and muntins need to be simulated true divided lite or divided lite. >Recommendation to lower plate height is a good one. Does not think the front garage fits the neighborhood. >Where is trellis over the garage referenced in the design review consultant letter? (Ma - Deleted by request of owner.) Trellis should be reconsidered. The attached garage makes the house look suburban, tract-like so mitigation would be helpful. Public comments: There were no public comments. Commission discussion: >Should come back on action to review details that need to be addressed. Does not need to go back to design review consultant. >Maps such as the garage exhibit submitted in the application are not helpful because they do not speak to the neighborhood as defined in the design guidelines. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/22/2014 October 22, 2014 Planning Commission City of Burlingame Re: Design Revision for 2308 Hillside Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 To Planning Commissioners: The letter is to summarize the design changes made from the previous planning submittal for this new 2-story house at 2308 Hillside Drive. 1. Steep and various roof slopes have been changed to 4.5:12 slope which is consistent throughout. 2. The plate heights throughout both floors have been lowered. With the shallower roof pitch, the overall building height is 2’-6” lower than previous design. 3. The front gable roof at the 2nd floor has been updated to show the roof tiles wrapping around to the stucco wall. 4. The three arched windows at front foyer has been changed to rectangular window. 5. The front living window has been adjusted to be centered at front porch. 6. The square window at front elevation above stairway has been changed to rectangular window with a special pre-cast window sill. 7. A wood trellis has been added in front of the garage to tone down the garage doors. 8. Square columns and beams have been changed to stained wood. Knee brace corbels have also been added. 9. All exposed wood headers and corbels at windows will be stained. 10. Pre-cast stone sill has been added for two downstair windows at front. 11. Three skylights on the proposed house have been eliminated. One sun tunnel has been added. Regards, Mike Ma Architect WINGES A R C H I T E C T S WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / MASTER PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING 10-23-2014 Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Ref: Design Review 2308 Hillside Drive – new house Dear Planning Commissioners; These are my review comments on the revised submittal and further design changes received today. The applicant has responded very well to my suggestions and the concerns of the Planning Commission. Below are my new comments in CAPS below the original comments of 8-14-2014.  The floor plan, massing and site plan of the main house has not changed, but the house elevations and roof forms have been re-designed from the prior contemporary modern style to a more traditional Spanish style.  The existing garage which is being changed to a second unit remains a contemporary style and does not seem a part of the same project. The design guidelines recommend that second units be the same style as the main house and to have a different style as shown seems odd and out of place. I ASSUME THE GARAGE IS A SEPARATE PROPOSAL/PROJECT AND HAS NOT CHANGED.  The proposal continues to use a 10’ lower plate height and a 9’ upper plate height. Because the upper roof is not carried down to the lower plate height as in a steeper traditional roof, this makes the house appear more massive. It is also right up to the height limit. This Spanish style works better if the plate heights and slopes are lower, even 4:12 like the lower roofs shown. This house might appear less massive and more harmonious if the upper roof matched the lower roof using the same 4:12, in lieu of 6:12 as shown. I also recommend considering lowering the plate heights by 12” each. THE PLATE HEIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOWERED AND THE ROOF PITCH CHANGED TO BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN STYLE. THIS HAS REDUCED THE MASS DRAMATICALLY AND LOWERED THE HEIGHT.  The garage has been relocated in the front of the home as previously presented. This does not meet the predominant pattern of rear garages in the neighborhood, however there are exceptions nearby. The garage doors WINGES A R C H I T E C T S WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / MASTER PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING however are set back from the front of the house, are staggered and are separate arched doors, and are made less obtrusive by use of the trellis. THE TRELLIS AND RECESS OF THE DOORS REMAIN AND MITIGATE THE FRONT FACING GARAGE ISSUE.  Using the same floor plan with different roof shapes gives the new design a “layer cake” look, but this has been mitigated by varying the plate heights and eave heights, use of hips and gables, and nice use of decorative beams and eaves. THE REDESIGN WITH LOWER ROOF AND OTHER CHANGES HAVE IMPROVED THE LOOK AND IS MORE CONSISTENT.  The house does have a porch which makes the front more neighbor friendly.  The windows are of various shapes and sizes, but have similar divided lites. The arched window in the upper gable over the main entry porch is a nice contrast to the rectangular windows. This arch form is repeated at the garage doors. However, the three part window adjacent to the porch on the first floor seems a different style and proportion—there are no other half round windows and I would suggest that using another rectangular window with wood header would be more consistent.  The materials and col ors portrayed need to be clarified, but generally appear complementary. I would suggest that the window trims of simulated limestone have a contrasting (lighter) color and texture to the stucco color to accentuate the use of different materials. THE CHANGES SUGGESTED HAVE BEEN ALL BEEN INCORPORATED AND THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF PROVIDING A MORE CONSISTENT, LESS MASSIVE AND VERY PLEASING COMPOSITION. THE WINDOW DETAILS, CORBELS, BALCONY DETAIL AND OTHER COLOR AND MATERIAL CHANGES ARE VERY WELCOME. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION I WOULD HAVE IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT THE EAVES—THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ON EVERY ELEVATION WHICH PERHAPS IS A DRAFTING OVERSIGHT. I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. Very Truly Yours, jerry L. Winges, AIA. LEED-AP Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story house with an attached garage at 2308 Hillside Drive, Zoned R-1, Harumitsu Inouye, 2308 Hillside Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 027- 166-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 27, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 2308 Hillside Drive Effective November 6, 2014 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A3.2, sheet C.0, and landscape plans sheets 2, 5 and 8; 2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate administrative review, and is not included in this permit; 3. 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 11 and September 9, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's September 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's December 16 and March 13, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 17 and September 11, 2013 memos 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; 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 EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 2308 Hillside Drive Effective November 6, 2014 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. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED BUSINESS ACCESS FOR A NEW RETAIL SPACE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(d) 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1426 Burlingame Avenue APN: 029-122-230 APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates PROPERTY OWNER: Green Banker LLC GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District/BAC LOT AREA: 10,285 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing commercial building at 1426 Burlingame Avenue contains retail uses on the first floor, and office use and a two-bedroom residential unit on the second floor. With this application, the applicant is proposing to create a new retail space on the ground floor at the back of the building. Formerly the ground floor had been a single retail space approximately 9,034 SF in area. The space has been vacant for a number of years, and both the previous and current property owners have been unable to find a tenant interested in leasing the entire space. The current property owner considered a number of options for subdividing the space, and determined that splitting the space between a front and back tenant made the most sense given the depth of the building (approximately 190 feet). The space was subdivided last year and the front portion was leased to the Sole Desire shoe store. The applicant has submitted a letter further describing the situation (attached). Rec Room Creative, a retail business, has expressed intent to lease the rear portion of the ground floor (approximately 2874 SF) for a new retail business. Retail is a permitted use in the BAC (Burlingame Avenue Commercial) District so the new business would not be subject to Planning Commission review unless there were changes to the exterior façade. In this instance the prospective tenant is not proposing any changes to the exterior façade other than signage. With the subdivision of the ground floor, access to the rear retail space would be through one of two existing entrances. One entrance is accessed from a City of Burlingame parking lot to the rear, while the other entrance is accessed from the rear parking lot of 1432-36 Burlingame Avenue. The property owner has supplied documentation that an easement will be provided access across 1432-36 Burlingame Avenue (attached – a condition of approval is suggested requiring that the document be executed and notarized prior to issuance of a building permit). There would be no direct access to Burlingame Avenue from the rear retail space. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED BUSINESS ACCESS FOR A NEW RETAIL SPACE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(d) 2 Code Section 25.58.030 requires that every business or every building containing one or more businesses shall have its primary entrance upon a city street at least twenty-five (25) feet in width. Access to such a city street shall not be across or through an alley, lane or street less than twenty-five (25) feet in width, or a public parking lot. The newly created rear retail space would conflict with this requirement given that neither of its entrances are accessed from city streets. However Code Section 25.58.030 specifies that a Variance may be granted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 25.16. With this application, the applicant is requesting the following:  Variance for Required Business Access for a new retail space in an existing commercial building. STAFF COMMENTS Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Regular Action Item. Retail is a permitted use for the property so is not subject to Planning Commission review; the only matter to be considered is the Variance for required business access. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on a subsequent action calendar for a second review with direction to the applicant. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED BUSINESS ACCESS FOR A NEW RETAIL SPACE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(d) 3 supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 7, 2014, sheets P1 through P3; 2. that the “Pedestrian Access & Fire Safety Easement Agreement” date stamped October 6, 2014 be executed and notarized prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager c. Jennifer Quan, applicant Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s letter of explanation, dated July 7, 2014 Variance Application Site Photos Documentation of access easement with neighboring 1432-36 Burlingame Avenue (Lands of Wurlitzer) Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 17, 2014 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1426 Burlingame Avenue (rear) Item No. 8d Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 1547 Vancouver Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Conditional Use Permits Address: 1547 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure. Applicant and Designer: Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design APN: 027-141-030 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 6100 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The site currently contains an existing one-story house (1455 SF), an attached one-car carport (180 SF) and a structure located behind the carport which contains a nonconforming one-car garage and secondary dwelling unit (469 SF). There is also a detached patio cover (180 SF) and storage shed (99 SF) at the rear of the lot. The existing floor area ratio (FAR) on the lot totals 2,285 SF (0.37 FAR) (sheds less than 100 SF are not included in FAR). The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the rear of the house and second floor addition at the center and rear of the house. The proposal also includes removing the existing attached carport and detached patio cover. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,273 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,452 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 179 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within 5% of the maximum allowed FAR. As previously noted, the existing structure at the left, rear corner of the lot contains a one-car garage and an existing second unit (no records found for this unit). The applicant is proposing modifications to the interior of this structure which includes increasing the depth of the covered parking space (from 15’-0” to 20’-0”) to meet current code standards and converting the existing second unit to a recreation room with a sink, toilet and shower. The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure. There are no changes proposed to the envelope of this structure. The required applications are listed below. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing garage will be modified to comply with current code standards for a covered parking space (10’-4” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 10’ x 20’ is the minimum required). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2));  Conditional Use Permit for a recreation room in an existing accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (m)); and  Conditional Use Permit for a toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (j)). Intentionally left blank. Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 1547 Vancouver Avenue 2 1547 Vancouver Avenue Lot Size: 6,100 SF Plans date stamped: October 20, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 23’-7” no change 15'-0" or block average (2nd flr): n/a 39’-3” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 9'-6" 3’-6” 9’-6” (7’-6” at 2nd floor) 6’-6” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 49’-6” n/a 47’-6” 47’-6” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2285 SF 37.4% 2208 SF 36.1% 2440 SF 40% FAR: 2285 SF 0.37 FAR 3273 SF 0.53 FAR 3452 SF 1 0.56 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-4” x 15’-0”) ² 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’-4” x 20’-0”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 21’-9” 26’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 Use in Accessory Structure: one-car garage and second unit one-car garage with a recreation room, toilet and shower ³ Conditional Use Permit required for a toilet and shower in an accessory structure ¹ (0.32 x 6100 SF) + 1,100 SF = 400 SF = 3452 SF (0.56 FAR) ² Existing nonconforming covered parking space length. ³ Conditional Use Permits required for a recreation room, toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design, applicant and property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 17, 2014 Aerial Photo CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 22, 2014 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1529 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a basement and detached garage at 1529 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 2014 (see attached June 9, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on October 7, 2014 and construction is underway. The house was originally approved with aluminum clad wood windows. The applicant is requesting approval of an FYI to use fiberglass clad wood windows instead. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to use the Integrity Wood-Ultrex Series windows by Marvin (see attached informational sheet and proposed building elevations, date stamped October 17, 2014). The applicant is also proposing to eliminate the transom window above the front entry door and instead use a taller door and sidelight capped with a wood band (see Proposed Left Elevation). The architect submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped October 17, 2014, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the project architect, dated October 17, 2014 Informational Sheet for Integrity Wood-Ultrex Series Windows by Marvin June 9, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped October 17, 2014