Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.12.08Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, December 8, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 10, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga. PC Minutes - 11.10.14Attachments: 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 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. Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2015 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurina. 2015 Planning Commission Calendar MemorandumAttachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025 December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1209 Mills.sr.docAttachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission Communicationsa. City Council Regular Meeting - December 1, 2014b. FYI: 860 Paloma Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. c. 860 Paloma Avenue - Memorandum 860 Paloma Avenue - Attachments Attachments: FYI: 1025 Cabrillo Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project. d. 1025 Cabrillo Ave - 12.08.14 - staff rpt fyiAttachments: 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 December 8, 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 December 18, 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 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 10, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting The draft meeting minutes for the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were not available in time to be reviewed at this meeting. They will be reviewed at the November 24, 2014 meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner noted that procedures are being modified so that minor spelling or punctuation edits may be submitted for correction in advance of the meeting. However, comments relating to the substance of an item (particularly an action or condition) should be held for the public hearing. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc., property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1327 Marsten Rd Staff Report 1327 Marsten Rd Attachments Attachments: All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he met with the applicant and toured the property. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Dale Meyer represented the applicant, and Enrique Pelaez Jr represented the owner: >No work planned to the building itself. Removing auto repair portion of the business, and keeping the building as it is. Questions: >Will the parking space be used? (Meyer: 1 or 2 will be there to operate business. They will likely arrive together and will park in the space. Most people coming to look at the cars will have an Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes appointment, so either the owner or the visitor will park outside.) >Where will they park on street if all the other businesses are using the street spaces? (Meyer: Will need to park down the street. There are five spaces on site, but not all may be filled with inventory.) >How does the buyer take delivery? (Pelaez: Will take delivery on site, at the location. As they make the appointment, will bring the car out front so don’t need to shuffle cars around.) Public comments: None Commissioner comments: >Straightforward application. >Will not be any detriment to neighborhood. >Site is built out so there is nowhere to put more on -site parking, so any application requiring discretionary review would require a parking variance. >No safety issues. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the application on the Consent Calendar when ready. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan - Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report Draft Circulation Element Circulation Element Attachments Attachments: Planning Manager made a presentation of the Draft Circulation Element and invited Commission comments. Commission comments and questions: >Bicycle use of commuters (weekday and weekend), recreation, and families >Usage of bike racks >Detection systems at signals – roadbed vs. manual/pushbutton >Does completion of the Bay Trail need to wait for private development or could the City bridge the gaps itself? (Gardiner: Existing policy has been to have the gaps filled in with new development, but going forward a capital program could be considered if there was a desire for the City to take the lead . Developers are advised it is their responsibility to fill the gaps corresponding to their properties.) >Will parking ratios be evaluated in the update? (Gardiner: Yes, in General Plan Update coordination with the Land Use Element) >Is there required regular reporting on how each category of users are being served? (Gardiner: Could establish an index or indicators to be tracked on a regular basis. Kane: Public Works does this internally – not sure if this is summarized to be presented externally as well.) Wants City to be able to easily report how it is doing on Complete Streets goals, and support future grants and applications. >Should cite more recent update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. >Coordination between City and school on bike routes, with awareness at the beginning of each school year so that parents can know safe routes are available. >Target a higher bike and walking to work percentage. >Focus on California Drive between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue for road diets, street calming, greater density to make a more pleasant and usable connection. >Street trees for road calming on wide streets such as Rollins Road and California Drive – move Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes street tree wells into parking lane, grow larger street canopies, create space for wider sidewalks. >Clarify changes in trends in pedestrian/bike commuting on page 10. >BPAC and TSPC should review this document. >BPAC business plan for a bike fair and family bike ride. >Update Burlingame Avenue status on page 19. >California Drive/Lorton Avenue intersection shows two alternatives (page 48) but if signalized intersection is no longer an option it should be deleted from the document. >Merchants looking to add bike racks; Lunardi’s will be proposing bike racks. >Could additional data help influence reopening the Broadway Caltrain station to weekday service? (Gardiner: The issue is the design of the station, not ridership. Should be rectified with the electrification project.) >How did North El Camino Real frontage road design end up in the plan if it could not be implemented? (Gardiner: May have had conflicting information, or expectation it would be easier to vacate frontage roads than what has since been encountered.) >El Camino Real is a state road under Caltrans jurisdiction. Has there been discussion on taking road back from State and taking on responsibility of maintaining road? (Kane: Has been a subject of discussion for many years.) >Interest in gauging numbers of commuters who walk or bike to transit. >Bayfront does not seem to be built out. Could there be circulation improvements that could support more development in this area? (Gardiner: Anticipate this will be a focus in the General Plan Update.) >Should focus on the safety of children across El Camino Real. Add safe routes to school policy. >Does grade separation at railroad involve road or tracks going under? (Gardiner: Both are being considered as options.) Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1262 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in a detached garage (Christopher and Anna Clevenger, applicants and property owners; Bottarini Construction, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1262 Balboa Ave Staff Report 1262 Balboa Ave Attachments Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Terrones reported that was given access to the rear yard by the property owner. Commissioner DeMartini met the property owner and designer. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff Brett Bottarini attended as applicant, and Christopher and Anna Clevenger attended as property owners. Commission questions/comments: >Is the door a sliding or swinging door? (Bottarini: Swinging. Originally a french door inswing, changed mind and want outswing.) >Is bathroom located on outer boundary of structure so that sewer line avoids tree? (Bottarini: Slab foundation is to minimize impact to root system of existing tree. Sewer line will not impact drip line of tree.) Public comments: Neighbor spoke on this item: >Lives to the rear of the property. >Understands it is legal to have inlaw unit. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Proposed garage is 1/3 bigger than previous garage. >Why does it have so many lights? >Why is there a bathroom? >Bathroom backs up right to the easement. >Will there be follow-up on the use of the garage? (Hurin: The garage has been approved already; request here is to allow a toilet in a detached structure.) >Would there need to be another covered parking space for a second unit? (Hurin: This is not a proposal for a second dwelling unit; it is a garage. A second unit could have either a covered or uncovered space, but could not be in tandem.) >What will be the follow -up? (Hurin: There will be regular inspections during the construction of the garage through the Building Division. If there are any changes to the garage that would require special review, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Likewise, if the bathroom were approved and became larger or added a shower, it would need to come back to the Planning Commission for additional review.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Understands the neighbor ’s concern that this would be a second dwelling unit, but that is not the application. The parking requirements would not allow it in this location. It would not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties, and the findings can be made for the Conditional Use Permit. >If it were to become a second unit, it would be a code compliance issue and can contact the City. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - c.14 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition that qualifies as substantial construction. (Samuel Sinnott, architect; Christy and Jesse Lindeman, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 14 Stanley Rd Staff Report 14 Stanley Rd Attachments Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Sam Sinnott represented the applicant: >Wanted to save as much of the house as possible and keep it single story. >House dates to 1921, built in the National Style – simple style using materials brought in from the railroad. >Original house has simple hip roof that covers living space and porch. >Wants to save materials of value including siding, roof slope and plate heights but improve on it. Add pitched front gables and craftsman details. >Enclosed porch will be more pronounced and expressive, to function as a foyer. Will be used to park strollers and leave backpacks. Commission questions/comments: >Would it be possible to widen the front stoop? (Hurin: Can be expanded across as long as it is not more than 30” above grade.) Could extend the half-circle, make it more grand and inviting. >Landscape plan needs to have labels, such as indicating the bay tree. Previous plan shows pepper tree to be removed – still planning to be removed? (Sinnott: Yes, planning to remove tree in the rear.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Discussion: >Straightforward. >Direction to applicant that if make changes are made to the front stoop to bring it back as an FYI. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - d.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;) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 2308 Hillside Dr Staff Report 2308 Hillside Dr Attachments 2308 Hillside Dr recd after Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the neighbor to the left at 2312 Hillside Drive. There were no other ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Mike Ma attended as applicant, and Hari Inouye attended as the property owner: >Provided letter listing several points on the garage placement. Trellis, staggered garage, nicely detailed garage doors, neighbors preference to keep garage away from side. >City encourages second units but would be difficult with rear garage. > Design review consultant recommends approval. >Seven hearings, with unclear and confusing guidance. There is no concrete guidance from last meeting. >Safety concerns with parking out of long driveways. >Street is popular for street parking. People park on street rather than on driveways and in detached garages. >Neighbors oppose detached garage because if garage in back would need to drive alongside bedroom windows. >East and west neighbors support the project, as do surrounding neighbors (letter submitted). Public comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: >What constitutes Hillside Drive are the houses that front Hillside Drive. Houses that front Hillside Drive are the ones that end blocks but front Hillside, but the lateral cross streets are not part of the Hillside Drive neighborhood. >For properties fronting Hillside Drive, many are end properties for long blocks. Corner lots constitute 75-100% of the block. Looking at corner lots and houses with garages fronting Hillside, can ’t disregard corner lots since they are a significant part of the neighborhood. 27 total garages fronting on Hillside . This is why supported the application previously. >In previous meetings did not see absolute and clear direction that attached garage was a problem that would not be approved. >Application is not much different from a number of other properties on Hillside Drive. >Had approved project with attached garage previously. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There are several mid-block one-car attached garages, but not two-car. >Uses guidelines as criteria. Not sure agrees with safety issue. Position is that 2-car attached midblock is not characteristic. >This is not a science, not required to be right but required to be fair in interpretation of regulations . Job is to apply rules fairly. City Council mentioned garage in passing but focus was on the modern design, as opposed to the garage. >It is a peculiar neighborhood, one -of-a-kind. It is not a quaint cozy street, is a major thoroughfare . Does not feel like a small-town street. There is plenty of precedent for attached garages on the street. >Neighbor has indicated preference for current design. >Applicant’s data was inaccurate, which lead to earlier decision. Once found inaccuracy has stated same point with garage all along. Attached one car would fit neighborhood but not two car garage. >In earlier meetings there was no uniform opinion of commission. >In the design review letters, although second letter recommends approval first letter says front-facing garage does not meet the predominant pattern of garages in the neighborhood . Commissioners have duty to be able to make the findings – still can’t make those findings. >Neighbors are supportive of the project. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, and Terrones4 - Nay:DeMartini, Sargent, and Gum3 - e.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 770 Walnut Ave Staff Report 770 Walnut Ave Attachments 770 Walnut Ave - 11.10.14 - recd after Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report, and noted two letters received after preparation of the report. There were no questions of staff. Randy Grange represented the applicant, Jonathan and Tamara Miller attended as property owner: >Took modern characteristics away. >Garage changed to two single doors, brought door heights down. >Smooth stucco. >Smaller scale details. >Attached garage important. Rear garage less likely to be used. Want to be able to get home at end of day and plug in car overnight. Follows R -1 diagrams showing pushing garage way back, situated 45’- 48’ back from the street. >Hip roofs with wide overhand buries top foot of roof into roof, to bring roof height down. Is 5 feet below the height limit. Commission questions/comments: >Did not like previous mix of modern and traditional. Looks much better now. >Does not feel as massive now. Proportions of windows and doors more human now. >Garage design better. >(T. Miller: Predominant pattern on this street is attached garages. 6 of 7 homes to right have attached front-facing garages, to the left 2 of 3. Building for selves, not developers. Wanting to be neighborly and wanting to build something that fits in neighborhood.) Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Planning to remove the oak trees in the back? (T. Miller: Keeping all the trees in the back except for the cypress tree in back. That tree is sick, borders the neighbor ’s property and has been an issue for many years.) >What measures to protect the trees? (T. Miller: Would like to start the landscaping in advance of the construction to get a foothold, so it is full and taken hold by the time the house is completed.) >Stunning and beautiful – appreciates listening to the Commission and neighbors. >Two-car garage is common in this neighborhood. >Rendering no longer shows fence extending out to street. (T. Miller: Never intended to have fence extend out to street, will probably have a hedge instead.) >Will there be wood window heads as shown on elevations, rather than stucco as shown on the renderings? (Grange: Yes, will be approving elevation not rendering.) >Adjust side window adjacent to neighbors? (Grange: Will look into it.) Public Comments: Neighbor spoke on this item: >The people who have garages in the back do not use them for cars. >Parks one car in garage; the other car that stays on street has had its mirror hit twice. Benefit to not having cars parked on street. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Neighborhood consistency subcommittee changed attached garage from Variance to Special Permit in recognition that people don’t always park in detached garages. Created 25-foot setback. >Plate height issue becomes more sensitive when a Special Permit is requested or at maximum allowed height. >Coordination and cooperation with neighbors for privacy is good – window coverings may be the extent of what is needed. >Can make findings for the Special Permit for the garage because it is the predominant pattern in the neighborhood, and the massing fits well with the house and neighborhood. >Approval of the Special Permit for the basement ceiling height. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the item. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.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 (Continued from the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting) 1813 Ray Dr Staff Report 1813 Ray Dr Attachment Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli reported that she had spoken with the neighbors to the left. There were no other ex parte communications. Minerva Abad represented applicant: >Reason for the second story was to maintain existing the open space. >Front covered porch is hardly used. Windows to bring light into the house and create an entry feature. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Has used different plate heights and articulated walls to address massing. >Smaller windows on side of building to protect neighbors’ privacy. >Use of materials is sympathetic to the neighbors. Commissioner questions/comments: >Sensitive to plate heights. Why taller plate height on second story? (Abad: Clients wanted the space . 8 feet is too low. Personal preference.) >Odd proportions: single-story ranch nicely proportioned with front porch and low roof, replaced with taller entry that is out of proportion. Shutters and gable detail on left are removed, stripped of charm, then taller structure is added onto the second floor. >Second floor pushed far back so not well integrated with rest of house except on the rear elevation. >On rear second story looks windows look too tall compared to first floor. >Second floor windows have a lot of freeboard /brow above because of tall plate height, makes it feel taller and more massive. >Neighbor was concerned about door on the east side (Abad: Is an existing door into garage.) >Neighbor concerned with new magnolia being planted, wants to ensure would not be planted too close where roots would be encroaching. (Abad: Will be using a landscape architect.) >Second floor step-backs are not uncommon in neighborhood, but this is pushed all the way to the back. Looks like a house peeking out from another house in front. (Abad: Wanted to raise plate height in living room and entry.) Design does not feel well integrated. >Result is rear elevation is a flat two-story mass. >Plate height on second story needs to be reduced. >Looks like two homes, with big house in front and small house in back. >Recommend changing existing fiberglass garage door with wood door to match rest of house better. Public comments: None Commission discussion/comments: >Would benefit from consultation with design review consultant. >Look at scale of the entry, looks high. >Consider adding grids to windows may make it integrate better into neighborhood. >Garage door is a prominent feature and would benefit from an upgrade. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1444 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Jeff Chow, ICE, applicant and engineer; May Li and Yim Nor Yan, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1444 Cortez Ave Staff Report 1444 Cortez Ave Attachments Attachments: All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had spoken with Jeff and Leslie Inokuchi at 1440 Cortez Avenue (the right side neighbor). There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Jeff Chen and Jeff Chow represented applicant: >Craftsman style home with brick paved driveway and patio and lawn in the rear. Commission questions/comments: >Difficult to read the plans. The line weights make it difficult. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Second story plate height needs to be brought down. It is too much on top. >Windows on right side on front elevation should be lined up. It would center on the living room, and it would look better if the window on the second floor was slightly smaller to give hierarchy. >Trees on the right side cherry or avocado? Should be shown on the plans. It’s a collection of tree trunks each 6-7 inches diameter, so is substantial in overall size even though any one trunk is small . Makes for a great screener, and it is already there in the ground. The neighbor adjacent has a concern with privacy. >Would there be a landscape strip between the driveway and the fence line? (Chen: Will take that into consideration.) >Neighbor’s upstairs bedroom windows line up directly with bedroom in proposed house. >A1.3 shows the array of trims, but don ’t have same profiles as shown on elevation. Belly band on elevation looks like it is built-up with more detail, preferable to flat trim. >Increase text size on landscape plan keynotes. >Consideration of muntins in windows? Divided lites would help the scale of the project. >Detached garages on A3.0 and A3.3 show different garage doors, and widths of walls is different . (Chen: Should be as shown on A3.3.) >Rear elevation looks like it was a bigger house and was “smooshed.” Looks very tall but not wide, would not fit in with the neighborhood. >Style confusion on the project- is all over the place. Arch, curves at the entry way, glass railing at the back, the trim. >What is gable material? (Chen: Siding) >Garage – consider wood door with lites? Would support the craftsman style better. >Feels very vertical. Could have 8 foot plate height on second floor, but have cathedral ceilings in bedrooms. >Width of driveway looks too narrow. (Chen: Should be 11’-6”.) >Could they provide full-sized plans if that’s easier? (Ruben: Can request if it would be easier to review.) >Shared plans with neighbors? (Chen: No.) Not required but recommended. Public comments: None Commission discussion/comments: >Would benefit from design review consultation. >Consider a larger front porch. Might fit into the style better. >Front gables are so prominent, entry gets lost. Also if plate height were reduced might tip the scale back to the entry. >If grids are added to the windows and Millgard fiberglass windows are used, requests a sample. Not sure the windows would meet the Commission’s typical requirements in terms of architectural detailing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to refer the application to a design review consultant . The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - c.21 Park Road, zoned BMU – Application for Environmental Scoping, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new three -story, 8-unit residential condominium (Samir Sharma, applicant; Dana Denardi, property owner; SDG Architects, architect) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 21 Park Rd Staff Report 21 Park Rd Attachments 21 park recd after 1 21 park recd after 2 Attachments: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with applicant, the homeowners at the adjacent condominium property, had email discussions with Homeowners Association president of the condominiums, and met an additional condominium resident. There were no other ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. In response to a commissioner inquiry prior to the meeting, the presentation included additional data on the lot sizes and numbers of units of recently approved residential projects in downtown Burlingame: >1225 Floribunda Avenue – 50’ width x 165’ depth lot (8,223 sq ft), 6 townhouse-style units >1433 Floribunda Avenue – 44’ to 49’ width x 200’ depth lot (9,515 sq ft), 10 units Commission questions: >Did the examples cited on Floribunda Avenue have zero setbacks, or are there precedents for zero setbacks? (Gardiner: Both of those properties are in the R -3 zone so those are required to have side setbacks.) >Is it possible for a property owner to acquire a strip of land adjacent? (Kane: Can’t just buy a strip of land, would need to buy an existing parcel. There would need to be a proposed sale and action through the Planning Commission to do a lot line adjustment and lot split. However if the lot split created a substandard lot on the other side it could not be done. The adjacent lot would need to be wider than the required minimum so that it could still be conforming after the lot split and adjustment.) >Is the commission allowed to make a finding that there are unique circumstances with regards to the parking and that the project should provide more parking than required by the parking standard? (Gardiner: The parking ratios are zoning standards. The commission may suggest additional parking. It has been requested in other projects such as 1433 Floribunda Avenue where additional spaces were added that were above and beyond what was required per the zoning, but a finding could not be made to require additional parking .)(Kane: The only way a deviation from established standards could be required would be if it were a mitigation under CEQA for a potential project impact.) Jeff Potts, SDG Architects, represented the applicant: >Difficult infill site, 50 feet wide >Odd angle at the northwest >Access restricted to Park Road >48” minimum ADA path needed on one side >Parking design is limited regardless of numbers of units and spaces. There needs to be a drive aisle and parking at 90 degrees (head-in). Can’t have angled parking because can ’t drive through the building; can’t drive straight in to spaces because wouldn ’t be able to turn around and get back out of the building . Initially started with a 24-foot drive aisle and 20-foot parking space dimension. >Original submittal had building sunken further down, but raised it up 3 feet since it was well under the height limit. >In first Planning Commission meeting neighbors were concerned with large massive wall on the property line and asked for a 3 foot setback on that side. Also commissioners asked for more articulation on the opposite side. >Met with neighbors on 12/23/13 with revision showing side path minimized, pushed building over slightly (6 inches), reduced building width to minimum based on parking dimensions, did step -backs on 2nd and 3rd floors, created more articulation. >In response to neighbor comments pushed 2nd floor back, eliminated tower elements on 3rd floor to create a setback on the entire 3rd floor, added articulation to break down massing. >Met with neighbors on 7/1/14 to discuss concept of pushing building further down into the ground. >Came up with two concept alternatives to share with neighbors; neighbors were not favorable to either. One option would move the entire building over to the other property line, lower the building height by 3 feet, narrowed the building width by two feet with a reduced parking stall depth, resulting in a 4’ setback at towers, 7’ setback at the balance of the building. Has developed 3D diagrams since meeting with neighbors. >Other alternative would keep building at 2 1/2’ or 3’ all the way along, and lowered height. First floor with planter would be at fence line height. Could replace fence and give neighbors more yard, or retain fence and put planting in between. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission questions/comments: >What is preventing having an exit to El Camino Real? (Potts: City requirement.) >Does not feel the constraint is the parking – feels the constraint is the design, because it has not changed much. (Potts: 50’ wide site, 45’ wide building, has taken 7 feet out of the bulk of the building, significantly reduced size of units and distance to neighboring property.) >Examples do not show landscaping. (Potts: Would be able to have 2 ½ - 3’ landscaping in all examples.) >Side elevation has come a long way from first submittal. First submittal was a blank wall with just a couple of depressions. >In this district there is a zero setback, but more subjectively it needs to fit into the neighborhood . There are no zero setback properties in this neighborhood. >Needs more convincing that parking constraint can ’t be solved with different parking design. Other projects have been able to do it. >Could consider lower the parking and keep the first floor below the fence line, then have second and third floors set back and well articulated. (Potts: Not asking for zero on either side in preferred plan . Building has been lowered and is very close to being at fence line, could possibly bring it down a bit further.) >Project is shifting its bottom around on a fence, but not getting anywhere. Not seeing a range of distinct options. Letters show the concerns are much greater than that. >Hard to choose between the two options since they are not much different. >There is existing landscape screening already there. With the existing 3’-4’ setback that exists there is already a solution – with a similar setback could provide a similar solution. >Project has come some distance in terms of articulation and the qualities sought in the Downtown Plan. It is a handsome building, has the kind of density envisioned in the Downtown Plan. >Would it be possible to reduce the number of units? Increase side setback? (Potts: Reducing units or adding parking would not change the width of the bottom dimension of building. It is not a large enough site for a podium.) >Density works when the two faces are not key living areas. It’s not on the project, but it is on the neighbors’ homes. Where it works with buildings close together, non -important living spaces are juxtaposed. >The residents of the project will be the new concern when the next lot is built. The south -facing decks and balconies will be in the same position, so whatever precedent is set here will be repeated. Public comment: Steve Krauss, president of the 33 Park Road condominiums, spoke on this item: >Has resubmitted petitions, still concerned with the plans. >Since the last Planning Commission meeting has met with the developer and architect once, but changes are not sufficient. >The problem is trying to fit too much on too small of a lot. 8 units on this sized lot is too much. >First design was 3-story flat wall. Changes are small setbacks of a few feet. >Plans do not provide room for servicing landscaping. >33 Park Road has eight units facing the lot, would be significantly and negatively affected. Eli, Unit #11, spoke on this item: >Made some changes but should start over from scratch. >Did a good job with dipping down the first floor so it is below the fence. But if there are two floors above it will be dark. >Going back and forth with design revisions but not working. Mary Murphy >Single family home owner applicants talk a lot about compatibility with neighborhood, but does not appear to apply Downtown. >This development is atypical of the block. Does not reflect the neighborhood. >There is no additional parking in the neighborhood. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Just because downtown have to put up with a giant block of granite next door. Not attractive for Downtown Burlingame. >50’ x 120’ lot does not merit 8 units. Downtown also deserves to look nice, not have a monstrosity next door. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: >Not much has changed with this design. Still the same issue with a massive wall facing the adjacent property. >Would like to have another set of eyes on this. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded Bandrapalli. Discussion of the motion: >Not sure if anything will be acceptable to the neighbors. Any building will have impact on the neighboring property. >Will design review consultant be looking at extreme revisions, or just continuing to move it around? >Building is too tall and too close, so look at pushing it way down (parking below grade) and get rid of the second floor corridor. Instead access units through individual stairways rather than a common corridor, and reconfigure decks on other side. Building would shorter and skinnier, with more relief on the side. >Would not want to constrain design review consultant. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing: Commission questions: >How much would the building need to be pushed further so fence line would cover the first floor? (Potts: The stair towers encroach at the second floor as well, but could look at that. It would be about one foot more depth, but would need to look at the length of the ramp that would be required to reach the depth and if parking spaces would be lost. Not sure if it would be productive to send to design review consultant since these concepts have not been fully developed. Needs to check with client on whether they could consider something radically different.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Design review would not be appropriate. The consultant will not be designing a new project . Applicant needs to have the opportunity to take a fresh look and come up with some another solution. >Would not be productive to send it to consultant Commissioner Bandrapalli called for the vote on the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Aye:2 Bandrapalli and DeMartini Nay:4 Yie, Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, and Gum Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Nay:DeMartini1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 November 10, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications b.City Council Regular Meeting - November 3, 2014 Planning Manager Gardiner reported that the application at 1600 Trousdale Drive was approved. c.FYI: 1153 Bernal Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. 1153 Bernal Ave Memorandum 1153 Bernal Ave Attachment Attachments: Accepted. d.FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. 1435 Benito Ave Memorandum 1435 Benito Ave Attachment Attachments: Pulled for review. Concern over number of requests. e.FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue – review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. 1225 Floribunda FYI Memorandum 1225 Floribunda FYI attachments Attachments: Accepted. 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 November 10, 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 20, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 2, 2014 Item No. 7a TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 8, 2014 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review and adopt the proposed schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 2015. The Commission's adopted Rules of Procedure require that before the beginning of each calendar year, the Commission shall adopt an annual calendar of meetings for the coming year. Background: The attached calendar shows the proposed schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 2015. Please note that two meetings will fall on a Tuesday after the Memorial Day (May 25th) and Columbus Day (October 12th) holidays on Mondays. Also, please note that Thanksgiving Day falls on Thursday, November 26, 2015, with Planning Commission meetings scheduled on Monday, November 23rd and three weeks later on Monday, December 14th. In years past, it has been customary for the Planning Commission to cancel its second meeting in December (December 28th), which is reflected in the attached calendar. The City Council is scheduled to adopt its calendar for 2015 at their meeting on December 15, 2014; a draft version is attached for your review. The joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled on Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the Burlingame Public Library, Lane Community Room. The Commissioner's Dinner has been scheduled on Friday, March 20, 2015. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Proposed 2015 Planning Commission Schedule Draft 2015 City Council Calendar S:\Calendars\PC CALENDAR\2015 PC Calendar\2015 PC Calendar Memorandum.doc City of Burlingame Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P(650) 558-7250  F(650) 696-3790  www.burlingame.org S:\Calendars\PC CALENDAR\2015 PC Calendar\2015 PC schedule.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE REGULAR MEETINGS JOINT MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES January 12 January 26 February 9 February 23 March 9 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Saturday, March 9, 2015 – 9:00 a.m., Lane Room, Main Library Commissioner's Dinner – Friday, March 20, 2015 March 23 April 13 April 27 May 11 May 26 (Tuesday) May 25th is Memorial Day June 8 June 22 July 13 July 27 August 10 August 24 September 14 September 28 October 13 (Tuesday) October 12th is Columbus Day October 26 November 9 November 23 December 14 January 11, 2016 City of Burlingame Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P(650) 558-7250  F(650) 696-3790  www.burlingame.org S:\Calendars\PC CALENDAR\2015 PC Calendar\2015 PC schedule.doc Planning Commission Submittal Requirements 1. Completed applications with signatures and properly dimensioned plans may be submitted at any time. Please refer to submittal checklist for details which must be included on plans. 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date an application is submitted, the assigned Planner will contact the applicant and provide planning comments on the submitted plans as well as preliminary comments from other departments. Any required revisions to the plans will be noted in the comments. The applicant will be requested to submit ten sets of revised and complete plans to the Planning Division. 3. Those comments on plans from Planning, Building, Fire, Parks, Engineering and Stormwater Division staff appropriate to planning review must also be addressed in the resubmittal to the Planning Division in order to finalize a submittal. Planning staff assigned to the project will assist in determining what is needed. A project cannot move to the waiting list to be put on an agenda until it is determined to be complete by the planner assigned. 4. When a submittal is deemed complete by the Planning Division, the project will be placed on a waiting list for the next available Planning Commission agenda for study. In order to be placed on the waiting list for the agenda, complete submittals must be received by the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Since the number of slots on the agenda is limited, complete applications will be placed on that agenda based on the order in which they are received and determined to be complete. Any complete submittals remaining when an agenda is full will be assigned to the next agenda on which there is space. 5. If the Planning Commission requests changes to the plans at the study meeting, plans must be submitted to the Planning Department by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, in order to be placed on the agenda for the following meeting. If the revised plans are not submitted by that time, the item will be scheduled for the next agenda on which there is space based on when the revised plans are submitted. 6. Some minor homeowner requests (excluding fence exceptions or design review) may be scheduled for an ACTION hearing date without first going to a study meeting. Check with staff to see if this applies. 7. For items not subject to public hearing to be placed on the Commissions "FYI" calendar (minor revisions to previously approved applications as determined by staff), plans must be submitted to the Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 8. Planning Commission reserves the right to postpone the ACTION on any item upon concluding additional information is required to make a decision. 9. Action on a project is not final until 10 days after the Planning Commission’s action. This is called the APPEAL period. Anyone may appeal a project. If appealed, City Council will set the project for their next available meeting. Action on a project is only final after the end of the appeal period or, if the project is appealed, the City Council vote. 10. Separate application must be made to the Building Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Planning Commission approval does not constitute issuance of a Building Permit. 2015 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a holiday, the meeting is usually held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled. Meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, and are open to the public. Regular Council meetings are televised live via Burlingame’s Cable Channel 26 for Astound subscribers and Channel 27 for Comcast subscribers. Also the meetings are live online on the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. For more information, please view the City’s website or call the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. REGULAR MEETINGS Monday, January 5 Monday, July 6 Tuesday, January 20 Monday, July 20 (canceled) Monday, February 2 Monday, August 3 (canceled) Tuesday, February 17 Monday, August 17 Monday, March 2 Monday, September 7 Monday, March 16 Monday, September 21 Monday, April 6 Monday, October 5 Monday, April 20 Monday, October 19 Monday, May 4 Monday, November 2 Monday, May 18 Monday, November 16 Monday, June 1 Monday, December 7 Monday, June 15 Monday, December 21 (tentative) STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES Saturday, January 31 2015/16 Goals Session, 9 a.m., Lane Room Wednesday, March 4 2015-16 Mid-Year Budget Session, 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers Saturday, March 7 Friday, March 20 Wednesday, April 8 Wednesday, May 13 Wednesday, June 10 Wednesday, December 2 Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting, 9 a.m., Lane Room, Main Library Commissioners Dinner City Attorney’s Annual Evaluation, 6:00 p.m. 2015-16 Budget Study Session, 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers City Manager’s Mid-Year Evaluation, 6:00 p.m. City Manager’s Annual Evaluation, 6:00 p.m. 12/2/2014 2:51 PM City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1209 Mills Avenue Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design APN: 026-073-230 Property Owners: Kali Taylor and Kitisak Larlarb Lot Area: 5000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to th e California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,662 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear portion of the house and detached garage and add a new second floor (841 SF) and detached garage (262 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,252 SF (0.45 FAR) where 2,962 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 710 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The new detached garage complies with current code standards for a covered parking space (12’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 10’-0” x 20’-0” 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 application:  Design Review for a second story addition to a single family dwelling and new detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1209 Mills Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: December 1 and December 18, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-0” to porch no change 16'-8" (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 24’-4” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 1'-8" 8’-6” to bay 3’-8” to second floor 9’-8” to second floor 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 51’-8” n/a 60’-3” 58’-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1723 SF 34.4% 1500 SF 30% 2000 SF 40% FAR: 1662 SF 0.33 FAR 2252 SF 0.45 FAR 2962 SF 1 0.59 FAR ¹ (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 262 = 2962 SF (0.59 FAR) Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 2 1209 Mills Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: December 1 and December 18, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (13’-3” x 16’-8”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (12'-0” x 20'-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 16’-9” 26’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies window enclosure exemption along left side of house CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on December 8, 2014, the Commission had several suggestions for the application to consider and voted to place this item on the consent calendar. Please refer to the attached December 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes for a detailed list of changes suggested by the Commission. The applicant submitted a letter dated December 17, 2014 and revised plans date stamped December 18, 2014, which address the Planning Commission’s suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a complete list of changes made to the project. 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. Findings for Design Review: Based on the findings stated by the Planning Commission in the attached minutes of the December 8, 2014 Design Review Study meeting, that the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure (featuring a front porch, gable ends and hip roofs, consistent plate heights, lap siding and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites) is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the proposed detached garage is consistent with the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants and trees at locations so that they are in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structu re and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review guidelines. Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 3 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. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2014, sheets A0.1, D/A1.1 and A2.0 and date stamped December 1, 2014, sheets T -1, SK-1, T.2, D/A1.0, A1.2, D.2.0 and A2.1 ; 2. 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; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, 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 includ e adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 24, 2014 and October 9, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s November 25, 2014 and October 8, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s October 7, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s October 14, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 13, 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shal l be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visibl e from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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; 12. 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 Buildi ng Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans . Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer Kali Taylor and Kitisak Larlarb, property owners Attachments: Applicant’s Response Letter, dated December 17, 2014 December 8, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 31, 2014 Aerial Photo CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 4, 2014 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 8, 2014 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 860 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 860 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2014 (see attached January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in June, 2014 and construction is underway. The applicant is requesting approval of an FYI to 1) reduce the size of the mudroom at the rear, left corner of the house (one window in the mudroom would be eliminated), 2) eliminate the landing off the dining room along the right (exterior) side of the house and replacing the French doors with a window, 3) eliminate the Prairie style window mullions, and 4) eliminate the sidelite at the front door. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the designer, dated December 3, 2014, for a detailed explanation of the changes. The architect submitted originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped December 4, 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 designer, dated December 3, 2014 January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped December 4, 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 6. 860 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBIN ALLISON CAVANAGH, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications. Reference staff report dated January 13, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse and Lauren Lee represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Appreciates the change to reduce the height.  Asked that the vinyl clad window in the bathroom be changed to Fiberglas clad.  Encouraged a Fiberglas window in shower. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments an d the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped December 23, 2013, sheets A1.0, A1.1, A2.4, A2.5A, A2.5B, A2.6 and A2.7 and date stampe d October 2, 2013, sheets A2.0 and A2.1; 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). The bathroom window shall be changed from vinyl clad wood to fiberglass clad wood; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 3 and June 25, 2013 memos, the City Arborist's October 10 and July 1, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's August 8, 2013 memo, the Fire CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 13, 2014 2 Marshal's June 24, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 28, 2013 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval ad opted 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 modif ied or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plan s. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 13, 2014 3 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.