Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.09.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 10, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent4 - Sargent, Kelly, and ComarotoAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8a (1433 Floribunda Avenue) was continued to the September 24, 2018 meeting because of lack of quorum. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.General Plan Update - Historical Preservation Policies Staff Report Attachments Attachments: Dan Amsden, MIG, made a presentation. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the options presented "both/and" options or "either/or?" Could there be a mix and match of Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes options, versus choosing one approach over the the other? (Amsden: The examples shown illustrate different ways cities have addressed historic resources. The loss of a potentially historic resource is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. There is some discretion for local jurisdictions to avoid the significant impact from a historic resource being destroyed. It could include local registrations, for example.) >Right now there are two triggers for conducting a historic evaluation: location in Burlingame Park, and anything in the Downtown area that is on the list from the survey prepared for that plan. However there is no trigger for anything outside of those two areas to determine historic eligibility? (Gardiner: Correct. CEQA does not allow categorical exemptions for potentially historic resources, but there has not been pre-screening for areas outside Downtown or Burlingame Park. If an application comes forward that could impact a potentially historic resource, we won't necessarily know whether it may qualify without some type of pre-screening.) >The current practice in Burlingame treats some applications very different than most others. >How was 50 years determined to be the threshold for review? Soon 1970s homes would qualify, as well as all of the Mills Estate. (Amsden: It is a standard CEQA threshold, and is also used as a threshold for State eligibility. The intent is not necessarily the age itself as the criteria; a property less than 50 years old might qualify if is was designed by a famous architect, for example.) >Could a different threshold be established, such as 75 years? (Gardiner: There are two aspects. First is CEQA, where 50 years is an initial screening criteria for determining potential environmental impacts . The other is community values, which may identify a different threshold than 50 years but would not be tied to CEQA. For example, Redwood City has a threshold of 1940 based on designating pre -war development to be an era of interest, which would be regarded differently for purposes of community character. A community could identify a threshold based on its own history, such as a particular subdivision. However that would not address the CEQA element.) >There is an Eichler development in Burlingame, worth preserving and maintaining. >If someone is coming into town and purchasing a home, could the historic evaluation be prepared in conjunction with the sale of the home? Similar to the sewer lateral report that has to be completed prior to selling or purchasing a home. (Gardiner: Could look into it further. The current trigger is an application for a discretionary development permit before the Planning Commission. Not sure a city could make that requirement as a policy matter, however it is a disclosure. One aspect of CEQA is that is discloses potential environmental impacts. Sometimes real estate professionals will inquire about the historic status of a property when preparing a listing because they are preparing disclosures.) >Real estate agents in Burlingame Park are often already aware of this, and advise an evaluation as part of the disclosures. >Needs to clarify to the community that just because a structure is over 50 years old, it is not automatically considered historic, or could be designated as historic, unless and until it goes through an evaluation that deems it to be potentially eligible for a State or other register. There is a high threshold for determining the significance, beyond the 50 year threshold. >Would think many could be ruled out without doing the full research. A major renovation, for example. >The historical society database information can provide guidance on whether a building could be ruled out. >Evaluations are not cheap. There needs to be a streamlined process for determining yes or no. >The threshold cannot be subjective. It needs to be definitive in how it is applied. >Are there different approaches for how this is achieved? There could be a staff member who is trained to make an initial determination. (Amsden: That could be an option. However the draft as written requires the evaluation for any discretionary permit. It could be implemented by staff, or could be prepared by an outside consultant.) >Are there statistics for how many buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places? Statistically, there is probably a low number of buildings that meet the standards to qualify for the registry . Concerned that a lot of people will be paying $3500 to determine their house older than 50 years is not historic, since the great majority of buildings in the city are not historic. >Concerned if something is written into the General Plan that forces people to spend more money than they already have to spend to do renovations. >Could have evaluations of areas with high potential for historic properties. Even in those areas, would Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes not expect to have many eligible. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: Historical society members are not licensed to provide evaluations. A licensed professional looks at certain criteria, including special aspects of a property that may not be evident. Never ceased to be surprised by some of the evaluations. There are areas with older homes that are more in tact, which is why Burlingame Park is treated differently. However there are properties that would be of interest in other areas too. The determinations cannot be dependent on specific historic society staff. Has advocated for the trigger to be where an application is submitted for a major project. Maybe Page & Turnbull can provide a tiered approach. Would not recommend it being at staff level, as pressure would be put on staff members. If someone is buying an older house and does not plan to do a major project, should not need to conduct an evaluation, so would not suggest the evaluation be done at time of the sale. Focus should be on the trigger; a teardown would absolutely be a trigger, but if the home is being left alone or is just having minor changes, does not see a need to have an evaluation prepared. Leslie McQuaid: Examples of cities with historic resources: Amsterdam, Washington DC, Savannah, Chicago. The focus is on the outside of the building; alterations can be made on the inside as long as the outside maintains the historic qualities. Each of these cities is a tourist destination. Would prefer a district where they are all together, as these other cities have done. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >If an application requires discretionary review, it is a potentially significant project. There are not that many $5,000, $10,000 to $15,000 projects that come to the Planning Commission as discretionary reviews. The applications before the Commission typically are much more substantial, and therefore the approx. $3,500 cost for the historical determination represents a smaller proportion of the overall project costs. The trigger that determines that something should go to the Planning Commission is important. In the past the older, smaller houses were candidates for teardowns, but now most are all gone. Now the teardowns involve more substantial houses, and there is some angst to see the house go away. >Should not rely on the historical society to make designations. Could be difficult for staff to be required to be arbiters for making the determination. The detached professional analysis may help with applicants who are resistant to the process. >Something needs to be done, since some properties are being treated differently than the rest of the City. >The economics drive the demolition of houses; a house has a certain life. Perhaps there could be an incentive to restore them. One of the examples shown in the presentation had a tear -down fee to deter or discourage demolitions, or perhaps a reduction in other fees to allow for a professional evaluation. Or if the house character could be maintained better than just tearing it down. >Could have other language to stipulate when a home would be catagorized, to meet the CEQA requirements without stating the number of years. >Wants the process to be fair, objective, and definitive. >Likes good old buildings; doesn't like bad old buildings. Just wants to be careful so it does not become misguided. Would want the city to keep data to track the evidence, rather than just nostalgia. This was a Study Item so there was no action from the Planning Commission. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (367 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Sta1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - MND Addendum 1433 Floribunda Ave - IS/MND 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum - Tentative Condominium Map 1433 Floribunda Ave - Tentative Condominium Map Attachments: This item was continued to the September 24, 2018 meeting because of lack of quorum for this item. b.133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 133 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 133 Crescent Ave - Attachments 133 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 133 Crescent Ave - Plans - 09.10.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why not the change to plate heights as suggested in the study meeting? (Raduenz: The scale of the two houses next to each other. Does not think the proposal is unreasonable. Seems like 8 feet on the second floor hurts the scale.) >The 3D rendering does not show the revised height? (Raduenz: Correct.) >What is the design logic of the mud porch with the vertical siding and flat roof? (Raduenz: Characteristic of older houses. Would typically have a different vernacular than the rest of the house. This is meant to follow that tradition. Flat roof is meant to reduce the scale.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could use a different gesture to better integrate the added -on element, such as the same brick /stone from the rest of the house continued onto this piece. Would show intent and care. (Raduenz: Agreed.) >Reference at 160 West Poplar is set further back, and on a wider lot. Could this one be set back further? Should have a larger front yard, a more formal approach. (Raduenz: Could be set back 3 or 4 feet. Neighboring house is close.) >If homeowner is parking in the driveway or garage, maybe a covered porch at the mud room door to come in with groceries. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the house and the changes, but has an issue with the plate heights. Typically requests the second floor to be no more than 8 feet. Needs to be applied fairly. >There are not other taller houses in the neighborhood. If the ceilings upstairs are 8 feet volume could still be gained with coffered ceilings. >Nice application, approvable as stands. The commission does not have a hard and fast rule with the plate heights; 10 feet/9 feet seems like more of an issue. >Special permit for height has been removed. Only request is design review. Would benefit from being pushed back on the lot further. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: -An FYI application shall be submitted to show that the front setback has been increased by 3 to 4 feet, that the stone base for the main house has been extended to the mud room at the rear, right side of the house, and that a roof cover be considered at the back door. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, and Tse3 - Nay:Loftis1 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2 Kenmar Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Tim Raduenz, Form One, applicant and designer; Eric and Serena Fong, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2 Kenmar Way - Staff Report 2 Kenmar Way - Attachments 2 Kenmar Way - Plans - 09.10.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why are the window heads pushed up on the addition? (Raduenz: Can look into it. They can be aligned.) >Master Bedroom has tall windows that look like doors. Is that intentional? (Raduenz: Yes, it is their view to the Bay.) > >Attic vent gable on the rear elevation seems large. (Raduenz: Can reduce it.) >Will there be any new landcaping? (Raduenz: Working on it. Will bring it back in the resubmittal. Will also have a civil plan with drainage.) >On the site plan how confident are you in the location of the adjacent houses? (Raduenz: They are not accurate.) The survey does not show anything on either side of the property. Trying to guess whether there is a view issue. (Raduenz: The neighboring house is elevated. The owner has reviewed the plans. The addition is being kept single story.) >There is only one window on the neighbor's side. It appears to be a bedroom window, not a window from a living area. (Raduenz: The living area is on the other side of the house.) >Is there a reason why the casing is cut off of from the left window? Or could the width of the Master Bedroom be reduced to allow room to expose the casing? (Raduenz: Yes. May be a drafting error.) >How does the cathedral ceiling in the Master Bedroom correspond to the roof form? Does it center on the room or the roof form? (Raduenz: It will be a truss roof. Likely to be centered on the room.) >The Master Bedroom has a 9'-6" plate height while the rest of the house is 8 feet. >Are story poles required since it is an application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit? (Gardiner: Not unless there is reason to believe there may be a view impact. The Planning Commission can request story poles if it would be helpful for determing whether there would be a view impact .)(Raduenz: Can get a letter from the neighbor. We have been in correspondence.) >Rear elevation Master Bedroom and lower Family Room windows are not aligned above and below . (Raduenz: Not intentional. May also add a trellis to the lower Family Room.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Good application. Just needs to fix a few details with lining up the windows. >Taller 9'-6" plate height is OK since the context supports it. >From the street it looks like a one -story addition. Likes that it is not adding a second story on top of a rancher. >Would want to have a letter from neighbor specifically addressing story poles. >Wants the neighbor to acknowledge the ridge height will be taller than the existing roof. May not be apparent from just reading the plans. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing. >Raduenz: Could put up a ridge height pole, and obtain a letter from neighbor. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar with the following condition: >Construct a ridge height pole, and obtain a letter from the adjacent neighbor addressing the height and view issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - b.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. (Young & Borlik Architects, applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1408 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1408 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1408 Bernal Ave - Plans - 09.10.18 1408 Bernal Ave - Rendering Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. John and Holli Rafferty represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The roof deck has been reduced in size. How big was the deck previously compared to now? (Holli Rafferty: Does not have those numbers here. It's pretty small .)(John Rafferty: Entrance to the deck is now from the Master Bedroom, rather than the hallway.) It looks like it is less than 100 square feet. >What is the space above Bedroom #2 in the left elevation? (Holli Rafferty: Small attic crawl space for toy storage, about 3 feet in height.) Wanted to determine if a window was proposed, since there is not a window on the elevation. (Holli Rafferty: No window proposed for this space.) >Would the glass in the large Master Bathroom window have obscured glass, or would there be a window treatment? (John Rafferty: No, there would be window treatments, not obscured glass. The reason the window is large is to match the other side of the house.) >Would there be agreement to bringing up the sill heights on the upper windows on the front elevation? There is still a lack of hierarchy between the first and second floors. Just bring the sill height up a small amount. (Holli Rafferty: Looked at that option but it threw off the balance, looked odd. They are a bit smaller on the second floor.) >Why the Hardie siding? (Holli Rafferty: Needed it for the fire rating .)(John Rafferty: Not committed to it . The appearance of the house is important.) Suggests wood siding. Although wood requires maintenance, so does Hardie. Hardie siding is hard to miter the corners, so there ends up being corner caps which Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes cheapen the appearance. Wood would be richer in appearance. Unless the wall is on the property line there would not be a fire rating issue. >Neighbor on side has a window looking into the roof deck. Has this been discussed with the neighbor? (John Rafferty: Neighbor has previously expressed support in the prior design, and the the deck was larger in that version.) >The window across from the deck is an attic window. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. Much better application. More highly integrated. >Wood siding would be preferable, and without corner caps. >Likes the improvements over the previous design. >The roof deck is modest in size and accessed from the Master Bedroom, which will limit its use. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Request for the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to reconvene to discuss some of the ongoing issues, in particular the plate height issue and also the metal roof concern. Would like to receive a list of projects that have just been finished and signed off. Would like to see how projects turn out. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission request that the application for Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2668 Martinez Drive be reviewed by the Planning Commission, citing concern with the addition and deck and potential need for story poles so neighborhood would be aware of the proposal. Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the September 4, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council voted to adopt the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission. At the same meeting, the appeals of the wireless facilities applications were continued at the applicant's suggestion to allow time to work on alternative proposals. a.1337 California Dr - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1337 California Dr - Memorandum 1337 California Dr - Plans - 09.10.18 Attachments: Pulled, citing concern with the plank siding on the second floor and removal of the corbels. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 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 September 10, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2018, 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 $551, 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018