HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.12.09
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, December 9, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the December 9, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and
City Attorney Kathleen Kane
III. MINUTES
Deferred until the January 13, 2014 meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
None.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 208 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATION USE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (CHRIS VANDENBRINK, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; RAZIEL AND HAVA UNGAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, Sargent and DeMartini indicated that
they had individually met with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker presented a
summary of the staff report, dated December 9, 2013.
Commission comments:
Requested clarification of what the intended use of the structure will be.
Is this a prefabricated structure? Substantiate why the structure height is as proposed since the
height for a prefabricated building will be pre-determined.
Need to substantiate the basis for the height.
Requested clarification of the findings for a conditional use permit.
Why is the clerestory window facing the side property line rather than to the interior of the property?
May be better to have the window facing the interior of the property.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
2
Prepare a section or elevation showing the relationship of the height of the fence to the plate line of
the structure.
What will be the heat source?
Provide photographs of the neighbor’s properties to show the amount of foliage and other existing
conditions.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
2a. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2014 – STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
2b. 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND A NEW SINGLE-STORY MAINTENANCE OFFICE
BUILDING FOR ANZA AIRPORT PARKING (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
APPLICANT AND ENGINEER; ANZA PARKING CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) Staff Contact:
RUBEN HURIN
A motion for approval was made by Commissioner Sargent, and seconded by Commissioner Davis, to
approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote (7-0-0-0). Appeal procedures were
explained. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 604 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN EXISTING
DETACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; HAKAN & ESRA DANIS,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioners
Davis and Yie noted that they had reviewed the recording of the prior discussion. Reference staff report
dated December 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier 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.
Hakan Danis represented the applicant.
Other homes in the area have stucco finishing.
Preference is to keep the design of the home as initially presented to the Planning Commission on
November 25, 2013. It meets his needs and fits with the character of the neighborhood.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
3
Wood shingles would add $12,000 to the budget for the house.
Are proposing aluminum clad, wood windows.
Commission comments:
Why is the bay window being kept in the living room? (Danis – was advised by designer that at least
one side must be retained for it to be considered a renovation. Didn’t want to change all of the lines
of the existing house.)
Feels that there are so many design elements situated on the right that make it appear unbalanced
when in context with the existing bay window, especially with respect to the blank stucco area.
(Danis – were told to keep it to retain a portion of the original house.)
Could still have a larger bay window with a window seat that could have reduced the stucco area.
(Danis – felt that it would be better to place more windows on the rear of the structure.)
Feels like there are a lot of design elements on the front that make the façade feel off-balance.
(Danis – want to retain a place for a desk. Wanted to retain some element of the old house.)
Why is the living room not being opened up into the dining room? Will it be used as a guest room:
There is no connection between the dining room and the living room. (Danis – want to keep one
room that can be used as a study.)
Feels that retention of the bay window negatively impacts the water table. Looks like a feature that
has been added on rather than retained. Could extend and lower the water table and cantilever the
window rather than bring it down to the ground. (Danis – doesn’t know why it is drawn this way.)
Didn’t observe a lot of stucco homes in the area.
With respect to the photos that were presented to the Commission, these were submitted to support
an all-stucco design? (Danis – tried to find stucco houses as examples to support going back to the
original design.)
The examples shown are of single-story homes; but the proposal is to create a two-story home. The
two-story homes shown would not necessarily be acceptable.
The concern with the original design remains the expanses of stucco, particularly in the gables.
Makes it appear that the detailing wasn’t followed through. Likes the latest iteration of the project as
shown at tonight’s meeting. The revised design breaks down the mass of the building.
If the original design is what is to be considered, then the project is not approvable. What is
requested? (Danis – really wants the prior, November 25th version. The renovated or new houses
are of the “Craftsman” style. Feels the design fits in with the neighborhood.)
The photos passed around by the applicant really provide more support for requiring shingled
structures.
Reiterated that there is a certain neighborhood fabric that includes wood siding. The predominance
of stucco on the original design detracts from that element.
Agrees with the comment regarding continuation of the water table below the bay window.
Expand the bay window and shift it over to the left.
Could provide a stone base to the structure.
Problem is that neither proposal completely makes the mark desired by the Planning Commission.
Reiterated the direction of the Planning Commission from the design review study meeting. Feels
the photos have reinforced the desire to require shingles on the elevation.
The applicant’s designer prepared plans in response to the Commission’s prior review; it is unfair for
the applicant to now withdraw the revised plans and revert back to the prior version that was not
approvable.
Public comments:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
4
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Discussed whether or not to refer the project to a design reviewer. (Meeker – it is the Commission’s
discretion to do so.)
The current design is problematic and there may be options based upon stucco finishing.
Doesn’t believe it is appropriate to send the project to a design reviewer. The applicant has pulled
the rug out from under the designer. The project designer needs to be able to try to address the
Commission’s comments.
Believes the Commission is working on the final details of the project design. (Meeker – could
continue the item with specific direction to the project designer.)
There was logic to considering the variance for the bay window based upon the first floor remaining
where it was. If the bay is moved, then the variance is called into question.
Found it difficult to make the findings for the variance since the home was primarily a re-build
anyway.
Could conceivably add another window on the front in the area where the stucco area is prominent.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the design, dated November 27th, with the additional conditions
that the bay window not be extended to the ground and remain in the same location, with the water table
being extended.
Discussion of motion:
None.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-5-0-0 (Commissioners
Davis, Gaul, Yie, DeMartini and Sargent dissenting).
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the matter until January 14, 2014.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Commissioner Sargent indicated that he could not support the variance request.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The
Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m.
4. 1520 HOOVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW
DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE MAIN DWELLING (EDWARD BELBUSTI, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; ANDREA COSTANZO, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated December 9, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
5
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Edward Balbusti represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 18, 2013, sheets A-1, A-1.2, A-2, D-1 and supplemental site plan and that any changes
to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated November 11,
2013;
3. that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and shall not be used for accessory living or
sleeping purposes;
4. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front
Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
The proposal will result in preservation of the existing trees.
Approval will bring the parking into compliance on the property.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
6
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1536 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JULIE
CARLSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIMBERLY AZZOLLINI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the applicant.
Reference staff report dated December 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
Requested clarification of the difference between the existing and proposed floor plans. (Strohmeier
– they are essentially the same, with one minor alteration consisting of the reconfigured stairs.)
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Anthony Azzollini and Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Looks like there are discrepancies on the existing front elevation. The proposed plan shows the
elements in question remaining. (Carlson – can revise to ensure that the plans are accurate. Didn’t
visit the property; worked from prior plans.)
Was the possibility of windows to the left side of the master bedroom considered? This would add
some light to the master bedroom. (Carlson – can make that change; would be high windows.
Azzolini – perhaps two windows.)
Could also install some interior windows near the stairway to add light to the stairs.
Massing is handled well.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
7
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m.
6. 1229 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION, A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED
GARAGE (KAREN CURTISS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELISA LEE AND JEFF REED, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul had communicated with the applicant
via telephone. Commissioners Bandrapalli and Sargent had met with the applicant. Reference staff report
dated December 9, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Karen Curtiss, Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Why is a bathroom needed in the garage? (Reed – has ulcerative colitis and would appreciate
having the restroom in the garage when needed without tracking into the house when playing with
the children in the rear yard.)
How is the current garage being used? Noticed a mattress in the garage. (Reed – bought a new
bed and will be placed in the home. The existing garage is used as storage space.)
Referenced the additional packet of information received this afternoon. Asked for an explanation of
the intent for use of the driveway in the front of the house. (Curtiss – hope to mitigate the amount
concrete on the plan but still reserve the ability to use as a parking space, similar to what is present
on another property down the block. Would be used for occasional parking.)
Confused on the landscaping. There are inconsistencies in what is shown on various pages of the
plan. Requested clarification of the material on the front driveway area. (Curtiss – plan is to install
river rock and planting at the location of the parking pad. Believes the confusion may relate to how
the street trees and the espaliered tree are shown on the plans.) Refine the plan to show the
landscaping more clearly.
On the plan, the former parking pad in front appears to be concrete; clarify this on the plans.
Would a Modern or Spanish design be preferred? (Curtiss – property owners wished to have a
clean version of a Spanish design.)
Feels like the design is stuck between the two design aesthetics. Would prefer choosing one or the
other style.
Has a lot of problem with the design not meeting the declining height envelope. Could build a closet
within the area where the lower roofline would be located. (Curtiss – have a fully articulated
secondary design that was not submitted. Are using the general outline of the existing building. The
home was built so that a second story addition could be built. The cost of tearing the structure down
and building new adds significantly to the cost. The alternate design would have been presented
previously, but didn’t feel it was as good a design.)
Will the balcony be used? Is there a door from the bathroom? (Curtis – the doors are sliding and
the bathroom window is obscured. Monterey Colonials are known for the shallow balcony depth.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
8
Feels that there could be a lot of heat transfer with all of the windows at the rear of the house.
The front entry doesn’t feel inviting. The home is in a good walking neighborhood. Is there a means
of opening up the front entry? (Curtiss - have discussed alterations to the entry to extend it out a bit
more.)
Likes the design. Is interesting to see a modern interpretation of Spanish style. Impressed about
the work that has gone into the design, particularly the desire to meet the family’s needs.
Concerned about the declining height impact upon the neighbor (Reed – the neighbor is present and
in support of the project).
Requested clarification regarding the wood slats that are proposed. (Curtiss – expect to have more
details regarding the slats in the future.)
Ensure that the garage is used for its intended purpose.
Not opposed to the two stories.
Have typically granted relief from the declining height envelope when there is an extenuating
circumstance to support it. Feels that there options to meet the declining height envelope. Though
the current neighbor is supportive, a future owner may not. Approval could set a precedent.
Feels that the left elevation is not inviting; not articulated enough and is not pure enough to warrant
an exception from the declining height envelope.
The critical aspect of the design is in the details. The plans need to show absolute detail to
demonstrate that the project will be built to a high quality level. Full details are needed; schematic
details may be necessary. (Curtiss – will provide the requested details.)
Ensure consistency in the design and the drawings.
Expressed concern regarding the driveway. Really discourage people from parking in front of their
house and discourage the extended apron at the front of the house. Particularly discouraged with a
through driveway with a wide parking pad in front of the garage. Need do refine the landscape plan
to discourage parking in this area. (Reed – how can they show why the declining height envelope is
necessary?)
With respect to the balcony, concerned that it will just be empty space within.
Public comments:
Jerry Deal (speaking as a resident of Burlingame), Aldo Piazzi, Terisa Haye, Thomas and Mary Tarara, and
Phil Durer, spoke from the floor:
No problem with the second floor addition.
Referred the Commission to the neighborhood design guidebook.
If the Commission wishes to include Modern design in neighborhoods such as this, then the design
guidelines will need to be revised.
Provided letters from more neighbors objecting to the design.
The elevations display nothing but vertical stucco walls.
Does not support the fake second floor balcony.
Referenced the 10’ 4” first floor height that contributes to the height and mass of the structure. Most
first floor elevations are 8’ 3”.
There is no opportunity for landscaping along the side.
The second floor encroaches into the declining height envelope; doesn’t believe the findings can be
made.
The garage can be built to the property line, but requires owner consent for maintenance of the wall
on the property line.
No warmth, detail or inviting characteristics are present in the design. The style is out of character
with the neighborhood.
Believes the project should be denied. A design should be proposed that is in conformance with the
neighborhood character.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
9
The contemporary building that has been built in the neighborhood previously should not have been
built.
Disappointed in the design.
Neighbors only saw a rendering of the front façade.
Many agreed with the second floor addition, but did not agree with the design approach.
Is concerned with the side of the house that he will be looking at. Is uncertain about the appearance
of the stucco wall with the wooden slats; there is no room for landscaping. How tall is the wall?
The house is taller than the apartment building to the left of his property. Will devalue the property.
Needs to be redesigned and done in a manner consistent with the neighborhood.
With respect to the garage in the rear, the zero lot line approach will negatively impact his fence and
trees. Plus, they will be required to access his property to maintain their property.
Disagrees that the modern design doesn’t fit into the community.
Will be a great addition to the community; will add diversity.
Are looking forward to the progression of the design and how it will impact the side of his house.
Doesn’t feel the design will impact the living space of the home.
Disagrees that the design won’t fit into the neighborhood. There is a variety of designs and structure
types in the area.
Are taking actions to provide for more landscaping on the property.
Knows that a lot of neighbors are supportive.
Feels the design should be approved.
Appreciates the comments that have been made by the Commission.
The changes will bring up the value of the entire neighborhood.
Looks forward to seeing more details regarding the design.
Is a bit surprised by the discussion. Feels the design shows real thoughtfulness.
Feels that the project will be positive for the neighborhood.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Remove the area that can be used as parking.
Is it relevant to have the alternatives shown regarding the declining height envelope?
Feels that it may be difficult to support the declining height envelope request.
Have been pretty clear to the applicant that the declining height envelope exception is not
acceptable.
The front parking must be eliminated.
The balcony design needs to be addressed.
Feels the architect is fully capable of massaging the design to improve its appearance.
Are looking for a resubmittal with a revised design.
Is happy to see different designs coming through for review.
If the applicant wants to bring forth the argument for the declining height exception, then they may
do so.
Feels that it is difficult to support the exception with a project that is so substantial.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes December 9, 2013
10
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:04 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 2, 2013:
Nothing to report.
FYI: 122 Stanley Road - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review
Project:
Accepted.
FYI: 1450 Chapin Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial
Design Review Project:
Accepted.
FYI: 2315 Easton Drive – review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review
Project:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary