Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.07.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 28, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the July 28, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gum, and DeMartiniPresent7 - 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones noted that he was absent from the July 14, 2014 meeting. Changes/corrections to the meeting minutes: •Page 2, Item 2; clarify that Commissioner DeMartini reviewed the video and minutes of the prior discussion. •Page 10, Item 7, first bullet on the page; the architect's comment is a non sequitur with the prior commissioner comment. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission with the noted changes. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 6-0-0-1 (Terrones abstaining). 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No one spoke from the floor. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1119 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Associates, applicant and designer; Dan Nejasmich, property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from the Consent Item (1119 Eastmoor Road) as she resides within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had reviewed the video of the Consent Item. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused). 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1011 Morrell Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Bill Egan, architect and applicant; James Cormack property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Bill Egan represented the applicant. Commission comments: •Garage door material? (Egan: Wood) •Belly band across the front should turn slightly around onto East elevation. •New gabled entry porch appears it is jammed in against side wall. Will need to cricket against the slope into the side wall. •South rear elevation has two support posts on floor plan, three on elevation. Post on right looks like it may line up with French door. Public comments: •None. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 7, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A6.0 with the following modifications: a. Rear porch columns to be adjusted so the numbers and positions of columns are consistent in plans and elevations; b.Garage door to be wood; c.Belly band across the front should shall turn slightly around onto East elevation. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0. b.1240 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two story house and detached garage (Mark Bucciarelli, designer and applicant; Lonestar Holdings LLC property owner) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Mark Bucciarelli represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: •Consideration of screening along the left side to replace the trees? (Bucciarelli: With the house at the setback and width of driveway, planting would be difficult.) •Simulated true divided lites acceptable – don’t need to be true divided lites as specified. •Right side elevation false window on gable – could eliminate the two side windows, then make the two windows in the middle larger. •Window bay on rear elevation could be broken down with additional trims – fewer big pieces of wood. •Obscure glass on bathroom windows off front porch not inviting. •Design review consultant letter (#5) commented that landscaping is very rigid, could be revisited. •Dutch gables on front and back, regular gables on sides. Could benefit from having Dutch gable on side too. •Muntin patterns inconsistent. FRONT: On large picture window, could have 6-over-1. Also change single 2-over-1 window to 3-over-1. REAR: Window next to doors on the first floor should be 3-over-1. RIGHT SIDE: 3-over-1 instead of 4-over-2 on the large window. LEFT SIDE: 3-over-1 and eliminate vertical bars – have two 3-over-1s mulled together. •Consider an additional corbel on the front towards the left. Public comments: •None. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 17, 2013, sheets A0.0 through A3.1,and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map with the following modifications, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance: a.window muntin patterns shall be revised so they are consistent across all elevations; b.the Landscape Plan shall be revised to reflect the comments in the Design Review consultant letter; c.the bathroom window next to front door shall be clear glass with an interior window treatment; d.the false second window and opposite side window on second story side elevation shall be eliminated; The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0. c.1504 La Mesa Drive, 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 (Shawn and Victoria McNamara, applicants and property owners; Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Audrey Tse represented the application as designer, with property owners Shawn and Victoria McNamara. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission comments: •Replacing oak trees in the front? (McNamara: May replace with fruit trees, replace overgrowth with landscaping.) •Could consider leaving garage, workout room and laundry at 8-foot plate height, then rest could be taller. (Tse: Wants taller height in garage for storage) Public comments: •None Commission discussion: •Concerned about plate heights – human scale. Massing is nice but height seems too tall . Surrounding houses are smaller and lower. 9’ on first floor, 8’ on second has been discussed as a standard but not all in agreement. On contemporary designs there aren ’t any elements to soften the higher plate height. •House is situated down from roadway, won’t look as imposing as appears in elevation. •Don’t have a hard and fast rule with plate heights. •Stain color is up to applicant. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application, by resolution. The motion was approved 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Sargent dissenting). d.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier Commissioners Sargent and Loftis noted that they were not present at the Design Review Study meeting for this item but had watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments . Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Wilson and Dorothy Cheng represented the applicant, with architect Anthony Ho. Commission questions/comments: •Arched windows on front left side are all at the same height. On the existing house the center window is taller and more prominent. Would benefit by reducing the heights on the flanking windows. •The shapes of the different arches varies. Should be more consistent. •Master Bedroom on Carmelita side, suggest have transom windows in center of wall rather than offset large window and have large windows on back. Could have a pair of taller windows on back. •There are a lot of blank walls. Could add side windows to upstairs bedrooms. •Are right side elevation first floor egress windows casement windows? (Cheng: Yes, 8-lite casements) •Which windows original? (Cheng: Only original is back French door, all others are newer vinyl) •Concerned about height – entry element seems very tall, and 9-foot plate height on second floor looks tall. Prefer tower as shown on rendering, and 8-foot second floor plate height. Public comments: •None. Commission discussion: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Existing windows are fairly new, but proposed windows will not match them. •Grids don’t have same depth as a wood window. Have rejected this type of window on another house. •Continue to date certain with direction to reduce plate height, match arches, revise Master Bedroom windows, add side windows to bedrooms 1 and 2, call out aluminum clad wood -windows for new windows, and lower entry element. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapali, to continue the application to the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0. e.1419 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage (Karen Curtiss, architect and applicant; Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item becuase he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had not attended the Design Review Study meeting but had watched the video. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had spoken with neighbors at 1410 and 1411 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner Yie noted that she had not attended the Design Review Study meeting but had read the meeting minutes and had met with the applicant and designer. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Karen Curtis represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: •How will the site be graded for runoff? (Curtis: Runoff will go back towards garage.) •How will window sandblasting work? (Curtis: Clear on top, 20% on lower for windows facing neighbor; all clear on windows facing courtyard.) •Concern about courtyard house pattern being repeated on other lots. Possible noise impact to neighbors. (Curtis: Backyard is for more active use area, courtyard is more for daytime use. Fire pit is in back yard.) •Is at maximum floor area but because of tall ceilings counted towards floor area, has allowed more of the site is carved out. •Does the wood siding extend all around? (Curtis: Hardy siding all around with wood trim.) Public comments: •None. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application, by resolution. The motion was approved by voice vote, 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner DeMartini recused). 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1510 La Mesa Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for building height and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer and applicant; Isako Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had had an email exchange with the neighbor at 3036 Hillside Drive, and had talked to the designer and applicant . Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Questions of staff: •What constitutes views? (Hurin: Long distant views, although the Code does not specifically define what a long distant view is. However in 2006 City Council adopted a resolution that set forward a procedure for addressing disputes in the view areas with regard to trees and trimming trees. In that resolution it defined a Bay view as a distant vista or panoramic view of the San Francisco Bay. The resolution also stated it is not the objective of the guidelines to facilitate or encourage access to any other views such as of hills and landmarks. The view ordinance specifies views as seen from habitable spaces.) Audrey Tse represented the applicant, with property owner Isako Hoshino: •Existing house is constrained on all sides from expanding. •Private road runs through middle of property. •Rear yard is used functionally, house is up against rear setback. •Public utility easement to left side. •Front setback has steep upward slope. •Also constrained on right side. •Considered basement addition but not as pleasing as living space. •Small addition to top of house containing children’s bedrooms and a family room. •Needs height variance due to slope of site. Commission questions/comments: •Thought of expanding to the right side? (Tse: Would not be enough space to add the types of rooms desired.) •Use space in garage level? (Tse: Intent was to minimize disruption to one side of the house. Would have to change entire floor plan on main floor. Maybe a rumpus room, but not two bedrooms.) •Height from grade is 33 feet. Has a flat roof been considered? (Tse: Slope of the current roof is 4:12. Dropped roof on addition to 3:12 to reduce height by about 19 inches. Flat roof does not seem in line with Burlingame design principles with inconsistent roof forms; wanted to maintain style of the house . Addition is intended to be modest, not block views from habitable areas.) •Existing windows vinyl, and new windows will match? (Tse: Yes. Most windows in neighborhood are vinyl as well.) •House has T1-11 siding, so difficult to ask for high-end windows. •Odd to have stucco on top, wood in middle, stucco on bottom. •Left side elevation illustrates issue: 8-foot plate height on each floor, and 4:12 and 3:12 slopes work together well enough. A flat roof would look odd. •How was the site section of the adjacent house determined? (Hoshino: Based on eye sightlines as seen from the back steps. Deck height determined by building plans.) •Story poles to determine if there will be any views blocked. Public comments: Stephen Chin, 3036 Hillside Drive, spoke on this item: •View not an issue from upper level of 3036 Hillside, but would be an issue from the lower level . Might block view of canyon. •Concern over soil erosion – has built additional retaining walls and reinforced foundation. •Removed trees were dead, were not going to be maintaining soil. New trees have been planted, more to be planted. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Subject property has had drainage problems. •Daylight obstruction from yard, not habitable area. •Most concerned about erosion and view obstruction. Should be addressed with engineer report and story poles. Isako Hoshino: •Property has had substantial engineered retaining wall installed. Commission discussion: •With story poles will see whether there is impact to any distant views to other homes. •Appears views from 3036 Hillside are canyon views. •Geotechnical will be reviewed at the Building Permit stage, but not by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to bring the item back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. Applicant shall install story poles prior to the Action meeting. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0. b.1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (John Stewart, applicant and architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis noted he had spoken with the neighbor at 1524 Burlingame Avenue. Reference staff report dated July 28, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. John Stewart represented the applicant. •House is a great example of a Craftsman, except for the rear addition. •Objective is to recreate what the rear of the house would have looked like before the addition. •Will replace all windows with wood clad simulated true divided lites. •Prefers to have new addition match the existing house. Commission questions/comments: •On right elevation on Sheet A-8 existing windows may not be shown correctly. •Additions do not always necessarily need to be separate and different in style and character. Could be successful if trying to match existing. •Should call out material on the stair handrails. Public comments: Tom Herald, 1524 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item: •Soil in back yards is hard clay. Water sits – concerned about drainage •Water needs to exhaust out to street. •Concerned with detached garage being close to the property line. Not enough room for maintenance. Redwood tree drops debris, will need to be cleaned out. Would like garage moved in slightly towards the property (1 foot) to provide service path. •Side gable is closer and taller than existing, may diminish the light into next door. Commission discussion: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Well done architecturally. •Drainage will be reviewed by engineering. •18” setback for garage would provide enough clearance for maintenance – 7 additional inches. •Alternative may be for side wall of the garage to serve as fence to neighboring yard. Requires neighbor coordination. •Would be helpful to see how addition lines up with neighboring house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, bring the item back as a Regular Action item when requested materials have been submitted. The motion was approved by voice vote, 7-0-0-0. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted that calendar requests are being sent to the commissioners to arrange a pre -meeting study session on either August 11, August 25, or September 8, 2014. The study session is to review meeting protocol, and consider whether staff reports should have findings and /or recommendations. a.Commission Communications None. b.City Council Regular Meeting - July 21, 2014 (cancelled) c.FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive, Zoned R-1 – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Accepted. d.FYI : 1505 Sherman Avenue, Zoned R-1 - Review of Conditional Use Permit approved 1 year ago for a preschool operated by a church in an existing church building. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 10:29 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 July 28, 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 August 7, 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 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015