Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.08.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 11, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL All Commissioners were present. Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 28, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes of July 28, 2014 with the following changes: >Page 1 - Roll Call - add Sargent as present. >Page 1 - Approval of Minutes - first line - add "will abstain from voting on these minutes". >Page 1 - Approval of Minutes - first bullet - delete "and minutes". >Page 2 - Commission comments - fourth bullet - replace "drawing" with "floor plan". >Page 3 - Commission questions/comments - second bullet - insert "true" between "be" and "divided". >Page 3 - last line at bottom of page - replace "Audry" with "Audrey". >Page 5 - Commission discussion - first bullet - revise to read "Existing windows are fairly new; the proposed windows will not match them". >Page 6 - second paragraph - replace "DeMartin" with "DeMartini". >Page 6 - Questions of staff - revise Hurin's response to read: "Looks at long distant views, though the code does not define that. However, in 2007 the City Council adopted a resolution related to tree trimming that defines Bay views as a distant view or vista of San Francisco Bay, also that it is not intended to protect views of hills or other features. Also clarified that views are to be from habitable spaces". >Page 6 - Public comments - replace "Chen" with "Chin". Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that Agenda Item 8d (113 Crescent Avenue) is pulled from the agenda due to a noticing error and will be renoticed for an agenda when the applicant is available. Also, Agenda Item 9b (12 Vista Lane) is pulled from the agenda to permit investigation of alleged code enforcement violations on the property; the item will be renoticed when this issue is resolved. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new single family dwelling (George Novitskiy, applicant and designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee Kwong, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (continued from the June 23, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting) All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Christopher Sadlak and George Novitskiy represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Expressed concern regarding the compatibility of the proposed orange paint color with the neighborhood. Felt that the color creates a disjointed effect when viewed in context with the fascias and the roof edges. Is the applicant committed to the color? (Novitskiy - provided a more subdued color sample to the Commission. Noted that the color will only be applied to the smooth stucco areas.) >Feels that the tree within the front yard area can be adequately protected according to the arborist's report. >Concerned that what is being shown on the rendering will not actually be built; the project plans do not provide complete details of materials and finishes on all sides of the structure. >What type of trim will be used around the garage door? (Novitskiy - aluminum to match the windows.) >Will the tile applied to the side match the tile on the front? (Novitskiy - yes.) >Due to the information lacking on the plans, it is difficult for the Commission to determine if the project is compatible with the neighborhood. >Asked if the applicant received the e -mail from Jose Franco who questioned the wall height and whether the structure will comply with the height restriction? (Novitskiy - at maximum built height it could exceed the height limit by roughly one-half inch due to the construction materials used on the roof.) >Given the home's location atop a hill, it could appear too massive for the area. >Typically, a lesser plate height than that proposed is supported on the second floor. Will the applicant consider a lesser plate height on both the first and second floors? (Novitskiy - noted that the applicant is quite tall and doesn't like the feeling associated with a lesser ceiling height. Also, he noted that the applicant is from Eastern Europe and grew up in small, confined structures; the design appeals to him on a more emotional level.) >Why are there two arborist reports? (Novitskiy- the first report did not contain enough information.) >How will the tree protection measures be implemented? (Novitskiy- the arborist will be on site as excavation and grading in the area of the tree is performed in order to ensure the tree's health.) >Feels that the front of the house is nicely articulated, but the sides are not. >When the walls are painted the accent colors, the intention is to draw attention to these elements . Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There is little detail in these areas. (Novitskiy - the color is intended to accentuate these areas.) >Feels the front of the house is nicely articulated, but the design breaks down less successfully on the sides. >Protection of the existing landscaping will be necessary. Significant landscaping will be required to enhance the compatibility with the neighborhood. >What will happen if the finished height of the roof slightly exceeds the approved height? (Hurin - staff provides latitude for up to six -inches of deviation from the approved height. Novitskiy - will not actually see the roof. The central portion of the roof is the high point. Hurin - a height survey will be required.) >Have insinuated the Commission into the color choice due to the applicant's characterization of the color as "hot" orange. >A lot of work has been done on the design in response to the design reviewer's suggestions. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Is there a standard condition regarding the implementation of tree protection measures? (Meeker - read the condition in the suggested conditions.) Also requested that the arborist review and be present during the root cutting. >Is important that the drawings are clear on what is being specified. It would be good to ask that an FYI be submitted with fully annotated drawings prior to building permit issuance. The information has been requested on multiple occasions, this suggestion is totally appropriate. >Still concerned about the overall height of the building. Isn't certain that this is the appropriate location for a taller, flat-roofed building. Uncertain if the design actually fits the character of the neighborhood. Other homes in the area have lower plate heights even on the first floor. The greater plate heights make the design pretty imposing. >Some elements on the sides are broken up well, but generally the design towers over the street. >Part of the purpose of design review is to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. >Haven't as a consensus advised the applicant that the structure is too tall. It would be good if the Commissioners had said the building was too tall. >The design reviewer had suggested revisions to lower the height that have not been addressed. >One of the first things said at the design review study session was that the height was too tall. Feels like this has been a consistent concern. >Is a handsome design on paper. The design reviewer's suggestions have made the design more cohesive. However, still feels that the ten foot and nine foot plate heights are too tall. >If the design fits within the regulatory constraints, then it is something that is a subjective matter. >A thirty foot height is allowed by right. Is a bit of a slippery slope to reduce the height to something that is lower than what is allowed by right. >Perhaps the portion of the structure that reaches the thirty foot height contributes to the incompatibility with the neighborhood context. >Noted that the thirty foot height limit was designed for gable roofed homes where a lower height will exist adjacent to neighboring properties. >Looking at 1547 Los Montes Drive, there is a two story element that somewhat towers over the one-story home to the left; however, that tower is balanced by other sections of the home that are built at a lower height. >Perhaps the height limit for flat roofed homes should be less than thirty feet. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing to permit the applicant to respond to questions from the Commission. Additional Commission comments/questions (continued): Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Noted that the applicant's response letter indicated an unwillingness to reduce the plate heights . (Novitskiy - feels that given the setback of the structure from the front property line, reduces the impact of the height. Feels the design falls within the maximum height. The applicant is also a taller individual that would prefer the greater plate height.) >The Commission could still impose a requirement for a lesser plate height given that the design does not comply with neighborhood character. (Novitskiy - the reduced height would impact the mental state of the client.) >Feels like the structure feels very tall. (Sadlak - the garage makes the structure feel much taller than it is. Novitskiy - the structure would be six to seven feet taller if the design were of a Spanish design.) >Clarified that the height from the curb to the first floor is eight feet. >On a prior project, recalls making the finding that the height wasn't reduced given relationship to the street. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to continue this Item to the August 25, 2014 regular meeting, with direction to the applicant to revise the project plans as highlighted in the Commission's discussion of the item (note: this action is not appealable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, and Terrones5 - Nay:Loftis, and Gum2 - b.2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a change in the roof line on the first floor of the existing house (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect and applicant; Roy and Cecilia Parker, property owners) ) (32 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director presented the staff report. He also noted that the individual that called this matter up for review by the Planning Commission has since withdrawn her opposition to the project; this is documented in a memorandum prepared by Planner Erika Lewit. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Roy Parker represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >The existing windows are wood frame and casement -style. What will the new windows be? (Parker - likely wood frame with aluminum cladding.) It is important to have the new windows match the old. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve this item subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (note: the Commission's action is appealable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.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 All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing Wilson Cheng represented the applicant. Commission comments: >Applauded the decision to replace all windows. Is happy with all the changes made. >Specify that the windows should be simulated true divided light windows. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the item subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report, plus the following additional condition (note: the Commission's action is appealable): >"that all windows shall be simulated, true divided-light design" Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - d.113 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permits for construction of a new basement within an existing single family dwelling (Flury Bryant Design Group, applicant and designer; Thomas and Tammy Kiely, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Community Development Director Meeker noted that this item has been pulled from the agenda due to an error in the noticing. The item will be re -noticed and placed on an agenda when the applicant is available. e.1469 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Conditional Use Permits for construction of a new detached garage with an attic storage space above the garage (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Ranjan Prasad and Monisha Deshpande, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones recused himself from participating on this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Likes the dormers with the faux windows. >Any thought to providing a faux window at the rear? (Furlong - the windows are not faux. They will have obscured glass.) >What is the height of the existing garage? (Furlong - roughly thirteen feet.) >Feels like the bump out at the front of the garage accentuates the vertical height of the building . (Furlong - wanted to maximize the storage above. Are already over 600 square feet.) >Thanked the applicant for the proposed improvement. >Has there been any feedback from the other neighbor? (Furlong - no.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the item subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (the Commission's action is appealable). Discussion of motion: >The space will not be used as an active space and the windows will be obscured to prevent views into the space. >The overall building height is reduced due to the balloon framing. The actual floor will be below the plate height. >The overall size of the structure is being reduced. >The overall building is well articulated and will not appear as a massive structure. >There have been no objections from the neighbors. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Recused:Terrones1 - f.141 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Conditional Use Permits and Special Permit for construction of a new covered patio attached to an existing accessory structure (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Keith and Beth Taylor Tr, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones was recused from the discussion regarding this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant. He remained outside the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners DeMartini and Gum had met with the property owner while visiting the site. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission Comments: >Commented on the existing length of the garage and secondary unit. (Hurin - noted that this is an existing condition.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the item subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (note: the Commissions's action is appealable). Discussion of motion: >The addition is well designed and fits with the character of the neighborhood. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 - Recused:Terrones1 - g.1480 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area – Application for Conditional Use Permits for expansion of an existing gasoline service station and convenience store (Shatara Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; 1480 Broadway Property LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Suheil Shatara and Roger Abuyaghi represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Feels that the County Health Department was suggesting this requirement at a time when the property was being redeveloped. Uncomfortable with holding up the current project modifying the existing building. (Kane - if the Commission feels it has the information needed to make a decision tonight that is okay, but the Commission could also request additional information from the County regarding its interests.) >Must be able to find that the use will not result in a threat to the public health and safety. >Can't tell if accessible parking is provided on the site to meet standards. >Must the applicant show all aspects of the design on the plans. >Expressed confusion regarding the closing time for the business. Is it 11 p.m. or midnight? (Abuyagi - the business is closed to customers at 11 p.m.) >Comments regarding the pollution from the fuel spill. Spent a fair amount of time reviewing the environmental documents in prior submissions. There was testing done previously. Referenced hazardous materials in report. There is one sample area under the area where the retail is to be Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes provided. There is a very high benzene reading at this location. The Planning Commission must be able to find that the proposed use is not detrimental to the public health. Would like a report that demonstrates that a hazardous condition doesn't exist. (Abuyagi - air sampling is done on a continuing basis, but has been discontinued.) Wants this information prior to making a decision regarding the application. (Architect - feels this information can be provided.) >Has there been any discussion with Chevron regarding clean up? (Abuyagi - Chevron is in charge of clean up. Testing results are provided to the Health Department.) >Is the existing stone veneer to remain and additional will be provided in the new areas. (Architect - likely would replace all veneer.) Would be okay with replacing all of the stone veneer with new stone veneer.) >Will the light pole that is currently unused be removed? (Abuyagi - plans will be revised to show its removal.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item with direction to the applicant to determine if an unsafe condition exists on the property due to soil contamination, and to confer with an expert and the County of San Mateo Health Department to determine what mitigations may occur to ensure that the conversion of the space, as requested, will not create a threat to the public health and safety . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.308 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, designer and applicant; Pascal Parrot and Lusine Yeghiazaryan, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he had met with the property owner when he visited the property. Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Lusine Yeghiazaryan and Pascal Parrot represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Will the shed at the rear of the property be removed? (Yeghiazaryan - yes.) >Is the slider at the rear being reused? Suggested extending the landing outside the door. >Straightforward design. >Concerned regarding potential impact upon the neighbor's tree. Suggested having an arborist review the tree to determine that there is no impact to the tree. (Yeghiazaryan - are planning to have this issue reviewed.) >Noted that the fence is built around the tree. Public comments: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner ) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Community Development Director Meeker noted that this item had been pulled from the agenda to permit time for staff to investigate an alleged code enforcement matter on the property that was brought to light after noticing was completed and the staff report was published. The item will be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission at a future date once investigation of the code enforcement matter concludes. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners' reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications There were no Commission Communications. b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014 There were no action to report from the last City Council meeting as the City Council is on hiatus until August 18, 2014. c.FYI: 1301 Drake Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Approved. d.FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Approved. e.FYI: 1412 Drake Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Approved. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 August 11, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 11, 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 21, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015