Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.04.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, April 8, 2019 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Discussion of Planning Commission Procedural Issues and Architectural Elements Memorandum Residential Design Guidebook - Roof Design Component Attachments: Timing of Staff Report Deliveries: > Having online access is fine on Wednesdays; feels like not enough time on Mondays to speak with staff; okay with emailed plans. > Does not look at the packet until Friday night and over the weekend; Thursdays still work, and even if the packet came earlier still would not look at it. > Would be helpful to receive large documents such as big EIRs or Neg Decs at least one meeting ahead of time. Could then have time to research specific questions. > Weekends are mainly the time to review. > Long agendas and major projects can be challenging to get through, but can’t get to it until the weekends. > Sending plans ahead of time would be helpful. Would still want a hard copy as well. >>> Conclusion: Keep delivery schedule as is, but send electronic copy of agenda and plans earlier in the week (in addition to hard copy deliveries). For major projects, especially with EIRs – would like to receive documents at least one meeting before scheduled for hearing to have time for review. Possibility of Canceling a Planning Commission Meeting in the Summer: > Would prefer to retain full summer schedule to avoid a backlog. > Would prefer to hold meetings even when there are absences, provide four commissioners are in attendance. > Commissioners should inform the Planning Manager of absences as soon as they are known so that agendas can be planned accordingly. >>> Conclusion: No cancelled meetings in the summer. Architectural Elements – Metal Roofs > Can go back to neighborhood consistency subcommittee after every commissioner has had chance to share their thoughts. > Neighborhood Design Guidebook was originally meant to capture the "low hanging fruit." The guidelines were mostly concerned with scale, massing and FAR, and did not address materials specifically. > The original writers tried not to be too descriptive; did not want a level of detail that would be found in CC&Rs > Don’t want to get into the realm of specifying particular manufacturers. > Metal roofing makes a building look industrial, not modern. It can cheapen architecture. > The first criteria would be whether the design looks residential; if so, then does the metal roof fit the house and support the architecture? > Not proposing to outlaw metal roofs, but it needs to be considered as an element in the overall design. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Color is a major issue, as well as the pitch. Either could overwhelm a house, so needs to be more subdued. >>> Conclusion: Evaluate metal roofs on a case by case basis, as part of the design review process. Would like to restrict color selection; perhaps consider a palette range and provide guidelines, or codify what are acceptable roof pitches and extent of roof coverage. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Present 6 - Comaroto Absent 1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - a. Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: b. Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. 1431 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for a One Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1431 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1431 El Camino Real - Attachments 1431 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Members of the public requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for public hearing. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jeff Gebhart: Lives directly behind property. Did not receive notification of the original hearing. Foliage as approved will not provide sufficient screening from views into backyards. Porch faces to the rear, is requesting the design be changed so porch is moved inwards. Concern with noise from mechanical garage; measurement only references noise from interior of units. Vincent Leung, 1432 Balboa Avenue: Acquired the house after the project was approved. Concern with the project being three stories, looking into the backyard. There is not proper screening. Wants to change the landscaping from deciduous trees, since they don't provide year-round screening. Had understood there would be a change to evergreen Brisbane box hedges, but that is not reflected on the plans. The hedges proposed currently will not grow tall enough to obscure the second floor. Wants a fair compromise. Applicant representative: Owner wants to work with the neighbors. Understands the desire for screening. Can do further studies of the parking lifts. Will set up a meeting with the owner and the architect. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > The deck measures 11' x 7', which is a reasonable size and not large enough for a large gathering. > In the past the commission has reviewed applications with second-story decks in closer proximity to side yards than this project is to the rear properties. The commission's position has been that if a deck is not "party sized," and generally no more than 100 square feet (which this is less), it is not deemed a problem. > The deck is set back from the property line, and there is a 10-foot easement, and then the setback of the neighboring house. > The noise of the parking lifts is covered by the City's noise regulations. > Screening issue is something to look at further. Wants to have the chance to respond to neighbor concerns, but that is the only issue to be further considered. > For the record, there is no strict requirement for privacy or screening. > Should be noticed as a Consent item so that neighbors receive notice. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: > The applicant shall revise the landscape screening at the rear yard, and that it be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 748 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and interior remodel to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Mark Pearcy, applicant and architect; Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 748 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 748 Plymouth Way - Attachments 748 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Pearcy represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Likes the application. > Adding the window was an improvement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - b. 1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Neubert represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > The design is an improvement; it does not look like two garage doors. > Uneasy with the glazing in the garage door, but it is not a deal breaker. > The applicant has taken the direction given, and it meets the requirements of the Special Permit. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - c. 2217 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Casey Coulter represented the applicant. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > If siding is not being brought all around, it would be better not to have it at all. > Bringing down the plate heights helped with the scale. > The windows have been aligned and there is some order to them. > Neighboring house has a similar scale and character. > The second floor should be all stucco, rather than having the siding just on the one side. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: > The second story shall have stucco siding to match the rest of the house, and that the vertical siding and quarter boards shall be eliminated. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - d. 722 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved application for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Bill Buckleman, applicant and contractor, JoAnn Gann, designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 722 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 1 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 2 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Bill Buckman represented the application, with property owner Jeannie Tyan. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Grateful that the applicant worked with staff. > Likes Plan A Option 1. However does not need to see belly band. Simpler is better. > Would like the same approach applied to the left side. > The rear will be unbalanced if only one side is fixed. > There will be an imbalance regardless. > Can't match the two sides, the conditions are different, and it is not visible. Does not see why Commission would ask of the applicant. > Doesn't understand why the treatment would only be applied to one side and not the other. > Will look more like the originally approved project if both sides match. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve Plan A Option 1 with the following amendment: > The option does not need to include the bellie band as shown. > The treatment shall be applied to the right side and left side elevations. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 4 - Nay: Sargent, and Kelly 2 - Absent: Comaroto 1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS A meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee should be scheduled to follow up on the items discussed in the Study Session. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS The City Council approved the Residential Impact fees on April 1st. They will go into effect in 60 days. "Burlingame Talks Shop" will be held on April 17th. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend, and can assist in facilitation of discussion groups. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 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 April 8, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2019, 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 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019 April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/14/2019