Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.06.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 24, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and GaulPresent4 - Sargent, Tse, and LoftisAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - a.Draft May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 6a and 9b have been continued to the July 8, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN – Update of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point"). (Facebook, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 24, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments Attachments: This item was continued to the July 8, 2019 meeting. b.400 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for an existing detached accessory structure to be used as accessory living space. (Dan Nelson, architect; Austin Nelson, applicant; Susan Piveronas, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 400 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 400 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 400 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Austin Nelson and Dan Barker represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Where is the structure currently located, and where will it be moved? (Nelson: Cross hatch shows the existing location. Proposal is to rotate it 90 degrees.) >What is the history of the tree that was removed? (Nelson: Understands the tree fell over and damaged the shed that was in existence at the time.) >Is the intent to retain the existing T 1-11 siding? (Nelson: Yes, but it will be painted the same color as the house.) >Is the existing shed pre -fabricated? (Barker: Not pre-fabricated. It is comprised of 2 x 6 joists on an existing brick patio, with standard 2 x 4 framing. It would be repositioned on a new foundation.) >Intended use? (Nelson: Spare bedroom. Existing house has three bedrooms. No intention to rent it as a vacation rental). Public Comments: Todd Robinette, 415 Concord Way - Tree did not fall over, it was taken down limb by limb. Neighbors thought there was a permit for removal. Existing structure would not exist if the applicant had not removed the tree. Applicant says surrounding properties have similar structures, but those are sheds, not accessory dwelling spaces. Believes existing house is four bedrooms, not three, so additional parking would be required if this structure provides a fifth bedroom. OK with the structure being used as an office, but not as an accessory dwelling unit. Gail Chang, sister of owner of 401 Concord Way - Tree was not dead when it was taken down. There is a large skateboard ramp in the back that makes a lot of noise. Structure is very close to fence, 2 1/2 or 3 feet from the fence, and looks into the bedroom and backyard at 401 Concord Way. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Questions and Discussion: >Is tree still subject to code enforcement? (Lewit: No, not without documentation of the tree that was Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes removed.) >What are the setbacks for accessory structures? (Lewit: For accessory structures in the rear 30% of the lot, no setbacks are required for single-story structures. They can be built up to the property line.) >Could the structure be converted into an ADU in the future? (Lewit: The lot is less than 6,000 square feet so would not meet the criteria for a new ADU. However, existing permitted living space could be converted into an ADU regardless of lot size, so it could be converted into an ADU later in the future.) >Will more parking be required for the house? (Lewit: Does not require accessory structures to have additional parking.) >Has a hard time making the finding that the house will match the existing home. It is a shed with T 1- 11 siding. >Concerned that legitimate buildings can be turned into ADUs. However as an accessory living space the commission has had concerns with full bathrooms. These can represent impacts on adjacent neighbors. >Looking for something that blends with the neighborhood. Concern with the living space being on the property line. >Does not believe this would have been approved originally. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to have the application return on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.217 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 217 Channing Rd - Staff Report 217 Channing Rd - Attachments 217 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Debbie Norton, next door neighbor - Wants to keep the existing hedge, does not want it to be damaged . Likes the plan. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Wants to have the hedge preserved. Required setback pulls the house further away from the hedge. >Revisions bring more scale and delicacy, maintains the character and charm of the neighborhood . Likes the scale of the stone, and will work well as a base. >Removing the corner boards was helpful. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - b.830 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a 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). (Jennifer and Matt Kulin, applicants and property owners; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., designer) (146 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 830 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 830 Paloma Ave - Attachments 830 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Neighbors at 834 Paloma Avenue - Revised design is worse than the previous proposal. Still views into the back yards. Lots of space on the right side, could move the addition over further. Windows are looking down from a 3-foot setback. The house is more integrated into the neighborhood, but the design is too close to the neighboring house. Originally the addition was too far back, so now although it was pushed up it has windows on the side. Should put the addition on top of the garage. There was no cooperation in the design revisions, the plans were shown once they were drawn up. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Chimney seems to look odd, perhaps something can be done with it. >Would be helpful to see alignment of the windows as it relates to the neighbor. >The mass has been moved forward and is less massive than the previous proposal. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The architecture will fit in with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. >The windows on the side are not typical view windows. The applicant can work with treatments to provide more privacy. >Massing is handled well. It would look odd if it was pushed forward. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - c.851 Burlway Road, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a new incidental food establishment in an existing multi -use commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Koichi Paul Nii, Nii Architects, applicant and architect; Elie Mehrdad, property owner) (30 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Staff Report 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Attachments 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Charles Yu, Mister Teriyaki, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The business is frequented by people who work in the area. >Supports the findings in the CUP. There is a symbiosis with workers in the area. >Does not expect parking to be an issue. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage . (Joseph Ho, applicant and architect; Xiaochuang Lin, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1345 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1345 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1345 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Xiaochuang Lin spoke as property owner, with designer Joseph Ho. Commission Questions/Comments: >Plans should be scaled half-size, not 11 x 17. >Is the intent of the materials what is shown on the plans, or on the rendering? There are discrepancies. (Ho: Plans. Proposing 12 x 24 stone, and wider siding.) >The plans show 6-inch siding, which will have a 5-inch face. However the rendering appears to have a smaller width, more like 4 inches. >What is the intent of the legs extending below the pop -outs, and why do they stop at the stone base? (Ho: Just for looks.) >Why is the deck so large? (Ho: It is off the master bedroom. It is a sitting area, providing open space.) >Have you reviewed the letter from neighbor? (Ho: Yes. This house has the second floor on the left, but the neighbor's second floor is in the middle, so they are different from each other.) >Will there be trim around the aluminum-clad window? (Ho: No, it will be a clean straight line.) >House will appear tall on this block. Have you considered any way to bring down the height? (Ho: The second floor on the left is level; if the pitch is lowered will have to lower all roof pitches. >Does the lot slope up? (Ho: Not steep at the back.) >Plate heights are 9 feet on both floors, could have lower plate heights and vaulted ceilings to bring down the height but still have tall ceilings inside. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Can do things to reduce the height. >Keep the porch, helps with the modern design. >Though there are similarities in massing with the neighboring house, it is a substantially different style. >Scale of the materials needs to be revisited. Looks better on the rendering than on the plans. >Revisit the braces under the bays. Could have corbels instead. >Upstairs deck is too large. Should add planters to reduce the size of the deck. Reduce from the side and back so it does not intrude on the neighbors. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concern with the left elevation. Other than the bays, it is a flat two -story wall. Needs to better articulate the elevation. >Supports the contemporary design since it has a residential character, but needs better scale and character. >Needs to see the materials. >Loses the modern feel on the front. It is neither modern or traditional. >Bring down the height. >Look at the lights on the second floor so it is not intrusive to the neighbors. >Rear deck railing material should be changed. Glass panel does not fit well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Sargent, Tse, and Loftis3 - b.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and Special Permit for one new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JULY 8, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This item was continued to the July 8, 2019 meeting. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Comaroto had attended the City Council study session on June 3rd and asked for clarification on the direction provided by the Council. Community Development Director Gardiner replied that the current procedure of evaluating potentially historic properties will continue unchanged, with evaluations required for discretionary permits within Burlingame Park. For properties elsewhere in the City, evaluations will be required if information arises to suggest potential historic eligibility. However the historic preservation incentives that are currently offered only within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries will be expanded to allow properties anywhere in the City to apply to utilize the incentives, if desired by the property owner and if the property is deemed eligible. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1350 Columbus Ave - Memorandum and AttachmentsAttachments: Accepted. b.1628 Lassen Way - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/30/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1628 Lassen Way - Memorandum and Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Proposed Plans 1628 Lassen Way - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Concern with the removal of the window muntins. They do not need to stay with the character of what was there before, but they should have something. Also concern with the garage door. c.1629 Howard Avenue - FYI for review of changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. 1629 Howard Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 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 June 24, 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 July 5, 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 $1,045 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 7/30/2019