Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2020.01.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 27, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and GaulPresent5 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 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 There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.737 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review and Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two -story duplex on each new proposed lot. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., applicant and designer; 737 Linden LLC, property owner) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 737 Linden Ave - Staff Report 737 Linden Ave - Attachments 737 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Comaroto was recused for this item for business reasons. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had had a conversation with the applicant regarding the project. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Vice Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Likes the changes that have been made. >Could go either way in terms of the architecture, whether it was a unified design or split the way the applicant preferred. >I think it will create variation in the neighborhood. >Likes the addition of the courtyards facing Linden. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.110 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA), Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Victor Song, applicant and property owner; Denny Han, architect) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit) 110 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report 110 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments 110 Loma Vista Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Victor Song spoke as the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >The staff report mentions that the rear deck has a privacy wall that would be five feet high. Is that still correct? (Song: Not sure, it has gone back and forth.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project has come a long way. It is massed well and likes how it appears from the street. >Would look better with wood siding rather than Hardie board. >Size of deck would not jeopardize neighbor privacy. >Lowering the first floor plate height helps a lot. >Still concerned the second floor looks too big for the house. Neighborhood is mostly one -story houses. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 - Nay:Sargent1 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.3016 Arguello 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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kim Yee Lee and Seow Hui Yeoh, applicants and property owners; Ha Nguyen, Ha Nguyen + Designs, designer) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 3016 Arguello Dr - Staff Report 3016 Arguello Dr - Attachments 3016 Arguello Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Tse met with the owner at 3024 Arguello Drive. Commissioner Terrones met with the owner of 3024 Arguello Drive so that he could access their house and check the views with the story poles. Commissioner Sargent met with the neighbor at 3024 Arguello Drive as well. Commissioner Comaroto visited the neighbor at 3024 Arguello Drive and went to the second story and looked out. Commissioner Loftis was absent for the study meeting but watched the video. There was a received-after communication regarding the story poles. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the second floor front setback 20 feet or 23 feet? (Kolokihakaufisi: 20 feet.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Kim Yee Lee represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: Howard Joe, 3024 Arguello Drive: What remains unresolved is that my view is blocked. The profile of the proposed building would block my canyon view, the view to the tree lined street, and my view to the bay . The view is from my office, I spend a lot of time there most of the day. It's going to impact the value of my property as well. In terms of size of the proposed building, I think it's probably too big for the neighborhood. The owners initially told me that the maximum square footage of the property is 3,600 square feet, and now it's 4,600 square feet. I want them to enjoy their new house as one deserves, so my approach is to work together with them and make it a nice neighborhood. Lance, 3027 Aguello Drive: Supports making improvements and OK with a second story. But concerned with the proportions and size of house compared to others in the neighborhood. This house is set further up to the street, and very few are built directly over the garage. Concerned with parking impacts with such a large house and so many bedrooms. (Unidentified): Concerned with mass and bulk. Significantly larger than the other houses in the neighborhood. Others are between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet. Floor Area Ratio benefits from the large lot size, but much of the lot slopes up the hillside. 4,600 square feet is much larger than other houses in the neighborhood. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Understands the comments about the house being numerically larger than the others in the neighborhood. >Visited the neighbor to check views from "view windows". Appears a view from the office of the next door house would be blocked. Cannot make the findings for the hillside area construction permit. May need to redirect the addition to other portions of the house if there is going to be a second story. >House is nicely designed in plan and elevation. Story poles help to bring a three -dimensional component. >Was surprised how much view would be blocked from the adjacent house. Most of the two -story houses have the second stories set back, not built above the garage. The mass is situated behind, on other houses in the neighborhood. >Front elevation has a lot of height and massing at the front, with the gable coming out to the street. >Seems there are other opportunities for adding massing elsewhere on the site. >Houses in this area were not originally designed to orient to the views. >Applicant has a right to add a second story but there are other opportunities elsewhere to expand . Would improve the design massively to move the addition off of the garage. >House is nicely massed. If they could make the hillside area permit findings could support it. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can't remember Planning Commission ever asking an applicant to reduce the floor area if the design and massing is otherwise supportable. >There is just one window on the adjacent house being blocked. There is a way to move the addition back to get out of the way from the neighboring window. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Comaroto, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 - Absent:Loftis1 - d.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour, architect) (136 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1457 El Camino Real - Attachments 1457 El Camino Real - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1457 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Tse left the meeting. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Troy Kashanipour represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the first floor heat pump be at grade? Can't remember code requirements for locating mechanical equipment. (Kashanipour: It is in the rear 75% of the lot.) >Parking space #10 looks tight, encroaches into space #9? (Kashanipour: There is a one -foot overlap to account for the space needed next to a wall.) >How will the metal plates be driven for the shoring? (Kashanipour: Device attached to the arm of an excavator, vibration component vibrates it into the earth.) Would the neighbors be able to feel the vibrations? (Kashanipour: Does not have the expertise to answer. Can do a uniform 4-5 foot bathtub excavation, then do the additional excavations in sections. The closest structure is 5 feet to a small building next door. The rest is 20 feet. The other building is 10 feet. Will look at this as gets further into the engineering.) >How did the design of the entry evolve? (Kashanipour: First hearing lobby was pulled further forward to be flush. Scaled back the front upper volume and pushed back the volume on the lower level to provide more landscaping. Also reduced the depth of the lobby.) >What about the screen above the entry? (Kashanipour: Meant to provide additional visual focus . Perforated metal panel painted same color as bottom yellow panel. Lit from behind, stucco from behind would be illuminated. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: Concerned with the number of curb cuts. Degrades what is hoped to be an improved tree row with the new El Camino Real renewal plan. Otherwise a nice plan. Conflicts between renderings and plans: renderings show two trees but plan shows one. Would like to consider having a narrower curbcut to allow a larger planting strip. Kashanipour response: Consulted with the Caltrans arborist, who said the trees belong to Caltrans and they will decide what is removed and planted in its place. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Does the City have any jurisdiction over the street trees? (Kane: A plan is underway for regenerating the trees on El Camino Real. City does not have the ability to specifiy what will be planted, but can consider site plan with amount of space available for planting.) >Would encourage as much planting as possible along El Camino Real. >CUP for height is supportable. Likes revised roof courtyards, and the planting reducing the size of the courtyards helps the design. >Likes the entry design, and how it will look in the evenings. With soft lighting would provide a nice point of focus. >Would like an FYI for a reduction to the width of the driveways. Revisit with the landscape architect and have it come back as an FYI. >Would like to see two additional trees planted in front. Big vacant spaces will be detrimental to the corridor. >Glad to see planting area in the front rather than paving. >Has evolved nicely. Decks have been reduced to be acceptable, and trees on the top look nice. >Maintenance of landscaping will be important, particularly given that the trees in the back will be in planters. FYI to consider reduction in driveway widths and review landscape plan. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an FYI shall be submitted to the Planning Division for a final landscape plan, including the planter strip at the front of the property, after Caltrans has made a determination on the proposed trees to be planted within the planter strip. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Tse, and Loftis2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1415 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Parking Variances to reconstruct an existing detached garage. (Audrey Tse, InSite Design, applicant and designer; Liza and David Levitt, property owners) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1415 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1415 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1415 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 1421 De Soto. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, InSite Design, represented the applicant with property owner David Levitt. Commission Questions/Comments: >Existing front gable appears to be taller than shown on the front elevation. Concern is that on the second floor the gable could run into the second floor window. Should check. Same with the driveway. >Was there consideration of sloping the flat roof over the family room? Would improve the design. (Lee: Considered but omitted for cost reasons.) Public Comments: Concern with the garages. Believes the garages have a common wall. Concerned if the garage is taken down, that the wall of the adjacent garage is not disturbed. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Garages are built up to each other and roofs slope together. Should have something to allow drainage, or consider moving the garage one foot away. >Likes the design but concerned with the roof pitches. >Would prefer a sloping roof at the back but not critical since it is at the back of the house. >Having difficulty with the variance in terms of extraordinary circumstance particular to this property . Not just what was built previously, and can't have cost as a consideration. >Family room inhibits ability to provide as much parking as required. Would not be able to fit two spaces in and have sufficient backup space. >Existing construction is an extraordinary circumstance. >Without tearing down the family room, can find justification for the variance. >Asks that the variance application be revisited. Comments on the budgetary reasons should be removed, for the record cannot be the reason itself. >Applicant should clarify with the neighbors how the garage will work. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Tse, and Loftis2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2020 January 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes No Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner noted that the annual joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission has been moved to Saturday, May 2nd. The calendar will be amended accordingly. In the January 21st City Council meeting there was a study session on the former post office. It provided a report from the new developer on concepts they're considering for that building and how it might relate to the city's adjacent parking lot. That project will come to the Planning Commission for review in the future. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:26 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 January 27, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2020, 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 $1,045.00, 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 3/10/2020