HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.01.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 8, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, approve the minutes of
November 27, 2017 with the following amendment: on page 9, under Commission Discussion;
change second "design" to "designed".
Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 -
Abstain:Kelly1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Gum noted that he would recuse himself from participating in
the discussion of Agenda Item 8b (821 Maple Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.624 Lexington Way, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2).
(Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Dave and Kelsey
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Armstrong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
624 Lexington Way - Staff Report
624 Lexington Way - Attachments
624 Lexington Revised Front Rendering
624 Lexington Way - revised plans - 01.08.18
Attachments:
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar.
Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2965 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for addition of an uncovered deck to the second story of an existing
single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Bay Builders &
Remodeling, Inc., applicant; JF Design & Engineering, Inc ., designer; John Iyanrick,
property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
2965 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report & Attachments
2965 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 01.08.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a meeting with the
property owner. Chair Gum noted that he met with the neighbor at 2975 Trousdale Drive (neighbor to the
right).
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ian Rickjohn represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Clarified that the deck is accessed from the master bedroom.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Noted that there don't appear to be any view issues; the adjacent neighbors are upslope.
>The deck supplements the outdoor space that is not very useable.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Didn't see any encroachment on the view plane from the neighbor's property.
>There are many trees on the property and adjacent properties, is approvable.
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application.
Discussion of Motion:
>In this case the second floor deck is acceptable because the yard is larger, distances from
neighbors is greater and there is a significant elevation difference.
>Must also recognize existing precedents in the neighborhood; there are a lot of second floor
decks in the hillside areas.
Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
b.821 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technoogy,
Inc, designer; Craig Mercer and Gina Corsetti, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
821 Maple Ave - Staff Report
821 Maple Ave - Attachments
821 Maple Avenue - Plans - 01.08.18
Attachments:
Chair Gum noted that he will recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet
of the property; he left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Waldemar Stachniuk represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Clarified that the home at 1243 Cabrillo is finished with Hardie shingles.
>The original design showed a stucco chimney, but has been changed. (Stachniuk: has been changed
to Hardie shingles.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Commission Discussion:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Surprised at how good the shingles look.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application . Vice-Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Recused:Gum1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design review for a new, two -story
single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates,
applicant and designer; 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
705 Walnut Ave - Staff Report & Attachments
705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 01.08.18
Attachments:
Chair Gum returned the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she emailed the applicant
to gain access to the property. Chair Gum noted that he had spoken to the neighbor to the left.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>What are the setbacks from the creek; requirements from top of grade? (Meeker: no.)
>Isn't there a Fish and Game sign -off required when building near a creek? (Keylon: as long as the
work is outside of the top of bank, then that agency is not involved.)
>Is fill considered within the top of bank? (Keylon: only consider the existing top of bank.)
>Confirmed that engineering will review the soils in the area; is a soils report required? (Keylon: the fire
pit has been eliminated from the proposal. The engineering division will conduct further review.)
>Looks like a protected size tree was removed from the site; was it done with a permit? (Keylon:
believe that it received proper permits, separate from this application.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
An applicant's representative was not present.
Public Comments:
Resident of 707 Walnut Avenue: Concerned about the driveway entrance. Have nowhere to place their
garbage cans due to the lack of a curb. Want the vegetation along the property line retained. Is also
concerned with the location of the common property line. Request that no changes be made to the
property line.
Neighbor on the creek side of the property: concerned about any work near the creek; where are the
changes being made in the vicinity of the top of the creek?
City Attorney Kane noted that it is the Commission's discretion whether or not the project is discussed or
continued. The Commission may make comments if it so chooses.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
James Chu arrived late and provided comments and responses on behalf of the applicant. Are building
with post and beam and will not be using fill. Doesn't believe that a 24-inch tree is being removed. Will try
to work with the neighbor to accommodate the garbage cans. Confirmed that a Fish and Game permit is
not needed since all work is outside the top of the bank.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Massing is handled nicely.
>What is the intent with the pallet of materials. (Chu: client saw a house in Hillsborough that has
similar design and finishes. Is a mixture of Modern materials.)
>The exterior finishing is a bit of a hodge -podge of materials. Revisit this and see if the finishing can
be organized a bit better.
>What is the plate height on the porch? (Chu: nine-feet, six-inches.) Revisit this as the scale should be
brought down to give it more scale. (Chu: the house is set back quite some distance from the curb.)
>Noted the concern about the 24-inch Cedar tree; what is the status of the tree?
>Agreed with the comment regarding the need to simplify the exterior finishing. (Chu: suggested
preparing a color rendering.)
>Finds the exposed ends of stone fin-walls to be too thin.
>There are drafting errors on the upper bay on the front elevation; the stone wall and the stucco don't
hit the roof at the same place even though they are co -planar. On the left elevation, the stone fin -wall
should be seen near the porch elevation.
>What is the cap material on the fin-wall? (Chu: stone.)
>What are the headers and sill pieces? (Chu: are wood.)
>Are the guard rail and deck on the left side to be eliminated? (Chu: no, will be built on piers.)
>Noted that Andersen 400-series windows are actually vinyl clad, not aluminum clad.
>Noted an error in the labeling of the mechanical door.
>How will the driveway between the project site and the neighbor to the right interface? (Chu: there are
existing hedges that the neighbor wishes to retain. Are willing to retain these hedges. Will look at options
for the driveway interface near the street and try to accommodate the garbage cans.)
>Any though to adding more trees along the left side to assist in screening the area? (Chu: are trying to
avoid doing anything near the creek to avoid the need for a Fish and Game permit. Can consider working
with the neighbor to see if more plant materials may be placed on their property, or place boxed plants on
the project site. The neighbor is set back some distance. Not many windows looking in the direction of
the neighbors.)
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments:
No additional comments.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Action Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
b.740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review to remove and
replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing condominium unit. (Halle Hagenau,
applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
740 El Camino Real - Staff Report & Attachments
740 El Camino Real - Plans - 01.08.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-part communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Chirs Chavez represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Has the architect done structural analysis to see if the deck can be supported as illustrated. (Chavez:
has met with an engineer. The deck is tapered to be consistent with the setback.)
>What is the area on the site that is all fenced in? (Chavez: common open space that is not used by
anyone. Has been fenced for liability reasons.)
>Why was the rail design selected? The rest of the building has wrought -iron elements with vertical
elements; the new rail may clash with the fence and other features. (Chavez: will consider a design that is
more consistent with the fence design. Chose the current design to protect privacy)
>Perhaps consider some iron at the posts in order to make a connection with other materials.
>What kind of wood is to be used? (Chavez: are considering engineered wood that is durable. Look at
Trex or similar material for the floor that will need minimal maintenance.)
>Will the deck be stained or painted? (Chavez: the goal is to match the fence on the property. Will
speak to the neighbors to see if the blue from the building should also be incorporated.)
Public Comment:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The deck design needs to tie in better with the design of the building and its surrounding fence.
>Believes the deck will improve the appearance of the space. Will look nice from the street.
>The deck will not intrude on any of the neighboring properties.
>The deck is in a prominent position and near the school. Is concerned about what it will appear line in
a few years if not maintained. Have issues with large decks on second floors or residences - neighbors or
the school could be disturbed by activities on the deck.
>Have approvals from the neighbors; this helps to make it easier to consider. Come back with
examples of the materials to be used, or spell it out better on the plans. The deck will be a nice feature.
>Senses that the size of the deck is related to the functionality of getting a vehicle in and out of the
garage below. Feels the design is overly fussy and needs a lot of work. Would hate to see it constructed
of a Trex-like material.
>Would ordinarily oppose a second floor deck, but given the location it works in this instance.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on
Action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote:
Discussoin of Motion:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018
January 8, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Wonders if the HOA has a role in maintaining the deck.
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners' Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director's Reports.
a.1548 Balboa Way - FYI for changes to the front porch of a previously approved Design
Review project
1548 Balboa Way - FYIAttachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:09 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 8, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 18, 2018, 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 $533, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018