Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.01.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, January 22, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Present 10 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Tatyana Shmygol, 937 Larkspur Drive: Received request from AT&T to install a cell node on a pole located at the property. Concern with the placement of a wireless node at the pole, confusion with why this location was chosen. Small residential neighborhood bound on one side by tracks, 101 on the other side, and a car dealership a block away. Wanted to request information from the commission about what the process is, and when there will be a public hearing. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. 1333 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for renewal of an existing tent structure. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, Class 1(a) of t he CEQA Guidelines. (Greg Farmer, Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport, applicant; HMC Burlingame Hotel LP, property owner; Academy Tent and Canvas, Inc., designer) (17 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1333 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1333 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1333 Bayshore - Photos - 01.22.18 (no plans) Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a. 1345 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved application for a 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Roberty Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Adam and Denise Steinberger, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1345 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1345 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1345 Balboa Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > The garage door previously approved had some character with a panelized design, whereas the proposed door is a simple flat sectional. Is there a reason for the change? (Wehmeyer: Glass was eliminated from the garage door so the house would not feel like it was three stories. Tried to make the bottom more basic with the masonry veneer to establish a base, and replace the entry wall with a railing to appear lighter. Did not want the eye to focus on the garage door, wanted to focus up on the house.) > It is not a three-story house, it is a split level, and the garage door is out there prominent as a flat blank slab, making the house feel more like a fortress. (Wehmeyer: If it's an issue, can take a look at the garage door.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Liked the original garage door, would like to go back to something similar to that. > Changes have added complexity to an already approved project. > Direction to the applicant to retain originally-approved panelized garage door. If the applicant prefers to retain the plain door, the plain door would need to return for approval as an FYI. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Chair Gum, to approve the Action Item with the following amendment: > That the decorative panelized garage door in the original approval be retained. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - b. 1327 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for first and second floor additions to an existing two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Eiki Tanaka, Studio 02, Inc., designer and applicant; Celeste and Eric Leung, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1327 Castillo Ave - Staff Report 1327 Castillo Ave - Attachments 1 1327 Castillo Ave - Attachments 2 1327 Castillo Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Eiki Tenaka, Studio 02 represented the applicant, with property owner Eric Leung. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: Neighbor at 1331 Castillo Avenue: Property owners have been great to work with. Supports the project as it has been presented in the design review consultant review. Requests to be informed of any changes in the future. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Good fruition of the process with the design review consultant and neighbors. > A lot of detail and character has been added that brings the house more into context with the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - c. 705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design review for a new, two-story Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes single-family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (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 705 Walnut Ave - Attachments 705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Camoroto had a discussion about the mate rials with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Is staff aware of a mapped easement for the neighbor's garbage cans? (Hurin: An easement is not shown in the submittal materials. If it is a private easement the City would not have a record of it.)(Gardiner: Does not see an easement on the County assessor map.) > Understanding is that arrangements can be made with the garbage company to go down the driveway and pick up the cans. Can the commission make that suggestion? (Hurin: The suggestion can be made. Understands for multifamily properties there is an extra charge for that; not sure about single family residential properties.) > Why is the 100-year flood line not shown on this plan? (Hurin: When the property has a creek with natural banks, an engineer needs to determine where the 100-year flood line is. If the creek is lined with retaining walls, that is considered the top of bank and the 100-year flood line. Here the creek appears to be within two walls, so those would be considered the top of bank.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Matt Nejasmich, 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC. Commission Questions/Comments: > Are the yellow tape story poles on the site now from the older site plan? (Nejasmich: Yes, they were set up to show the neighbors the elevation of the walkway and the house, based on the original proposal. Last week came to an agreement to minimize the walkway to address privacy concern and move the courtyard in.) > Is there awareness of any easements for the garbage cans? (Nejasmich: Not aware of any easements, from buying the property and research.) > How does the pair of windows in front of the stair landing work? There is a full-height window in front of the landing. (Chu: The landing is not attached to the wall, there is a gap of about 18 inches. Will be fixed, not operable.) > Is the change to the site plan limited to eliminating the walkway alongside the fireplace, so access would be from the rear yard only? (Chu: Correct.) > Materials still seem "jumpy" - prefers a simpler materials palette. > Has the porch been lowered in the rendering? (Chu: Yes.) > Fin walls with stone veneer are represented very thin. One is 19 feet and extending up to a gable. How is it going to be constructed? (Chu: All exterior walls will be 2 x 8). If the stone veneer is 3/4" with a 2 x 8, it will build out to about 10 inches so will look substantial. > Would it be helpful to have screening along the creek bank to protect sight lines from the neighbor? Seems thin at the patio, could be neighborly to have screening at the patio. (Nejasmich: Can coordinate Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with the neighbor. Believes the main concern is at the courtyard, and there has been an offer to add screening.) Public Comments: Neighbors at 701 Walnut Avenue: Lives on the other side of the creek from the property. Concern with noise, privacy, and maintaining the natural aesthetic around the creek area. Has discussed with the applicant removing a bumpout to the deck, removing part of the walkway, and some vegetation or green screen to enhance the aesthetic of the creek. Peter and Jun Gong, 707 Walnut Avenue: Believes there is an easement for garbage and recycling bins. Has lived in house for more than 8 years, and previous owner for 40-50 years - has placed garbage cans in same location. Garbage company says they would not go 150 feet back to the house to pick up the garbage cans, will only pick up from the curb. Believes there is an easement through adverse possession. Has no other place to put garbage cans. Has talked to new owner about compromise to put one can on driveway of 707 Walnut, and the other two in the original location. Two car detached garage at rear part of the lot, but is at the front of the house at 707 Walnut in front of the front door. Would like more than 1 foot side and rear setback since it is right in front of the front door. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > There is no landscaping behind the garage. Suggest move the garage forward and provide landscaping. > Needs to clarify what landscaping will remain and what is proposed. Should come back as an FYI to formalize what has been agreed to with neighbors. > Initially had concerns with the siding and materials. Likes the artist rendering with the upper floor si ding better than the elevation on the plans that does not have the siding. > Prefers to eliminate the siding. > Fin wall is still missing on the left elevation behind the front column. It should be visible at the ground floor. > Moving the garage forward a couple of feet does not look like it will impact the site plan very much, and would be helpful to the neighbors. Should augment the landscaping in the back. > Would be helpful to add more detail to the rear facade of the garage; right now it is a straight stucco gable with no detail. Ordinarily that is not an issue but this is a unique circumstance with the house behind facing the rear of the garage. > Does something need to be done with the easement issue? (Kane: It is an issue between two private parties, and it appears there has been an agreement. Easements in a public street are not acquired by adverse possession.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item with the following amendment: > The applicant shall submit an FYI addressing the location of the garage, the landscaping behind the garage, and the rear elevation of the garage. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - d. 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner) (17 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Can a parking variance be made conditional only for a few years? (Gardiner: Constraints should be related to the characteristics of the use, and be allowed to remain indefinitely provided the characteristics of the use do not change.) > Can a variance be tied to a conditional use permit, such as with the tent at the Hyatt? (Gardiner: The tent at the Hyatt is considered a temporary use. The cross-fit business is not considered to be a temporary use.) > Could the variance be tied to the characteristics of the use? (Kane: It should be tied to the category of use, rather than an individual user. Capping the number of people is directly related to the impact on parking. If the use changes, for example to office use, that could discontinue the variance since the characteristics would change.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Looking for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for the parking variance. Had hoped it would be crafted more specifically to the characteristics of the use. If attendance data is showing the maximum number of customers has been 15, why is there a chart showing the maximum number at any given time is 25 or 30? (Gadduang: Accounting for the future growth of the business. Wants to account for potential shifts in attendance.) > Willing to cap at current attendance? (Gadduang: Could make it work with a lesser cap, but reluctant to cap at 15 in case more than 15 show up on one day. Wants to be prepared and transparent if 16 or 18 show up on a given day.) > What is the capacity of each class? (Gadduang: 10-20 maximum limit, depending on class and instructor. There is a 15-20% no-show rate so will sometimes cap at 20 strategically.) > Safe to say approximately 20 people would attend a given class? (Gadduang: Yes.) > Expect to be in this location for only 5 years? (Gadduang: Yes. It is an expensive upgrade for short period, but property is scarce in Burlingame. Needs to work with what is available.) > Will fire sprinklers be required for the upgrade? (Gadduang: Understands fire sprinklers will not be required for the upgrade, nor seismic upgrade.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Not sure comfortable with trend of businesses coming in and asking for forgiveness for current applications. This was initially brought up in 2014, and was only brought forward from a complaint. > Great business, has a lot of support in the community, no problem with the CUP. Hard time with the variance application. The attributes of the business are not the findings that need to be made. > Parking demands are the toughest aspects of applications - hangs onto rules in some instances such as downtown, but difficult when someone wants to deviate. > Relying on street parking is hard to accept with the variance application. > Use is extraordinary in its nature, which could then be tied to the particular use. But can't see the numbers working with the variance request, given the large space next door is vacant and there is an expectation of growth. If the other tenant becomes occupied there may not be enough parking. Getting farther and farther away from what the code requires. Cannot support the variance as presented. > Is the City contemplating changes in the parking ratios? (Gardiner: The General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update will review parking ratios. If the current standards present a hardship and impacts can be mitigated, there could be justification for a variance.) > The suggested findings in the staff report seem to make sense. Is this in lieu or in addition to the required variance findings? (Gardiner: Each staff report has "suggested findings" that are by default in support of the application. It is not a recommendation, but can be referenced or modified if the commission chooses to support a given application.) > These types of applications generally impose caps or restrictions, committed to in writing, to close the gap in the formula. Does not see it in the details in this one. > What direction could be given to the applicant? (Gardiner: Commission has expressed an interest in better defining an attendance cap, and more closely referencing the suggested findings from the staff report in the application materials themselves.)(Kane: Cannot prejudge a future action, or write the variance application for the applicant.) > Concerned about conditions being followed if approved. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - e. 615 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application to renew a Conditional Use Permit for long term airport parking as an interim use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Airport Parking LLC, applicant and property owner) (30 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 615 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 615 Airport Blvd - Attachments 615 Airport Blvd - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Camoroto had ex parte communications with the applicant several years ago. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Can milestones such as those applied to 778 Burlway be considered? (Hurin: Required the property owner to secure an architect, submit plans.)(Gardiner: Demonstration of due diligence towards development of the property including submittal of conceptual designs, and environmental review milestones.) Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant, with property owner representative Amy Chung. Commission Questions/Comments: > What if anything has changed, compared to five years ago? The permit has been extended many times already with no apparent progress towards development. > How many spaces are rented each day? (Hudak: Most are rented. However Uber and Lyft are cutting into onsite parking such as this, as well as other types of businesses. Off-site airport parking will be adversely impacted as long as there are alternatives.)(Chung: 800-1000 cars are parked daily.) > Does not see a financial incentive to change the current operations. (Chung: This is a dying industry. The property was not originally acquired to run a parking operation, but previously could not get all of the owners on the same page. This is comparable to getting three city blocks of individual single family lots organized for redevelopment. Has been negotiating with the individual owners, as well as potential developers.) > Concern this use has been in place as a temporary use for 40 years. (Chung: We have not been the same owners for 40 years.) > Could the parcels be grouped and split up? (Hudak: Parcels are too small to be split up. Would not provide the type of project the City wants to see if it is split up into 2 -acre parcels. To get a good project takes work. Needs to have the right developer and right timing, consistency with the ownership group, and know what the zoning will be. Has only been in redevelopment for five years, and will take another five years to develop due to the unique circumstances.)(Chung: Previous direction from the Planning Commission and staff has been to develop a single project. Ongoing work has been in response to previous direction. Current use is not the highest and best use; the owners are also anxious to move the development along and have it done right.) > What year did the current owners take ownership? (Hudak: 1982.) > There is a middle parcel that belongs to the State Lands Commission. What are the State Land trust doctrine requirements? (Hudak: Hard to satisfy the State Lands Commission because of their legal constraints.) One of the trust doctrines is open space. > How long is the lease for the State Lands parcel? (Hudak: 2038. If it were to be a new development, the duration of the lease needs to conform to the development.) > Has there been engagement with an architect? (Chung: No, have been talking to developers who have their own staff. Actively negotiating with two or three, and wants the developers to approach with what they see happening on the site. Has been negotiating with State Lands so it can be part of the plan going forward. Also subject to BCDC jurisdiction. Is still in the process of putting together the development based on direction received from the commission previously.) > Is there a timeframe for receiving responses from developers? (Chung: Currently negotiating an MOU with a specific developer at this point.)(Hudak: Developers have been meeting with staff. Projects like this can easily take five years from conception to approval.) > Has heard the same discussion every five years. (Hudak: Has been on a five year cycle, rather than ten years or indefinite, to allow the City some control and provide an opportunity for reporting and good -faith assurances.)(Chung: Previous renewals have been during economic downturns, in 2008 and 2013. Was not told in 2008 to develop immediately; was only told that in 2013 to go after development. Once hearing that, started pursuing that. Also the current zoning has not always been in place.)(Hudak: The outcome of the General Plan Update has not been certain until the draft was released.) > Anything magic about five years? (Hudak: If period is too short, will get developers or speculators wanting to negotiate down value of land based on the prospect of the CUP being lost. Has conceptual plans and drawings from developers. However a tight timeline could inhibit development.) > City Council has indicated it wants progress. What would be reasonable milestones to indicate progress moving forward with development without compromising negotiations with developers? (Hudak: Could come back in two years with a progress report, or 2 1/2 years. It would be a reporting period in a reasonable timeframe.) > What happens if satisfactory progress isn't made in 2 1/2 years? (Hudak: Property owners are working Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes hard to make this happen. It is immensely complex and difficult. Needs enough flexibility to get it done right and fairly.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Given that the site is 12 acres, seems like having something like three 4 -acre sites could be explored. Is this required to be one development? (Gardiner: Not familiar with that direction. Perhaps the intent was to have a cohesive design, but based on the linear geography it looks like it could be segmented into different projects or phases. There would just need to be some consistent logic.)(Kane: Staff present was not involved in those discussions, so would need to research why that direction might have been given.) > What changes are anticipated with the General Plan, such as allowing construction of a garage? (Gardiner: New General Plan in draft form would allow a greater floor area ratio than current zoning, recognizing the types of FARs that would be expected in the future based on the development type. Also there is a policy that would allow long-term parking uses to be integrated into a development within a structure, as part of a development so that redevelopment and commercial parking could coexist and meet community objectives.) > Are there limitations on whether a CUP could be rescinded? (Kane: There may be some ambi guity in the terms, such as referring to a conditional use permit where interim use permit is intended. Would not suggest a longer term that could be shortened midway for failure to reach a particular milestone.) > If extended, would prefer a shorter timeframe than the previous five years. Could come back in one year and re-evaluate. > Given the complexity of the property, the five year timeframe seems reasonable, with an interim reporting in the 2-3 year range. > Ties hands for five years. If nothing is happening after a couple of years, can't do anything until five years is up. > Can financial benchmarks be introduced? (Kane: The Planning Commission should focus on the CUP determination in front of it. A reporting requirement or terms would be within the commission's purview.) > There is already some significant development underway on the Bayfront. Not sure there needs to be a rush to develop another parcel soon. Given the timeframe of these types of projects, five years will go by pretty quickly and will allow the impacts of other projects to be better understood. > Five years with a two-year reporting seems right, but wants more thought given into what will be reported. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item with direction to coordinate with staff on a reporting framework. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto 6 - Nay: Kelly 1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum had an ex parte communication with the neighbor to the left. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Is it possible to do work on the left side of the house without impacting the neighbors, given the nonconforming setback? (Hurin: Only work proposed on the left side is to enclose the front porch, and the second floor. The second floor is set back further from the side property line. The owner is responsible for keeping everything on their site with means such as scaffolding or fabric along the side, or working with the adjacent neighbor.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Eric Lai. Commission Questions/Comments: > Line appears to be missing on the left elevation. (Chu: Appears to be a drafting error, will check with roof plan.) > Would there be a possibility to leave the garage in its current position? Trying to figure out if there is a way to work around the tree. (Chu: The current garage is two-story and has various ceiling heights. It would make this addition impossible because it would occupy too much floor area.) > All new windows and doors throughout? (Chu: Yes.) > Consider retaining the shiplap siding? It's an unusual and distinctive look. (Chu: Owner's preference is to change the siding.) > Will it be possible to work around the fence between adjacent neighbor to the left? (Chu: If the fence needs to be removed to repair the side of the house, the owners would build the fence back.) > Would the upstairs window on Bedroom #3 interface adversely with the neighbor's upstairs window? (Lai: The window would face the neighbor's office space.)(Chu: Can check to see if the windows would line up.) Public Comments: Neighbor on Drake Avenue, across the creek: Does not object to the project. Only concern is existing garage is built on piers that are sunk into the creek. Will there be an assessment or review to determine whether removing the piers and garage will have an adverse impact on the creek? Concern with erosion. When there is rain the water will occassionally go up around the piers of the garage. Will landscaping be required for the new area to maintain the creek? Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City Attorney Kane suggested Public Works staff can follow up with the neighbor regarding the creek. Commission Discussion: Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Likes the project, blends in well with the existing architecture. Massed well. > OK with the Conditional Use Permit for the height since it matches the existing ridge and conforms with the design. > Should indicate the line of the 100-year flood plain on the site plan. > Nicely designed project. Just needs to address the items brought up in the questions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto 6 - Recused: Kelly 1 - b. 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Lisa Ley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1402 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1402 Grove Ave - Attachments 1402 Grove Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: This item was continued to the February 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. c. 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Samaneh Nili, TRG Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2683 Summit Dr - Attachments 2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 2675 Summit Drive, and he indicated he would be attending the meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > What is considered the block? The eight properties from where Summit turns, down to Burlingview? (Gardiner: Can confirm with the project planner.) > Should this have a Hillside Area Construction Permit? (Gardiner: Believes it qualifies as being within the HACP area.)(Terrones: The agenda description includes the HACP.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. There were no questions of the applicant. Page 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Naomi Tanaka, neighbor to the left: Wants to restate what has been discussed as concern with the applicant. Concern with the privacy on the side, with windows aligning. Concern with views being obstructed from family room. Sunil Koshie (Applicant): Will work with neighbor to address concerns. Has reviewed plans with neighbor, exchanged some emails, and met at the architect's office. Had considered adding trees for privacy, but neighbor was concern with tree roots and impact on fence. Suggested translucent windows, which is agreeable. Back yard became overgrown but can be trimmed back to open up the views for the neighbor. Commissioner questions: > Will the landscape plan be revised based on neighbor input to not have the screening trees? (Grange: Yes, the plan pre-dates the meeting with the neighbor.) > Can all the windows on side be sand blasted or frosted? They are not view windows. (Grange: Yes, they will allow the light but provide privacy.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Nice project - clever solution to a strange building and lot. > The flat roof and sloped roof on the front look awkward in their adjacency. They are both nice elements but when they come together they look awkward. > Well articulated. > Should have story poles, not just for the neighbor to the side but also the neighbors behind. > The architect has made a good case for the variance, and it can be supported. > There is good support for the Special Permit for height, given the sloping lot. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - d. 772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jessica Sin, JSD Architecture, applicant and designer; Vivek and Pooja Shah, property owners) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 772 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 772 Walnut Ave - Attachments 772 Walnut Ave - Plans - 01.22.18 Attachments: Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item because he has spoken with the applicant about contracting for the job. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor to the left at 774 Walnut Avenue and the neighbor across the street at 775 Walnut Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Page 12 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jessica Sin, JSD Architecture + Interiors, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Feels tall, possibly because of the siding being switched from horizontal to vertical. Is there a reason why? (Sin: Wanted to add some more texture to the building and give a more contemporary look - the new farmhouse style with white board and batten siding and black windows.) > The existing window boxes on the second floor help break up the sheer wall. Has there been consideration of including those in the new design, or some other element that would serve to break up the sheer vertical wall? (Sin: Would be open to something.) > It is challenging since it is starting with a big monolithic box. Only thing the house has now to break up the mass are the details, but those have been removed. Any consideration to ways it could be broken up more? (Sin: Thinking of a cantilever element at the entry. Would be open to window boxes or other elements to give the front more texture and depth.) > Surrounding neighborhood is predominantly traditional, with the exception of the house to the right. How does this fit in with the neighborhood? (Sin: Keeping the existing structure, working with the massing. Breaking it up with window on the side at the stair, and the existing pop-out bay window.) > Encourage elements to make the facade more dimensional and interesting, with s omething like a porch or window boxes. (Sin: The existing house is right up against front setback so cannot have a true porch, but can look at window boxes to break up the massing.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Difficult because of the starting point being a big box. The existing box works because it has traditional detailing that would be expected with this type of traditional box. Would question whether the existing house would have been approved, but at least it has some scale and detail. > Commission has approved some contemporary interpretations of traditional houses (including the house next door) but they have had a sense of scale and a residential feel. This looks a bit like a barn, with a rural feel which is not appropriate to the context in this neighborhood. Stripping it of details such as the porch, shutters, and window boxes makes it a flatter, more austere box than existing. > If mass is not going to change, may need to go back to something with more traditional residential character that has some detail and charm. > Would like to see a home that fits the neighborhood. This feels too big and boxy, but it is a Colonial. It does not translate well to a farm style. > House next door has modern detailing but the massing and articulation is more similar to traditional styles. The traditional massing helps it fit in. > There could be a case for a front setback variance to allow a front porch. The house is at 20 feet right now; the minimum is 15 feet or the block average. The findings might be able to be made for a modest front porch; it could utilize the front porch FAR exception. Given that it is an existing structure built at the front setback, the findings could be made. > Porch could break down the massing of the face print without adding living space. Would contribute to the block and street, and makes for a friendlier environment. > The overly large window on the East elevation by the stairwell should be looked at. It looks out of Page 13 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes place in relation to the other windows. > All of the windows look out of place; the overall design is overly simplified, which makes everything scaleless. The windows need more detailing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gum, to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 - Recused: Gaul 1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS No Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Saturday January 27th the City Council will have its annual goal setting retreat. There will be a lot of issues related to housing, particularly with regards to impact fees. There will also be a discussion of Measure I funds. February 10th is a community meeting "Burlingame Talks Together About Housing" providing an opportunity to discuss housing issues in Burlingame including the proposed affordable housing development and commercial linkage fees programs. The intent is to engage people who may not ordinarily attend public meeting. Two or three commissioners may attend the 2018 Planning Commissioner's Academy held by the League of Cities. Information will be emailed to commissioners. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:22 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 22, 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 February 1, 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 14 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018