Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.04.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, April 23, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Gaul called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones Present 5 - Kelly, and Gum Absent 2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Draft March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Draft March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Attachments: > On page 13, near the top, revise vote to be six ayes and one recused. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes as amended. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a. 2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report 2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments 2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 04.23.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he visited the property at 2724 Trousdale Drive to view the story poles on the subject site. Vice-Chair Gaul noted that he had visited the property at 2728 Trousdale Drive to view the story poles on the subject site. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Enrique Eckhaus, Gautam Dusija and Parishna Patia represented the applicant Commission Questions/Comments: > How high will the new roof ridge be when compared to the existing ridge. (Eckhaus: about ten inches higher.) > Are the drawings inaccurate? (Eckhaus: yes, the actual roofline is 3:12, not 4:12. Provided photos showing the story poles.) > The survey shows the height of the ridge above grade as being 11.3-feet above the ground, but the plans show this dimension to be 12.3-feet; which is correct? (Eckhaus: 11.3-feet is the correct measurement.) Public Comments: Joe Bravo, attorney for neighbor at 2724 Trousdale Drive: requested the opportunity to work with the applicant to consider lowering the ridgeline. Jackie Lim, 2724 Trousdale Drive: have lived in their home for over 25 -years. Expressed concerns about loss of views from her property and its effect on property value and family's quality of life. Provided photos showing view impacts. Unidentified Neighbor: confirmed that the proposed addition will block a significant portion of the prior speaker's view. Encouraged keeping the roofline lower. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Was able to visit the adjacent property to view the addition. The addition will intrude into the view; not certain of the extent. The photos provided make it look more extreme than what appears to be the reality. The application is fairly de-minimus. Encouraged applicant to work with the roof structure to attempt to match the existing ridge to minimize view impacts. > Typically look at view impacts from interior spaces. Don't look at views from outdoor areas, such as the furthest reaches of an exterior deck or patio. > Was in the back yard of the neighbor at 2728 Trousdale Drive. Had to go to the fence to see the addition. Fortunate that the addition is on the uphill side and is only a single-story. Is not far from being approved, but need to address the ridge height. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes No action was required on this item. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Consent Calendar, with Commissioner Sargent recused from Item 7a. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - a. 1432 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geurse Conceptual Design, Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Kareem Fahmy, property owner) (124 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1432 Vancouver Ave - Staff report 1432 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1432 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 04.23.18 Attachments: b. 1010 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage with a half bathroom (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jessica Casey, property owner) (98 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 1010 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report 1010 Cabrillo Avenue -Attachments 1010 Cabrillo Ave - plans - 04.23.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 815 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(2). (Michael Cafferkey, applicant and designer; Michael and Margaret Cafferkey, property owners) (181 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.) 815 Maple Ave - Staff Report.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Attachments.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Plans - 04.23.18.pdf Attachments: 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: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Cafferkey represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Changes look great. What is the Andersen 5000 Series window; couldn't find it on the web site? (Cafferkey: hasn't yet selected window manufacturer, but it represents a window that has been approved in the past.) Delete manufacturer reference and include note that simulated true divided light, or true divided light wood window (not vinyl) will be provided. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Commission Discussion: > The special permit request relates to an existing condition; this type of request has been approved before. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve as the application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted identifying the specific brand and type of window to be installed. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - b. 401 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new attached two-car garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Boles, Beausoleil Architects, applicant and architect; Jeremy and Margret Werner TR, property owners) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 401 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 401 Occidental Ave - Attachments 401 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 401 Occidental Ave - Plans - 04.23.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Robert Boles represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: There was no discussion. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - c. 118 Loma Vista Drive, 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 Environment Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Kevin O'Sullivan, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 118 Loma Vista Drive- Staff Report- 4.23.18 118 Loma Vista Drive - Attachment- 4.23.18 118 Loma Vista Drive- Plans- 4.23.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. 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. Kevin O'Sullivan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Has the applicant spoken to the architect about the detail of the flat roof; would like to see the roofing material roll over onto the flat area to make it appear more finished. (O'Sullivan: will discuss with the architect.) Public Comments: Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Changes that have been made are what was requested. > Simple gable form on the front porch works. > The window into the kitchen will provide more light. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the additional condition that the roofing material shall be rolled over onto the flat roof area. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - d. 945 and 1001 California Drive, zoned C-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance to combine a proposed daycare use on one lot with an existing daycare on a separate lot. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Alan Coon, architect; Palcare, applicant; California Drive LLC, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1001 and 945 California Drive - Staff Report 1001 and 945 California Drive -Attachments 1 1001 and 945 California Drive -Attachments 2 1001 and 945 California Drive -Attachments 3 1001 and 945 California Dr - plans - 04.23.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he had reviewed the recording from the study meeting regarding this item. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > If the property at 945 California Drive were under the purview of the Commission, what would be the required parking? (Meeker: since it is grandfathered, staff did not perform the calculation.) > May the parking variance be approved specifically for this use? (Meeker: any other use that operates under the same characteristics as the present use could take over the approvals as they run with the land. Keylon: condition 4 provides specific scenarios under which the approval would be declared void; specifically tied to a day-care use.) Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Lisa Kiesselbach represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > How are the leases for the two properties coordinated? (Kiesselbach: have a 10-year lease on the new site at 1001 California Drive and twenty years on the primary property at 941 California Drive. Are renewable.) > Are you expecting an increase in the number of children? (Kiesselbach: will have no more than 161 children on the property at any given time. > How will the off-site parking work when Off-the-Grid is in operation? (Kiesselbach: are not allowed to park where that event occurs, but there are other spaces available at that location. Hudak: could also use spaces vacated by the administrators at 945 California Drive.) > How many parking spaces are provided at the CalTrain lot? (Kiesselbach: eight spaces.) Public Comments: David Fleischman, Executive Director of 4 Cs of San Mateo County: Supports approval of the conditional use permit. There is a significant shortage of child-care spaces in the County. Michael Brownrigg, Columbus Avenue: We are working hard to ensure that Burlingame remains a diverse community. A service like PalCare is a lifeline for working families and shift workers. Is an incredibly important use in these economic times. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The parking issue has been vetted very thoroughly by the applicant. Have taken the extra step to mitigate the inadequate parking by providing nearby off-street parking at the CalTrain parking lot. > The conditions of approval note that the variance for 1001 California Drive will become null and void if the child-care use at 945 California Drive is discontinued. > PalCare is a good use for that location. The crosswalk will enhance pedestrian safety. Can support the application. > The applicant's point about the difficulty of classifying the use is notable. Having a retail use at 1001 California Drive would be more impactful to the neighborhood. Having the variance tied to the specific use and availability of the off-site parking makes the request supportable. > This is a use that is needed in the County and the City. Supports the project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 705 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Peter and Hillary Blum, property owners) (145 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 705 Vernon Way - Staff Report and Attachments 705 Vernon Way - Plans - 04.23.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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. Jesse Geurse and Peter and Hilary Blum represented the applicants. Commissioner Questions/Comments: > Concerned about the large window in the stairwell on the rear of the property; has this been reviewed with the neighbors? (H. Blum: have met with the neighbors; they are supportive and have planted massive hedges that enhance their privacy. Geurse: the idea with the design on the rear was to add light to the interior and exterior near the floating stairwell.) > Seems that there would be heat problems due to the south-facing nature of the large stairwell window. May require sun shades in the future. > Believes there may be a wall missing on the second floor elevation; doesn't match the floor plan. Correct this error. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The u-shaped houses are often difficult to add onto. The addition is handled nicely and is well-composed. > Shortening the terrace area may be helpful. > Plate heights and massing are acceptable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on Consent Calendar when ready for action. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - b. 373 Lexington Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation and a first floor addition to an exsiting single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jesse Geurse, Guerse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Gary Haslam, property owner) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 373 Lexington Way- Staff Report- 4.23.18 373 Lexington Way- Attachment- 4.23.18 373 Lexington Way- Plans- 4.23.18 Attachments: All Commissioner had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is the window in the gable just into attic space? (Geurse: yes, purely decorative.) > On the side elevation; is the reason for the difference in the gable pitch to provide more ceiling height in the rear? (Geurse: yes, the property owners are quite tall, so wanted to keep the volume. Also wanted to keep the chimney that exists.) > What is the purpose of the "courtyard"? (Geurse: lounge/seating area. Are working around the lot-coverage restrictions to ensure compliance. It currently exists. The courtyard is off of a long hallway leading to the rear of the house. Provides more of an open feeling.) > Likes the design. > On Sheet AD.1, will need a clean-out for the loop vent detail. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the house, but is concerned about having a courtyard in the middle of the building. Not in keeping with the pattern of houses in Burlingame. The courtyard could be a source of noise when it is in use; could disturb the neighbor. Not desirablele feature in a densely packed neighborhood, particularly in this instance where the neighbor's home is so close. Doesn't think this detail is a good idea. Can't support the project as long as the courtyard is being provided. > Well-crafted design, but the point about the courtyard is valid. > The courtyard will act similar to a deck and will become a gathering space. > Likes that a one-story addition is proposed; is a good approach for the neighborhood, but the courtyard may require closer examination. > Feels that the courtyard may not be a great space for the owner to use; perhaps relocate this open space. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Vice-Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - c. 13 Victoria Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review (major renovation) for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(2). (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Patrick O'Connell, property owner) (205 noticed) Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 13 Victoria Rd - Staff Report.pdf 13 Victoria Rd - Attachments.pdf 13 Victoria Rd - Plans - 05.14.18.pdf Attachments: 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: > Noted an error in the FAR shown in the table of the staff report; correct prior to returning for action. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Noted the flying rafter near the entry on the side elevation. Unclear how this will resolve; does it project out from the face of the house? Could be difficult to install roofing material. (Geurse: w ill extend out about six-inches. Will review this element.) > Is all of the area near the stair at the rear what is counted toward FAR? (Geurse: yes, this contributes to the FAR.) Be certain to show that this area is open to below on the exterior elevation so that it shows that it is not dedicated to actual floor area.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Overall the design meets all design parameters, but would like to see a larger porch provided. Can add up to 200 square feet of front porch that is exempt from FAR. Still would need to comply with lot coverage. > Considers the combined area of the front porch and the deck that is one-half floor up and accessed from bedrooms two and four as adding to the life on the street. > Could possibly provide more patio area in the front yard to enhance gathering space. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones 5 - Absent: Kelly, and Gum 2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS a. 852 Paloma Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 852 Paloma Ave - Memo and Attachment.pdf 852 Paloma Ave - Plans - 04.23.18.pdf Attachments: Accepted. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming annual joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 2nd at 6 p.m. at the Recreation Center. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 23, 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 May 3, 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 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018