HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.01.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 9, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 -
TerronesAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Chair Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Terrones, and Sargent2 -
a.Draft December 12, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.Draft November 28, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.708 Carolan Avenue, zoned C -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial recreation use (Nicole Stier, Tutu School, applicant; Diebel and Company,
architect; Gloria Conti and Audrey Stroupe, property owners) (34 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Keylon
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:
>The 31 parking spaces required, where does that number come from? (Senior Planner Keylon: It is
based upon all of the uses on the property; there are a total of seven tenants. The 31 spaces is the
parking requirement for all the uses on the property.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Nicole Stier, Tutu School, represented the applicant:
Commission Comments/Questions:
>There will be a maximum number of ten students at one time, how many workers will be there?
(Stier: There is one employee there at any given time, it is the teacher. One parking spot in the rear
dedicated to that employee.)
>How many vehicles could be coming and going at any one -time? (Stier: The maximum would be ten .
We don’t allow more than ten students per class. But the average, based on other locations, is around
six.)
>If there’s six and a class leaving at 10:45 and the next class starts at 11:00 - at that point, there
would at least, possibly, be a dozen. (Stier: Correct.)
>How will the parking work? (Stier: Has looked at the situation at different times of day. Has not had
any problems parking along Carolan, or on Oak Grove. Does not anticipate problems with parking .
There are wide open curbs on Carolan heading north. Has also coordinated with the Burlingame High
School bell schedule.)
>Are you also aware of the construction that is going to happen on Carolan, all the traffic congestion?
(Stier: I was not aware of that.)
>That is something to think about because that impacts the parking. Transition between classes if
there are twenty cars if there ten students per class approximately is an issue. How would you manage
that and what the impact would be to the community.
>Staff report states there ’s no intensification of the use and all we ’re looking at is the Conditional Use
Permit for the commercial recreation. Can we discuss parking or is that not part of the approval? (Senior
Planner Keylon: There is no Parking Variance required because of the removal of the mezzanine in the
existing office space. Per code, there is no net increase for required on -site parking. This is just a use
permit we’re reviewing but some of the concerns being brought up by the Planning Commissioners in
terms of how it’s impacting the community can be considered to make the necessary findings. But there
is no findings required for a lack of parking in terms of a Parking Variance.)
>When looking for parking, looking for just one space or several? (Stier: Looking for ten.)
>There is one assigned space. The rest are first come first serve? (Stier: Yes.)
>BHS may have other impacts on the schedule.
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Sounds like a good project. Nice addition to the community.
>Needs to make a finding that it will not be injurious to the neighboring properties. The CUP
application does not address that - should revise question #1 in the application.
>If there is a class in an office building the requirement is 1:50. In commercial space it is 1:200.
>Would like more background on the history of the building and the parking that was required.
>Storage seems to be used a fair amount and has a low parking requirement. Seems odd to have
storage area designated at the exit.
>Would like to understand what parking is available in the back. Wants to understand the assigned
spaces.
>Might want to consider not having a class start at 2:00 since it is the same time BHS ends. Maybe
have an hour break in between.
>Evening classes for kindergarteners and first-graders may alleviate some of the parking problems.
>Needs to be aware of the construction on Carolan.
>Can't imagine what use the building could be put to where the parking would work. Can't imagine
any use that would not have the same parking issues.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.400 Chapin Lane - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use and Special Permits for
a new, two-story accessory structure with garage and guest house (Ryan Morris,
Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property
owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit).
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Ryan Morris represented the applicant, with property owner Richard Jones.
>Can reduce window sizes looking onto street, reduce size of second floor, reduce plate height on
first floor to 8 feet, can also talk about one-story options.
>Put railing around the first floor to aesthetically match the main house. Stucco with railing above.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>There are a lot of special considerations on a very large lot. Will need to see more study or ideas
that don't include so many special considerations. (Morris: Began as a desire to rehabilitate what is there
now rather than re -do the backyard. Some of the factors already exist. A lot of the exceptions are not
new to the property.)
>Variances require the most stringent findings. The variances for the second floor are new.
> Question for Planning Manager Gardiner: Are there any impacts to this project based on the
recent changes to state law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)? (Planning Manager Gardiner :
The project does not qualify as an ADU.)
>1964 approval needs to stay with 1964. What's happening now is what should be considered.
>If tree is lifting up the existing structure, would it not be a problem for the new structure as well?
(Morris: Building stilts around the roots so that the foundation is floating structurally over the roots gives
tree room to grow and not immediately put pressure on the building.)
Public Comments:
Joe Gurkoff - Jones did present the plans but were not able to look at the plans until recently. The size of
the building is an unavoidable problem for the neighborhood. The design would be fine if it were not so
visible. Driving down Chapin Avenue will be able to see the building from far. Too large, too tall, too
close to the street and too close to the adjacent property. Understands the need to work around the tree .
Affects the quality of life and property values. Concern with variance setting a precedent. Concern with
potential rental unit with next owner.
Carol Leninger, 405 Chapin Lane - My main issue with the house is the size and two stories. The
second-story windows would look directly into my home and that ’s a concern for me. My big objections -
I object to the two -story structure and the height of the structure; I object there ’s no setback; I object to
the large windows impacting the privacy of my family; I object to the large windows illuminating the area;
I object there is no screening to soften the impact of the structure. I’m also concerned about the
separate living quarters may require additional parking.
Kate Timberlake, 401 Chapin Lane - Same concerns as other neighbors. Has submitted letter.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Applicant has heard from the neighbors. Would vote against everything except accessory structure
greater than 600 sq ft, bathroom, and recreation room.
>Non-starter. There are 12 requests and this is not a design review application. Odd to hear about
concerns with one tree on a 17,000 sq ft lot. Residents on smaller lots are able to work around tree.
>Could consider two one-car garages to work around the tree.
>Should reduce the number of requests.
>The existing structure is in bad shape so something different will be good. Applicant has come up
with dream house but talking to neighbors it looks like it is not possible.
>Needs to go back and look at a different configuration.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1125 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage and a Conditional Use Permit for a half
bathroom in an accessory structure. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Jeff Diana and
Rachel Handsman, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Liked what was done on the right -hand gable. Why not do the same on the left -side gable - reduce
the ridge similar to the other side. (Raduenz: Wanted to fit in the gable window, but could lower it.)
>Had previously asked for list of heights of surrounding houses. (Raduenz: Could not get surveyor to
do it. Tried to do it with a laser measure but did not have a common point of reference. House across the
road is a two-story at 30 feet. Others houses are a story and a half.)
>Was the height different from original application? (Raduenz: No, it was an error.)
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>All of the issues from before have been taken care of by the applicant.
>Toilet in accessory structure is consistent with other projects.
>Motion amended to reduce ridge on the left side, to return as an FYI.
Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve Action Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert
and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Gum was recused from this item.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Can the entire front yard be paved? (Senior Planner Keylon: Yes, but it cannot be used for parking.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant, with property owner Germaine Alfaro.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Concern with the Jeep being parked in the front. (Deal: The son parks there, but can park
elsewhere.)
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>It's a good looking project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Recused:Gum1 -
c.136 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration and Design
Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design
Associates, applicant and designer; Frank and Maureen Cafferkey, property owners )
(58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Gaul was recused as he is related to the applicant. Commissioner Sargent was absent
from the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Patrick Kennedy.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Appreciates omitting the synthetic turf.
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Nice project, has addressed the few issues that were raised.
>One commissioner believes the house is too similar to the adjacent houses.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Sargent4 -
Nay:DeMartini1 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.776 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (Chris Day, applicant and designer; Jerry
Ceglia, property owner) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Chris Day, Day by Day Designs, represented the applicant with property owner Jerry Ceglia.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Ceglia: Yes.)
>Consider windows on the back? (Day: Faces the neighboring house. Concerned about windows
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
looking into neighbor's home.)
> Significant portion of back of the house still visible to the street.
>What type of windows are proposed? (Day: Milgard Montecito vinyl. Originals were Andersen
renewables, but will be replaced.) Should provide more detail - vinyl windows are not typically approved
by the Planning Commission.
>Why no overhang of the eaves on the gables? (Day: Mimic the existing design. Not touching much
of the first floor.)
>Extending the eaves would add architectural interest to the house.
>Why the Hardie siding? Wouldn't the corners all need caps? Should show that on the elevations.
>Thought of using regular wood siding? Or if using Hardie siding provide an address where it's being
used. (Day: Not opposed to wood. Thought there is a way to join the corners on the Hardie siding.)
>There is not a strong relationship to the windows on the second floor to the first floor. Why don't the
gables on the south elevation line up? (Day: Yes, because of the setback requirements.)
>Give some thought to tying together by relating upper floor elements to lower floor elements rather than
just happening wherever they fall.
>Windows on covered deck have odd lineup. (Day: Windows on the deck could be centered. Tried hard
to line up proposed windows with existing windows, difficult to do so.)
>If windows are already replaced could reframe and move to a more optimal location.
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Take opportunities to tidy things up. There are nice things going on, but others look accidental. Just
a shift here, shift there to line things up upstairs and downstairs.
>Not a fan of the big blank wall. However it is close to the building on the back.
>Look at the north elevation and the blank walls. Will be viewable from the street. Look at design
guidelines page 39 layer effect. Would prefer windows and landscape screening rather than a blank wall.
>Master Bedroom on the ground floor add a window facing the street.
>Everything seems off center including the garage.
>Combination of Hardie plank, vinyl windows, and metal garage doors - should look at all three items.
>Will there be some type of patio on the street side with the french doors? Tie in yard with exit area.
Chair Loftis re-opened the public hearing.
>(Ceglia: There is not much yard space. It was an attempt to make a garden type area.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
Discussion Item . The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.60 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for attached garage for a major renovation and a single -story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Malou Nubla, applicant; SKD Drafting /Design Services,
designer; and Joseph Nubla, property owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to neighbors at 54, 55, 60, and
63 Loma Vista Drive.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Suraj Dutta represented the applicant:
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Dutta: Yes.)
>Can the amount of concrete in the front be reduced? (Dutta: Could have textured or colored
concrete.)
>Should have something other than vinyl. (Dutta: Yes. Concerned with cost.)
>Agrees with pattern of the neighborhood with the attached garage. However making it a two -car
garage makes it more prominent. Try to minimize impact of garage, not maximize it. (Dutta: It is set back
25 feet.)
>Front gable is plain. (Dutta: I can give a design to it.)
>There are five trees added in the back and one in the front, but only five are specified. Is the total 6
or will the tree in the front be removed? (Dutta: Existing tree in the front will remain. There will be 5 in the
back.)
>The two car garage size is large - 25 feet. It could be reduced by at least 4 feet.
>Not sure about siding matching existing since existing is metal and 8". Concerned with Hardie plank.
>Existing stone to remain should indicate stone, not brick.
>There are several types of siding on the house already, so when matching existing it is confusing .
Clarify which type of siding. (Dutta: Will be using lap siding.)
>The windows are all different sizes. Would like to see if there could be better alignment.
Public Comments:
Bert - There are two houses on street already under construction. Would appreciate a moritorium until
the others are completed before going to the next one. If there is an emergency there is no way anybody
can get through. Parking is brutal to begin with, but now workers for three places. Should be a
consideration on streets where there is only one way in and out.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Project has some roof problems. Does not hold together well.
>Would be a good candidate for a design review consultant.
>Looks like a new house being built behind the existing house in the front.
> One of the constraints is trying to preserve the front of the house. May be more cost -effective and
eliminate constraints if tear down house and start over.
>Fine with having a two-car garage, but this one is too big and too far forward. Should be reduced in
size, mitigate big face. Could stagger the two doors.
>Materials need to be resolved.
>A rendering or perspective sketch could be helpful for understanding the massing but not required.
>Has an architectural integration problem that a Design Review Consultant may help to solve.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
c.746 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
for building height and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling.
(Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, applicant and designer; Peter and Brandy
Yarema, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
All Commissioners had visited the property. Gum 731, 744
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Natalie Hyland represented the applicant, with property owners Brandy and Peter Yarema.
Commission Comments/Questions:
> Has the homeowner had a chance to share the plans with neighbors? (Hyland: Tried but were not
home. Half of the adjacent houses are rentals.)
> Was a rear garage considered? (Hyland: Most houses on street are duplexes. First design had
garage in the back, but it used up half of the back yard. Would rather lose the square footage and have it
attached.)
> Height creates significant mass, any thought about reducing plate heights and total height to fit in
with neighborhood?(Hyland: We can lower the pitch and reduce the plate height.)
> With new constuction on a flat lot in a neighborhood mostly one-story, it's hard to justify the height.
> Has a very vertical feel. Addressing the height would be helpful.
> The single family houses tend to be lower profile.
> Can see the rationale for the attached garage because the lot is not as deep as the surrounding
lots.
> Could garage width be reduced? (Hyland: Width is based on measurement of the owners' cars with
doors opened to get out.)
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Handsome design. Massing is well articulated.
> A lot of architectural detail on each facade.
> Bringing down plate heights would be great.
> Concern with the garage and height.
> The lot size is not much smaller than other lots in town.
> Driving through neighborhood, interaction of front of house with neighborhood and street is what
you're looking at, not lot depth.
> Hard to go above 30 feet if surrounding homes are not near 30 feet.
> Driveway was overly wide.
> Not sure if the street tree needs to be removed.
> Dark horizontal lines on roof plan is distracting.
> Well organized, but should come down in height.
> Angled setback makes it more challenging to use the lot, requires the house to be pushed further
back, so there is good argument for the attached garage.
> Rendering would help, or showing the drawing with less emphasis on the roof line weights.
> Split vote of 3-3 on attached garage.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017
January 9, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.149 Pepper Ave - FYI for review of a proposed change to a previously approved
Design Review application.
Accepted.
b.2308 Hillside Dr - FYI for review of in-progress change to a previously approved
Design Review application.
Commissioner Gaul pulled item due to the roofing material being changed from the original design.
c.1533 Meadow Ln - FYI for review of changes to a previously approved Design Review
project.
Accepted.
d.1140 Balboa Avenue - FYI for review of a proposed change to a previously approved
Design Review Application.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:43 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 9, 2017. 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 19, 2017, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/15/2017