HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.03.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 13, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, City Attorney
Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and SargentPresent4 -
GaulAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Bandrapalli, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to
approve the meeting minutes with amendments submitted to staff previously. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
a.Draft February 13, 2017 meeting minutes
Commissioner Terrones abstained as he was absent from the meeting.
b.Draft February 27, 2017 meeting minutes
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 8d (556 El Camino Real) has been continued to a later date. It will not be heard in this meeting, and
public notices will be sent out when it is ready to return.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real - Please do not approve the conditional use permit for 556 El
Camino Real. The driveways are close to the Floribunda Avenue intersection. It is too grandiose to fit in
with the 3-story buildings in the neighborhood. It could impact traffic on El Camino Real because of its
location.Visitors will encounter impossible parking on Floribunda. There are very little sight lines to get
onto El Camino Real; traffic backs up to Floribunda. Building should be scaled down to 3 stories and 12
units, with each unit having two parking spaces on one garage level with more space for visitors. The
2-story garage going 28 feet down is too close to the south property line, and vibrations from the
excavation may affect the structural integrity of the neighboring building. Wants a building inspector to
visit the building before and after construction. Concern about whether three or four cars can wait to get
into the garage. The shade study shows a negative impact on the sustainability of the landscaping of the
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
adjacent building. Wants 6-foot fence to replace side fence for privacy. The larger the patios, the louder
the parties. Wants solid walls on the south side balconies for greater privacy and tranquility for all -
neighboring buildings have solid walls. Concerned about toxic dust; wants building powerwashed after
demolition. Proposed project has too many unknowns. Too ambitious a project for this particular
location.
Betsy Bogle - 550 Almer Road. Concern with height of 556 El Camino Real with 5 stories. Has lived in
Burlingame since 1940. Burlingame feels like a town, not a city. Buildings on Almer are all three stories .
With 5 stories might as well move into San Francisco.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1000 Larkspur Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Fence Height Exception for a 6-foot
tall fence within the front setback (Henry Mok, applicant and property owner) (68
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli spoke with the neighbor at 900
Toyon Drive.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
>In the neighborhood there are lots of fences that are 6 or 7 feet tall. Were those approved?
(Gardiner: If it is a back yard or side yard fence, the fence may rise up to 7 feet, with 6 feet solid fence
and 1 foot of open lattice on top. The situation with this property is how the front of the lot is determined
by the code; the house is oriented sideways, so its front door and front facade face the side of the lot.)
>Why are fences in the front setback required to be shorter? (Gardiner: The idea is to have the
fences in the front of houses be not quite as high, as typically front yards are more visible from the
street. However the option for a 5-foot fence is available for those who want more privacy. In this
instance the front yard is functioning more like a side yard.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Janice and Henry Mok represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Shrubbery is shown in area between sidewalk and fence. Will it be irrigated with a water
system?(Henry Mok: Planning to plant shrubs that will not require watering.)
>Appreciates hearing from the neighbors.
>Be willing to plant some vines to cover the fence? (Janice Mok: Yes.)
>On the application is the extraordinary circumstance that it is a corner lot or an odd -shaped lot?
(Henry Mok: There is a roundabout so there is no obstruction to people driving by. It is not just a T, it has
a very large area in the middle. That's why the city is placing a roundabout there .)(Janice Mok: The other
houses around the roundabout do not have the same situation as this house.)
Public Comments:
Bobbi Benson - Does not have much play area for the children so should be able to have a 6-foot fence.
Not sure how much room there is between the fence and the sidewalk; needs to know the height and
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
width of the plant at maturity so it does not grow too big and obstruct the sidewalk. Should be mindful of
that when selecting the planting.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Application can be supported because the fence ordinance is written for the most typical,
predominant condition. Does not believe the fence ordinance fully accounts for the circumstances of
corner lots.
>The lot is also atypical because it has a large sweeping curve resulting from the large intersection.
>Can also see whether there are impacts because the fence is already built. Does not see a view
blockage at the corner. The application can be supported with the addition of shrubbery.
>No public hazard, and the adjacent properties will not be materially damaged.
>The fence will be on the shortest side so it will have the least amount of impact. Other properties in
the area have longer fences on the long side of the lot, so this has less impact.
>Has problems with the application itself. The reasons mentioned in the meeting are not the same as
those in the application, and the way the application is worded sounds more like it would apply to any
corner lot. There are appropriate reasons to approve the request but those reasons were not included in
the application materials.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 -
Nay:DeMartini1 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
b.2120 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). Dulon Designs, applicant and designer; Maojia Bai and Chun Huang,
property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones was not present at November 28,
2016 study meeting but watched the video.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
John Nguyen, Dulon Designs, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Sheet L1-01 right side back does not show irrigation along the narrow dirt strip. How will it be
landscaped? (Nguyen: Will plant ground cover.)
>Any thought about reducing the 9-foot plate heights to fit better with the lower houses in the
neighborhood? (Nguyen: Considered it but it would not work with the design style.)
>On Sheet A2-03 on the front elevation what is vertical line coming down on the side? (Nguyen:
Mistake on drawing.)
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
There were no members of the public wishing to speak on the item.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Project is approvable. Less than the maximum height, the coverage maintains breathing room all
around the building, and the massing has been handsomely articulated and massed.
>The design review consultation was helpful. The revised design has responded to the issues raised
in the study meeting.
>Neighborhood can accept the style.
>Design has come a long way, and appreciates working with the neighbor.
>Design review consultatation is not a punishment, it is a way to move a project along. Glad the
process worked and the architect was open to the process.
>Well organized and articulated. Quantum leap from the last time.
>Concern about plate height on the second floor at 9 feet. Although this will be able to fit in, it would fit
in better with an 8-foot plate height.
>It seems unfair if it is an issue across the board in every neighborhood, except here. Rare that it
does not come up as a discussion item. Would fit in better with a lower second floor plate height.
>Has approved 9/9 on some houses though it is rare. Depends on how it looks. Can't tell if it will look
out of place with the extra foot.
>No neighbors have appeared to object to the height.
>It is 2 feet below the maximum height.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
c.1523 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new
two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (TRG Architects, applicant
and architect; Michael Brownrigg and Marty Burchell, property owners) (59 noticed)
Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
Chair Loftis was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Vice Chair
Gum assumed position of Chair for the item. Commissioner Sargent noted he was not present at the
design review study meeting but watched the video.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no exparte communications. Commissioner
Sargent noted he had not attended the study meeting for the item but had watched the video.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Massing and scale have been handled well.
>Appreciates the letters from the homeowner and neighbor.
>Could only find one other house in the neighborhood that does not have windows with divided lites .
If divided lite windows would not fit the design of the house, how can the house fit into the
neighborhood? Also concerned how it will look at night. (Grange: Grids provide a different look. Has
provided some grids. As long as the whole composition holds together the house should be able to fit in .
Will not look at the street and say this house does not fit. Does not think the small width of the grids
would make significant difference in how the house would look at night. Design guidelines should be a
living document that is revisited.)
Public Comments:
Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real - Likes the project. It is an interesting combination. Everyone has
window coverings at night. Hope the front walkway would be wider. Would like a large canopy tree, may
need to meander the sidewalk to provide the tree with a bigger well, as the neighbors to each side have
done.
Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Concerned with the divided lites. Every house in the neighborhood has divided lites. Design
guidelines do not address a situation like this. Windows do not fit the neighborhood, but it is a
good-looking house. Concerned the design guidelines do not reflect the changing nature of the
neighborhoods.
>Handsome house, well-designed. Massing and scale handled nicely, height and character fit into the
neighborhood.
>In experience does not recall describing a neighborhood as one with divided lite houses, rather than
something more general.
>The design is a bit different, but that is good.
>Fresh approach and fits well. Elevations are well articulated.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
d.556 El Camino Real, zoned R -3 - Application for Environmental Review,
Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height
for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (VMK
Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) (462 noticed) Staff Contact:
Kevin Gardiner (NOTICE: This item has been continued to a future date. No action will
be taken in this meeting.)
This item has been continued to a later date.
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.823 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to a multi-family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
structure. (Elizabeth Matthews, John A. Matthews, Architects, applicant and architect;
Isaac Lee, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no exparte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
>Is there no FAR calculation because there is no FAR requirement in R-2? (Keylon: Correct.)
>Can there be discussion of the proposed changes to the front of the building? (Keylon: Yes. It is a
Design Review application, subject to Planning Commission review.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Jack Matthews represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Quite a few of the windows will be new or replaced. Has there been consideration of anything other
than vinyl such as an aluminum -clad wood? (Matthews: There are new vinyl windows. Wants to make
the new windows match the windows already there.)
>Would there be willingness to have windows in a material other than vinyl? (Matthews: The owner
has already purchased the windows he wants to install.)
>Why remove the front window? (Matthews: Wants to move the front door over so the Living Room
has more useful floor area. There is not a formal entry into the house; the entrance goes directly into the
space. Could put a window into the Dining Room to the left of the door, though it would be smaller than
the existing Living Room window.)
>Back is not stucco, it is hardie plank or something like that. Is the plan to remove the siding and
replace with stucco? (Matthews: Not the intention to have hardie plank anywhere. Intention is to have
stucco.)
>Will the assignment of the parking spaces correspond to the units above the garages, and will the
tenants above the garage doors be disturbed by vehicles coming and going from the garages?
(Matthews: The owner can decide how the spaces are assigned.)
>Does some of the character on the left side of the building go away with replacing the large windows
with the uniform windows? (Matthews: The intention is to keep it simple. The new plan has a hallway
leading to the new Master Bedroom in the rear, with closets and laundry along the way. There would not
be an objection to having larger windows.)
>When did the single family home become a duplex? (Matthews: Does not believe the current owner
had anything to do with the conversion. A permit for a garage addition a few years ago described two
units. Staff was not able to find permits showing the creation of a second unit. It has been there for quite
a while.)
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Matthews: Yes, talked to the next door neighbors .
The same owner owns the properties on both sides.)
>There are a number of large vehicles on the property. How do they manage to maneuver in and out?
(Matthews: Has found they can get in and out relatively easily. Backup is 22 feet - two feet shorter than
typical 24-foot backup.)
Public Comments:
There were no members of the public wishing to speak on the item.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes that the structure is being brought up to code. Parking will be increased. Shares questions
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017
March 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
about the windows, particularly the front. Windows should be compatible with the existing craftsman
style structure, and with the balance of the neighborhood.
>The additional windows seem to cheapen the building. The front elevation has some nice scale and
detail to the windows. Existing windows on the side have a nice large scale that would be suitable for a
hallway and create a gallery without intruding on neighbors' privacy. The existing windows are adding
better scale than what is proposed.
>Can support the application for its efforts to make the conditions better, but needs additional work
from a design review standpoint.
>Has not talked about CUP for the patio structure. It is approvable in an R -2 neighborhood, but the
application needs more work - the responses do not adequately answer the questions.
>Drawings should be made accurate - should indicate where hardie plank currently exists.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to 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, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee met on March 10th and discussed refinements to the
proposed mechanical equipment regulations. The subcommittee will also be looking at revisiting some of
the wording in the design guidelines. There was talk of whether to wait until the General Plan Update is
completed but the subcommittee though there was merit to working on the guidelines now so that the
Planning Commission would have more tools to work with in design review applications.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
The mechanical equipment regulations should be returning to the Planning Commission in one or two
meetings, after having been vetted by the various city departments.
The design review application at 746 Linden Avenue denied by the Planning Commission has been
appealed to the City Council, and will be heard on March 20th.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 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 March 13, 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 March 23, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017