Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.03.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 27, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included: Community Development Director William Meeker, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and GaulPresent5 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Loftis noted that Agenda Item 9a (1125 Jackling Drive) has been continued at the request of the applicant. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for a One -Year Extension to a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Calendar. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1453 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two and half story single family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, applicant and architect; Chen - Quin, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner DeMartini noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he has a business relationship with the Architect. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself as he resides within 500-feet of the property in question. Both Commissioners left the Council Chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Did the applicant meet with the neighbors regarding the project? (Davis - no.) Public Comments: Cheh Lee, 1457 Drake Avenue - noted that the applicant had objected to a project on his property several years ago. He objected to the current project based upon privacy concerns. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The revisions submitted are well-crafted. >The dormer window is located in a closet; based upon his visit to the property, was hard to find that the window would impose upon the neighbor's privacy. >Meets the Design Guidelines and is approvable. >The method of obscuring the closet window is sufficient. >The dormer adds to the design of the home. Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Recused:DeMartini, and Sargent2 - b.1512 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction permit for a first and second story additions to an existing 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). (Andrea Costanzo, applicant and designer; Mayas Saadi and Malek Faham, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioners Sargent and DeMartini returned the dais. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1514 and 1510 Alturas Drive. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had viewed the recording of the prior meeting on this item. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Andrea Costanzo and Mayas Saadi represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Thinks the changes that have been made improved the project. Did the applicant view the final letter from the Design Review Consultant? (Costanzo - no.) >Requested the sample of the belly band material. (Costanzo - provided the sample.) >Noted that the Design Reviewer recommended that all other trim details be natural wood material . (Costanzo - agreed that this would be done.) >Has the roof material been selected? Barrel tile? (Costanzo - barrel tile will be installed.) >Was any thought given to reducing the plate height of the garage to allow the porch to be more prominent? (Costanzo - were trying to balance with the office on the right side of the elevation.) >On the right side elevation, there is a window missing that was there on a prior iteration. (Costanzo - window removed because more windows were provided at the rear.) >Noted that the bannister was removed from the lower, rear deck because it is no longer required. >Requested information regarding the story -poles; what happened? (Costanzo - had put them up, but the storms blew them down. Saadi - All the neighbors had seen them and provided letters approving the project.) Was expecting that the Commissioners would be able to see the story poles; is not in a better position now than before because some of the story poles have fallen down. When were the poles installed? (Saadi - two months ago. Would have cost $3,000 to reinstall them.) When were the story poles certified? Need to be certain that the poles were installed correctly. There is typically a certification provided in the staff report. (Saadi - provided letter from the installer of the story poles.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Was initially concerned about the story poles, but after viewing the property and considering the minor height increase, doesn't feel there is a view blockage. There is also a tree that blocks views, and another home nearby that is similar in height to the proposed. >The house sits down below the street, therefore the height increase doesn't make the home appear too tall. >Supports the project, with added conditions regarding finishing materials. >Any views obstructed would not be of distant spaces. A very large tree across the street is more of a view impact. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.125 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing residential apartment building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Karen Such, Such Home Enhancements, Inc., applicant and designer; Ramon and Maria Flores, property owners) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Sargent noted that he had watch the video of the prior meeting on this item. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Robert Such represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the vinyl window proposed fire -rated? Thought that the aluminum windows were to be used because they are fire -rated. (Such - the metal windows are not energy compliant. The literature provided by the manufacturer indicated that they are code compliant.) >Was the owner consulted about removing the vinyl siding? (Such - yes, but is not interested in doing so.) Concerned that at some point the vinyl siding may be removed, then there will be two different finishing materials. >Are samples of the wood siding available to show that it will match the existing vinyl siding? (Such - no.) >What material are the existing windows? Are they fire -rated aluminum windows? (Such - single-pane aluminum windows. No.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Can't approve what is before the Commission this evening because it is not known whether or not the vinyl siding will match the new wood siding. Also concerned about the installation of the vinyl windows without knowing whether they will meet the fire-rating. >Are generally pretty loathe to approve vinyl windows; is skeptical of a proposal that doesn't even match the existing conditions on the building. More work needs to be done on the design. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to continue the item with direction provided in the discussion. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for design review and a front setback Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes variance for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling. (NOTICE: THis item has been continued to a future date. No action will be taken in this meeting). (Michael Murphy, designer; Michael Stein, property owner) (32 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit (This item has been continued to a future date and will not be heard by the Planning Commission.) Item continued at the request of the applicant. b.753 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jennifer Ellison, applicant and property owner; Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 749 Plymouth Way. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Mark Pearcey and Jennifer Ellison represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that there is no "wiggle room" in the FAR; is there a concern that they may exceed the FAR? (Pearcey - wanted all of the square footage that they could get on the second floor.) >Clarified that the front windows are only horizontal grids. (Pearcey - the front is consistently horizontal grids and is carried to the sides.) >Are already two siding styles and stucco on the existing home, now another material is proposed - is interested in viewing samples to see how they match. (Pearcey - proposes to use the thicker Hardy Plank siding that can be mitered at corners. The problem with normal lap siding is the maintenance - have proposed the Hardy Plank siding as a lower maintenance material. The Hardy Plank and the lap siding will be separated and will not abut.) >Has any thought been given to providing screening from the tennis court? (Pearcey - the only window with potential privacy concerns is at the centerline of the gable and at the corner of the tennis court. The tennis club fence is taller than normal and obscures most of the first floor windows.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Ellison - have spoken to the neighbors, but haven't yet shared the plans.) >What are the thoughts regarding retaining the chimney versus the direct -vent gas fireplace? (Pearcey - a chimney in the spot where the fireplace is proposed would be very busy and would need to engage with the projected bay. Decided on the direct vent gas fireplace instead.) >Will all of the plants in the front of the house be removed? (Pearcey - the porch will require removal of some of the landscaping, but the landscaping on the west side of the house will remain.) Was there thought to add more landscaping near the porch? (Pearcey - perhaps will consider providing a planter in the area.) >On the back side, looking from Lexington; are there any plans to provide screening? (Ellison - there is a tree that provides some screening on an adjacent property.) Concerned that the addition will not impact neighbors' privacy. >Also concerned about the mix of materials - wants to be certain he understands what is proposed . Provide details. (Pearcey - would normally be preferred to reskin the entire building. Is paying the most attention to ensuring consistency on the sides visible from the street.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >On west elevation, there is an odd area where the rafter falls free of the wall; is this correct? (Pearcey - there are 6" x 8" beams in this area that fill it out.) >Believes there are too many material used on the exterior. There may be some middle ground between stripping the entire home and keeping the multiple materials. Will need to keep track of the materials. >Seems like the most difficult collision of materials is on the front elevation near the garage and the porch; not sure what changing the stucco near the garage door actually does for the design. >The porch feels a bit heavy; consider paring up the columns a bit more and increasing the width of open balustrade to take away from this heaviness. >Commented that there is the potential that the work room at the rear of the home could be converted into a sixth bedroom with only one covered parking space on the property. Any thought to adding some garage space to allow two cars being parked in the garage? Parking on the block is tough. (Pearcey - would need to be a tandem garage and wouldn't fit within the current footprint. Hurin - tandem parking would not meet the requirement for two parking spaces.) >Addition is nicely massed. >Noted that there is nothing remaining but existing landscaping; is there a desire for additional landscaping? Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Feels that the landscape plan needs to be developed further. >Planting in front of the porch could help soften the heaviness of the front porch. >More information on the siding, plus a sample. >Not certain that side -by-side parking in the driveway can be provided following the addition . Concerned about the ability to provide additional square footage without requiring additional parking. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to Place on the Regular Action agenda when the item is ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - c.904 Morrell Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Alex Go, applicant and property owner; Jerry Winges, Winges Architects, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he bumped into Commissioner Gaul when visiting the property, but that they did not discuss the project merits . Commissioner Gum indicated that he met with the neighbor at 839 Laurel Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges represented the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >On page A2.1, a closet is shown in the living room; is this really desired? (Winges - this is existing.) >Will real stone veneer be used? (Winges - yes.) >Why such a height between the first and second floors? (Winges - trying to retain the existing ceilings downstairs while keeping room for wiring, etc.) >The landscaping on the right side is being removed; thought there was a planting area on the right side that is not being replaced. (Winges - not really changing the landscaping much at all - will review.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Fits well into the neighborhood. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when it is ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - d.1431 El Camino Real , zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts, and Front Landscape Variance for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Are there similar variance requests for parking (particularly parking lifts) that have been approved outside of the Downtown area? (Hurin - not outside of the Downtown area for residential projects.) >Felt that the utility pole near the driveway may make it difficult for a delivery vehicle to maneuver into the delivery space. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Toby Levy and Bruce Chan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Explain justification for flipping the driveway. (Levy - was intended to provide a greater separation between the taller buildings.) >The property survey is missing the two Elm trees at the front. The existing Eucalyptus tree is very close to the property line and the existing fence. Is concerned about getting the ten -foot wide driveway into the space shown without affecting the existing trees. Explore. >Referenced letter from Jennifer Pfaff that noted that not all of the plants from the plant list are shown on the plans. (Chan - certain plants on the list need to be deleted.) >Asked what is happening at the rear of the lot? (Chan - wasn't designed as an active open space; are providing private open space.) Encouraged planting the area as an amenity to the residents (such as vegetable planters). Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Requested more information regarding the mechanical lifts. (Levy - are considering a Klaus stacker . They take about 1 minute 30 seconds to operate. It is the exchange time for coordinating car removal that makes people resistant to using them. >How noisy are the stackers? (Levy - similar to the Klaus stackers approved for other projects.) >Requested justification for the variance application. (Levy - will revisit the justification.) If the variances weren't granted, how would the project be designed? (Levy - would hope that one of the guest spaces could be used for delivery vehicles. The landscaping requirement would require removal of the rear-yard.) >If parking lifts aren't approved, how would that impact the project? (Levy - would result in perhaps a three-unit building. Wanted to build side-by-side units to appeal to families.) >How much outreach has been done to the neighbors, particularly to the neighbors on the right, with respect to the stackers. (Levy - the client attempted to meet with the neighbors - the property is totally closed.) Requested information regarding the noise from the stackers and potential impact upon neighbors. >Is the building to the right taller? (Levy - believes all buildings are 35-feet tall.) Be certain the rendering is accurate. >It is only 15.8% more landscaping to eliminate the variance request. Parking in front is an eyesore . Landscaping in the front is reflective of the Burlingame style and community values. Would rather consider a variance for the rear setbak. >Requested a sample of the Hardy shingle that is to be used, or better yet, a location to drive to view the installation of the material. >Feels the gas and utilities will come from the rear. May wish to look at shrinking the size of the building. >Requested more detail regarding the garage doors. (Levy - are roll -up doors due to the lifts. Can look at other options.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The delivery parking in front is bothersome; could end up as a normal parking space - look at moving this and address the landscaping deficit. >Thinks that the fire department shut-off needs to be shown on the plan, including screening. >Will bicycle racks be provided? >Likes the design; works well in the neighborhood. >Concerned about the landscaping variance. Have approved the parking lift variance regularly within the Downtown area; is this something that should be promoted in other areas of town? >With respect to the environmental review; concerned about the noise from the metal roll-up doors. >How is "displacement" of the existing residents defined in the environmental review process, especially with respect to available units elsewhere and rents. Wants consistency in the analysis from project to project. >Feels the landscape variance is a non -starter. Too much is being placed on the site; there is no good reason for the variance request. Perhaps the number or size of units could be reduced to provide more space on the property. >Have never had a discussion of why parking lifts wouldn't be allowed in the area. Primarily concerned about noise from the litts. Not necessarily opposed to a variance for this purpose. >If noise from the lifts is not something that arises to the level of a significant impact under CEQA, then doesn't have an issue with it, but wants to see the analysis. >Noted that the Klaus lifts were not actually installed on the Floribunda project, but that an alternate that met the same noise standard was installed. >What is the issue that rises to a level of significance under CEQA relative to displacement? >What options are there for the space at the rear of the project. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017 March 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is a below market rate unit required for the project? (Meeker - the City cannot require such units, and none are proposed as part of the project.) >Feels the project fits into the neighborhood and doesn't have a problem with the parking stackers. >Agrees that the landscaping variance should be addressed and potentially eliminated. No action was required on this item as the information providing during the hearing will be considered as part of the environmental document and the project will come back as a Regular Action item when this analysis is complete. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council approved the appeal and the requests related to 746 Linden Avenue at its meeting of March 20, 2017. a.1516 Howard Avenue - FYI for review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:24 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 27, 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 April 6, 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2017