HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.04.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 10, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 -
GaulAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent4 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Abstain:Kelly, and Comaroto2 -
a.Draft March 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Draft March 13, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft March 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Draft March 27, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent4 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Abstain:Kelly, and Comaroto2 -
a.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
904 Morrell Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
904 Morrell Ave - Plans
Attachments:
b.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
2515 Poppy Dr - Staff Report
2515 Poppy Dr - Attachments
2515 Poppy Dr - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1810 Magnolia Avenue, zoned C-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for an
art studio (commercial recreation /classes) (Nancy Call Torres, applicant; Pedersen &
Pedersen, property owners) (15 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1810 Magnolia Ave - Staff Report and AttachmentsAttachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent spoke with the applicant but did not
speak to the merits of the project.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
>How do the conditions of the current business compare to the new one? (Keylon: Almost identical.)
Any complaints related to the existing business? (Keylon: No complaints.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Nancy Torres and Audrey Torres represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How big are the classes, and will the classes in the new space be any different? (Nancy Torres: The
class sizes will not size, just too cramped now. 12 in a class. Likes having small classes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>It's a great use.
>The business has been there over 12 years, showing it will not be detrimental or injurious to the
properties in the vicinity. It is consistent with the General Plan. The aesthetics will not be changing.
>Glad they will remain in the community
>Will not add to the parking since the size of the classes will stay the same. It's mostly drop-off.
>There is plenty of parking in front of the store. Parking or traffic will not be a problem.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
b.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
structure. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Elizabeth
Matthews, John A. Matthews, Architects, applicant and architect; Isaac Lee, property
owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
823 Edgehill Dr - Staff Report
823 Edgehill Dr - Attachments
823 Edgehill Dr - plans - 04.10.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Kelley and Comaroto were not in
attendance for the study meeting, but may act on the commission if they have received sufficient
information to make a decision.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Jack Matthews represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the left (east) elevation, are the three large windows in the hallway located precisely in specific
locations, or is there flexibility to slide them around a few inches to each direction? They are almost but
not quite aligned with the features on the first floor below. (Matthews: Can be lined up to correspond with
the garages.)
>Having the windows across from the bedroom doors is nice. Can see the window from the bedroom
and let light into the bedroom if the bedroom door is left opened.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion:
>Have addressed the concerns that were raised in the study meeting.
>The Conditional Use Permit for the accessory structure is well supported by the revised CUP
application.
>Whether or not to adjust the windows is up to the architect.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Abstain:Kelly1 -
c.1556 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existing single -family
dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the CAlifornia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Mark
Wilson, applicant; Jeff Baleix, architect; Ken Woo, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika
1556 Alturas Dr - Staff Report
1556 Alturas Dr - Attachments 1
1556 Alturas Dr - Attachments 2
1556 Alturas Dr - plans - 04.10.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones spoke with applicant to access the
rear yard, and was absent from study meeting but watched the video.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
>Would the tree vendor have been familiar with the tree removal permit? (Gardiner: Hard to tell. If it
was a tree service that works in Burlingame regularly they would likely be familiar with the requirements,
but if it was a service that had not worked regularly in Burlingame before they may not.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Mark Wilson represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Understands wanting to match the windows on the front. Was there consideration of aluminum -clad
windows as is more typical of what is approved in Burlingame? (Wilson: Hard to discern between the two
if they are aluminum -clad or white. The windows in the neighborhood all look like vinyl windows. Could
go to the Montecito aluminum -clad for the new windows in the back where the living room, dining room
and master bedroom face the Bay, but would be costly to specify these windows for the entire house .
Wants to opt for the less expensive vinyl for the less visible lower windows. The neighbors' windows are
all white and look like vinyl.)
Public Comments:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Overall it is a good project. Makes sense of a rough situation with the decks in the back.
>Typically don't approve vinyl windows. Sometimes the commission encourages applicants to at least
use aluminum-clad on the street-facing windows, but they were already replaced with vinyl.
>More than 3/4 of the windows in the house are being replaced.
>4 existing windows to remain, 8 to replace. If it was the other way around would be more
comfortable.
>The new windows should be aluminum -clad, rather than vinyl. It is a matter of the quality of the
housing stock in the city.
>There is not an issue with the HACP. The new deck is smaller and lower than the previous deck,
and is well screened on both sides. The views tend to be straight out from the neighboring homes rather
than from the sides. There is plenty of screening from the home below.
>Tree removal and replacement issue has been cleared up through the City Arborist.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Action
Item with the following condition:
>The new windows shall be aluminum-clad. If applicant wants to suggest another variation, it
may come back for review as an FYI.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Abstain:Kelly1 -
d.Considerations of Amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for
amendments mechanical equipment requirements.
Mechanical Equipment - Staff Report
Mechanical Equipment - Attachments
Attachments:
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Should item #6 be more specific to where along the property line the sound measurement should be
taken? (Gardiner: The intent is for someone to be able to stand at the property line at the equipment to
take the measurement.)(Sargent: It was not specifically discussed but the intent is to be at the point
closest to the equipment.)(Terrones: The suggestion for a noise measurement is from the Building staff,
and they will be the ones taking measurements so will be able to determine where on site to take the
measurement.)(Kane: Noise does not travel evenly; it can reflect off buildings and travel in unexpected
ways. Flexibility about where on the property line to take the measurement may be necessary for
enforcement if another property is more affected.)
>Item #3 says nothing can be located in the front yard? (Gardiner: Yes, the intent is to not have it in
the front of the house where it is visible from the street.)
>Will that change with a corner lot? It will still be visible from the sidewalk. (Kane: "Front" is a code
definition, but there is difficulty that equipment needs to be located somewhere. There is an objective
definition of "front" in the code, but can be difficult to anticipate unusual circumstances. The objective
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
definition allows staff to enforce the standards in an even-handed manner.)
>Is there allowance where there is a special situation, such as a corner lot where the front of the
house is oriented towards the side street? (Gardiner: Item #4 specifies equipment shall not be visible
from the street, which would allow some flexibility provided the equipment is screened from view .)(Kane:
The commission could add a provision for relief of the requirements through the Community
Development Director or a Special Permit. There are odd shaped lots that could cause difficulty for some
circumstances.)
>Could the equipment be right on the property line provided it meets the noise standard? (Terrones:
Yes, there may be situations where the side yard is the appropriate location and would be suitable
provided the equipment is not noisy, and could be screened from view.)
Public Comments:
No public comments.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend
approval of the regulations to the City Council, with the following addition:
>Add a provision for exceptions for special circumstances consideration by the Community
Development Director.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.5 Winchester Place, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (Joanne Wong, Komada Diseno
Architects, applicant and architect; Willie Hung and Heidi Lee, property owner) (43
noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
5 Winchester Pl - Staff Report and Attachments
5 WINCHESTER - plans - 04.10.17
5 Winchester Pl - rendering
Attachments:
Commissioner Gum was recused for this item because he has an interest in property within 500 feet of
the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Joanne Wong of Kodama Diseno Architects represented the applicant, with property owner Heidi Lee.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is Bedroom #2 losing a closet? (Wong: It will lose a formal closet because of the stairs, but could
have a storage unit underneath the stairs.)
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Believes the east and west labels are flipped on the elevations.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Straightforward project. Limited in options.
>The majority of existing windows are already vinyl and the addition will be matching. It is a rare
instance where a vinyl window could be approved.
>Given how narrow the street is, how will contractors be able to access the site? Have you talked to
the neighbors to make arrangements?
Chair Loftis re-opened the public hearing to allow a response.
(Lee: Has talked to a couple of the neighbors who were curious about the project. Overall they have
been OK with it, with no questions. Have not discussed the construction on details with the neighbors.)
Commissioner comment:
>Should talk to the builder so they understand they need to work with the neighbors.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Nice little project. Very small lot.
>Power lines appear to go right alongside the windows.
>The lines are cable lines so they are not a hazard.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Gum1 -
b.702 Crossway Road, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition (Michael A. Panciro, applicant and designer; Maciej Gliwa and Sherry Wang,
property owners) (79 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
702 Crossway Rd - Staff Report and Attachments
702 Crossway Rd - plans - 4.10.17
Attachments:
Commissioner Gum was recused from this item because he has an interest in property within 500 feet of
the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project.
Questions of Staff:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Is a roof plan typically required in the submittal? (Keylon: Yes.) Not getting a clear view of the roof
over the garage. (Commissioner Sargent: It should be on the roof plan, or the floor plan, or both.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Michael Panciro represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the front elevation facing Crossway, why retain the existing lower left horizontal window? It works
in the current structure, but with the expansion it is left feeling sort of like a bunker. (Panciro: In the most
recent round of plan check comments discovered the window needs to be changed for egress per code .
It is a bedroom facing Crossway so wanted privacy.)
>Why are the windows in the upper gables are so small? Could they be larger? Their positions also
vary on each gable. (Panciro: Windows are even, on the same level, but the gables are each different.) It
gives the impression there may have been windows that were walled off, and only the windows in the
gable are left. They are tiny windows with a large blank wall - would expect to see nice large windows
letting light into the spaces.
>Will there be vaulted ceilings beneath the gables? (Panciro: It is attic space above a flat ceiling .
That's why the windows are small.)
>Was the intent to have only one window in the bedroom? (Panciro: Did not think a larger window
would fit. The first floor gables would be in the way of a window, so it would need to be a very short
window.)
>The three windows in the gable are only ornamental? (Panciro: Yes, not functional windows.)
>Why are the ceilings not vaulted? The pitched roof is creating a lot of attic space. (Panciro: Would
prefer flat ceilings. It is vaulted on the back side above the rear bedrooms.
>Will there be attic storage space? (Panciro: There will be ductwork, not much room for storage
space.)
>There is a lot of flat wall surface.
>Is there a second story deck? (Panciro: Yes. Sheet L1 shows the roof and the deck. Because of the
size of the garage it would otherwise have a very large gable, so thought having the mansard roof would
be more appealing. It is a flat roof but could be used as a deck.)
>Feels vertical. Design guidelines try to break up mass of the second floor, tucking it into the roof
structure or separate it from the first floor so it is not a big two -story expanse. Was there thought to on
the side yard elevations to step back the second floor or do something to make it feel less vertical?
(Panciro: Would be difficult - would end up with small rooms if it is cut back. Currently the outside
dimension is 13 feet and there needs to be a hallway between the bedrooms, so taking a couple of feet
away really reduces the bedrooms. Looked at it, but is trying to stay within the existing exterior walls. Did
one design where the roof was extended across from the garage to break it up.) Or could consider a trim
like a belly band.
>Concern with the vinyl windows. Intent is to try to match the look of the older housing stock, and
most of the houses have true divided lite wood windows. In the past houses were being replaced with
new houses with vinyl windows with no divided lites, or with simulated divided lites, but they did not fit in
with the neighborhoods. The intent is to match the existing housing stock. (Panciro: Open to revisiting it.)
>26 total windows, 10 are existing vinyl. 16 new windows are being installed.
>Has there been consideration of using some other materials such as on the chimney, or stucco, or
decorative pieces around the windows or on the gables to add some flair. All the siding stands out .
(Garage has been left as stucco. Can look at taking some of the siding away. Didn't think stucco was
good to have. Likes the neighboring property with the siding.)
>Could add stone to the chimney to help break it up a bit. (Panciro: Currently the chimney is brick but
it steps back on the second floor so it would look odd to have it be stone.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Wants to like it but can't quite get there. Has the feeling of a tract home. Understands the adjacent
home weighed heavily in the design direction.
>Windows to nowhere are unusual.
>There is a lot of siding, and it is a very vertical design.
>There are some idiosyncrasies, such as the large amount of siding but the garage remaining in
stucco.
>Direction it is heading has some nice symmetries, things do not need to be totally symmetrical.
>Steeply pitched roofs create large attic spaces. Requires attaching on solutions to provide scale and
detail. If the roof pitch were reconsidered it would bring down the attic space and scale so it would not
feel so tall.
>Concern with second floor roof deck being intrusive to neighbor along Oak Grove. Came about
because of the roofline, not because of wanting to have a deck. The deck needs to be reconsidered,
since it is about 10 feet away from the neighboring house.
>The steep roof pitch would make more sense if there were vaulted ceilings. Does not need so much
attic volume for utilities.
>Nice project, just about there. A design review consultation will turn it into a great project.
>Design review consultation should address mix of materials to address the homogenous surface
material, the vertical massing, the roof deck, and the vinyl windows.
>More windows for the bedrooms would allow cross ventilation.
>The mix of windows should be addressed. The window on the rear elevation is large and unbroken,
while there are also lots of horizontal windows. The choice of windows should be rationalized.
>The lot gets a lot of exposure along a main thoroughfare, so it's important to get the design right.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Gum1 -
c.219 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second
story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design,
applicant and architect; Simona Torcia and Sergio Vaccari, property owners) (63
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
219 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
219 Burlingame Ave - plans - 04.10.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto spoke to the neighbor to the left at
215 Burlingame Avenue.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, represented the applicant.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The focus on the courtyard helps explain the project.
>Are the columns on the front porch all new? (Sabel: Yes, all three will be new columns.)
>Did you see the letter from the neighbor? (Sabel: Yes, the window space discussed in the neighbor's
letter is in the stair landing. The owners are open to reducing the window glazing in that area to meet the
neighbor's concerns. The neighboring windows are higher, but they are close.) Could consider windows
looking to the front and back, and higher windows along the side elevation.
>All aluminum-clad windows? (Sabel: Yes.) Are the new sliding doors on the rear also
aluminum-clad? (Sabel: Yes, that is the intent.)
>Several existing windows that will remain have horizontal muntins and are double -hung. Why do the
other windows not have same treatment? Was the intent to match? (Sabel: Open to suggestions for
more cohesiveness. Intent is to match the windows. Given the few windows that will remain, will suggest
the owners change out the existing windows to match.)
>The rear elevation indicates an existing window to remain but it does not appear on the existing
elevation. (Sabel: Needs to be changed for egress. Was mislabeled.)
>What is the significance of the number 17 on the floor plan. Was this the 17th version of the plan?
(Sabel: Yes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Second story addition blends in well with the first story. The massing is handled well and the overall
style blends in with neighborhood.
>Single concern is the stair window facing the neighbor. Anything applicant can do to alleviate the
direct juxtaposition of the windows on left side would be beneficial.
>It is a nice project. With the changes discussed, particularly the stairwell windows, this would be
approvable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
No commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
The annual joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission will be on Saturday, April 15th.
The meeting will discuss the General Plan Update, housing policy and programs, and neighborhood
architectural design consistency (contemporary and traditional architecture). A staff report packet will be
distributed in advance.
a.119 Loma Vista Drive - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review application.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
April 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
119 Loma Vista Dr - Memorandum
119 Loma Vista Dr - Proposed Plans
119 Loma Vista Dr - Previously Approved Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
b.628 Trenton Way - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review application.
628 Trenton Way - Memorandum
628 Trenton Way - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:54 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 10, 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 24, 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017