Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.05.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 8, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff Present: William Meeker, Community Development Director; Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner and Kathleen Kane, City Attorney 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that the applicant for the FYI for 988 Howard Avenue has withdrawn that item from the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - a.1308 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, one-story single family dwelling and attached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Caroline and Joseph Padre, property owners ) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1308 Palm Dr - Staff Report 1308 Palm Dr - Attachments 1308 Palm Dr - Plans Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.840 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Emily and Dave Fisher, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 840 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 840 Paloma Ave - Attachments 840 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: c.1906 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permits for an attached garage, a basement, and declining height envelope (63 noticed) (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Easton Estates LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1906 Easton Dr. - Staff Report 1906 Easton Dr. - Attachments 1906 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: d.1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Application for a One-Year Extension of a previously approved Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for multi -family use and building height, Special Permits for vehicular access within the 20-ft. setback adjacent to the south property line & for building height within 100 ft. of the south property line, Demolition Permit Exception, and Fence Height Exception for a new 268-unit residential apartment building and 22-unit residential condominium project (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant and property owner) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue - Staff Report 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue - Attachments Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1517 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Joseph Covalesky Tr, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1517 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1517 Drake Ave - Attachments 1517 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Kelly indicated that he was unable to view the recording of the study meeting regarding this item. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Likes the changes. >Where is the direct vent for the fireplace? (Wehmeyer: on the right elevation.) >Plan still shows the fireplace popping out under the eave. The elevations should match the floor plan. Should treat the direct vent like a real fireplace. (Wehmeyer: will make the change.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: There was no Commission Discussion. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the additional condition that the revision to the treatment of the direct vent fireplace shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Discussion of Motion: >The project revisions are appropriate and consistent with the architecture of the existing structure. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.1300 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for facade changes to an existing commercial building (John A. Chipman and Karen Baron, Chipman Design Architecture, applicants and architects; Santini Santini Roccucci Gen. Ptp., property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1300 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1300 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1300 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurinn provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ray Fung represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would the cornice be installed in sections? (Fung: yes, would be installed in two or three pieces to minimize seams.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The sample of the cornice assuages fears of the appearance; the detail is nice. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.1849 Bayshore Highway, Suite 103, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a school use on the first floor of an existing commercial building (San Mateo County Chinese School/Great Joy Service Center and School, applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, architect; Aryana Health Care Foundation, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1849 Bayshore Hwy - Staff report 1849 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1849 Bayshore Hwy - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. No one was present to represent the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Any concerns expressed at the study meeting on the item have been adequately addressed by conditions in the staff report; comfortable with approving the application. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >The conditions of approval are so tightly worded that there is little concern about a subsequent use moving into the property that would become problematic; any future use must have the same characteristics as the current use. >Requested clarification regarding the genesis of the code enforcement complaint; not about parking? (Kane: staff was reviewing reports of schools operating in the area and discovered the use operating without necessary permits. Parking was not an issue.) >Would the Commission have the opportunity to review the matter if the vacant tenant spaces were occupied and the school use became problematic? (Meeker: the parking calculations assumed office occupancy of vacant tenant spaces. Kane: must be comfortable that the conditions adequately address any concerns as there is no automatic review of the case.) >Feels that the use operates much like a "mom and pop" use, but that the conditions are adequate to address any variations in the operation as it moves forward. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.707 Concord Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Jerry Winges, Winges Architects, applicant and architect; Christie and Troy Bienemann, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 707 Concord Way - Staff Report and Attachments 707 Concord Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Kelly and Loftis and Chair Gum spoke with the neighbor across the street at 704 Concord Way. Chair Gum also spoke to the neighbor to the left at 321 Bloomfield Road. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Very nice project, nicely massed and detailed. >Is the existing stone base of the chimney to remain? (Winges: yes.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The existing wainscot has an irregular edge; is it to remain, or modified? (Winges: will be cleaned up near the bay window.) >Is the light standard near the driveway to remain? (Winges: yes.) >Will the existing windows on the front remain? (Winges: will be cleaned up and retained.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice project, but has a complicated roofline; not a deal killer. >Striking project, should come back on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.25 Arundel Road, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split -level house. (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Channing and Carrie Chen, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 25 Arundel - Staff Report and Attachments 25 Arundel Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum met with the neighbors to the left and right . Commissioner Loftis met with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the bellyband primarily on the rear? (Wehmeyer: doesn't extend around to the front due to the bay window.) >Were any windows considered on the east wall of the play room? (Wehmeyer: attemped to retain the privacy of the neighbor, but can consider adding windows.) >Noted that the window heads do not always line up, why? (Wehmeyer: alignment is affected by stairway and floor to ceiling height in the split-level section of the home.) >There are a lot of different elements. Why only shutters on the rear, could some be added to the side to make the design more cohesive? (Wehmeyer: can look at adding shutters, though attempted to keep the front of the home the same as it appears today.) >Is the window in the laundry room at that location for a reason; it doesn't seem aligned with others? Useful when the outside of the home appears more orderly. (Wehmeyer: just there to get light into the Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes laundry room. Believes that the placement was to permit a stackable washer and dryer and cabinetry.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project. >Good candidate for the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.1537 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Kenny Yip, applicant and designer; Yan Li, property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1537 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1537 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1537 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke to the neighbor at 1536 Westmoor Drive. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbors on the left and right of the site. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kenny Yip represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has there been any discussion regarding impacts upon the Oak Tree in the rear yard? (Yip: will not be necessary to trim it; will not be impacted.) >What will be the material for the new windows? (Yip: they will be vinyl; the existing windows are all vinyl.) >On the north elevation there is a large expanse of stucco on the second floor in the master bedroom; could a window be placed there to break up the stucco? (Yip: will consider a transom window. Will discuss with clients.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Requested that notations be placed on the plans to clarify that the existing windows are vinyl and that the new windows will match the existing. >Straightforward project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - d.1900 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, applicant and architect; Xiaoshan Min, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1900 Davis Dr - Staff Report 1900 Davis Dr - Attachments 1900 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Xiaoshan Min represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have they considered extending up the chimney in brick rather than in stucco? Could use brick veneer. (Min: will consider.) >The windows on the second floor seem out of proportion to the existing windows on the first floor; were there discussions regarding these proportions? (Min: wanted to let in as much natural light as possible.) Consider using smaller window sections that are more proportional with the existing windows but still let light in. >The second floor elevations would look better if the continuous eave line is broken up in some manner. Perhaps bay windows or something that breaks up the continuous roofline. >Second floor window on front should be centered on the hip roof element. >The existing windows have a grid pattern; could this be carried over on the addition? (Min: will see if this can be matched.) >Looks like the second floor plate height is a bit taller than the first floor; consider keeping the same height on both levels. >What is the material to be used on the windows; match the new with the old. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Placing a second floor addition on homes in this neighborhood can be challenging. Would consider sending to a design review consultant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer project to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: >There is no sheet showing the proposed left side elevation; needs to be provided. >These courtyard homes are difficult to design with second floor additions; trying to mass the second floor consistent with the first floor would cause the project to exceed the FAR. >Would have been helpful for the architect to be present. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the appeal of the Commission's action regarding 1556 Alturas Drive has been withdrawn by the appellant. He also noted that the project at 1228-32 Douglas Avenue has been appealed and is likely to be scheduled for consideration by the City Council on June 5, 2017. a.1430 Drake Avenue - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. 1430 Drake Ave - MemorandumAttachments: Accepted. b.988 Howard Avenue- FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story commercial building. 988 Howard - FYI 988 Howard Ave - plans - 06.12.17 Attachments: Withdrawn by the applicant. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:11 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 May 8, 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 May 18, 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. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017 May 8, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 7/17/2017