Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.05.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 22, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in Attendance Included: William Meeker, Community Development Director; Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner and Mazarin Vakharia, Assistant City Attorney 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and ComarotoPresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.April 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the minutes of April 24, 2017. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.May 8, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes of May 8, 2017. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Community Development Director Meeker noted that Commissioner Comaroto will be recused on Item 9b (1566 Cypress) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Calendar items. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - a.1537 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kenny Yip, applicant and designer; Yan Li, property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b.707 Concord Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Winges, Winges Architects, applicant and architect; Christie and Troy Bienemann, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c.25 Arundel Road, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split -level house. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Channing and Carrie Chen, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon d.2117 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a One -Year Extension to a previously approved application for Design Review and Special Permit for an attached garage and an addition to the main floor and lower level. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dale Meyer, applicant and architect; James Berta and Thuy Vinh, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.816 Newhall Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a previously approved application for a second story addition and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing accessory structure. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Pearl Renaker, designer and applicant; Michelle and Michael Chrisman, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 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: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Pearl Renaker represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >With respect to the roof under the closet bay (is missing from the roof plan ), why is the greater height being requested? (Renaker: necessary to provide structural stability.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes the changes are minor and the project is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 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. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Malou Nubla, applicant; SKD Drafting /Design Services, designer; and Joseph Nubla, property owner) (25 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 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: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Suraj Dutta represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission Questions/Comments. Public Comments: Fran Tiaza, 55 Loma Vista: speaking for the neighbors on the north side of the street; very narrow cul-de-sac with a lot of construction projects. Would like to request that the workers park on Skyline Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Boulevard and walk into the site; also be mindful of the traffic flow in the area. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Only concern is that there is not a lot of detail in the drawings; wants to be certain that the project is built as shown on the rendering. Feels that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the plans. Provide a lot of oversight during the construction by the design team. >Appreciates the changes that have been made, particularly with respect to the garage. >Concerned about the lack of detail on the plans; what if the designer has no further involvement in the project? (Meeker: suggested that an FYI be submitted for the Commission's consideration that provides full details of the finishing of the project. Could also continue the item.) >Feels that the FYI approach is appropriate. Doesn't believe another hearing is required, but there are a number of details missing on the plans that need to be provided. Should be more detail on the trim details, such as the front columns, the man door on the garage, the water table, also clarify the style of window to be installed (e.g. double hung, grid pattern) and the window trim. >Only one existing window to remain; would be nice to have it match the new windows; applicant should consider changing it out. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the item an amended condition requiring the applicant to submit an FYI providing more details on the trim, the front columns, the man door on the garage, the water table, also clarify the style of window to be installed (e.g. double hung, grid pattern) and the window trim. Discussion of Motion: >Applicant should meet with staff to clarify the additional detail needed >Feels the attached garage is appropriate given the neighborhood context. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 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) (86 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 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: There were no questions of staff. Robert Such represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Seems that the vinyl siding on the front has wood texture, but not on the sides. Not sure if the wood Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes grain in the siding will even matter. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have requested multiple changes, including the steel windows that will meet Fire Code. >Satisfied with providing wood siding on the areas proposed, as the wood will not be in the same plane as the vinyl siding. >Can support the project. >Appreciates the changes. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1624 Skyline Boulevard, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.(Geurse Coneptual Designs, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Dan Weinseimer, property owner) (26 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum visited with the neighbor to the right at 1620 Skyline Drive. 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. Jesse Geurse and Dan and Tammy Weinseimer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that there is a sensitivity to the second floor deck; is this necessary to the project? (Geurse: designed the family room /rumpus room with an eye to taking advantage of the light and the view. By using the deck, was an easy way to reach a nine foot ceiling on the first floor. The deck also provides more useable space. Also a design detail that is compatible with the style of the home. Doesn't understand what the neighbors concern below really is. Client took a picture from the roof that shows that there will be no impact upon the neighbor expressing concerns.) >Clarified that letters of support were received from neighbors at 1616 and 1632 Skyline Drive. >Is there any possibility for revisting the size of the deck? (Geurse: would need to check the size .) Deck lends itself to family activities; may require story poles to demonstrate impacts upon the neighbor expressing objections. >Thought about screening the view of the deck, but this would also restrict views from the deck. What Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes direction are the primary views? (Weinseimer: views are primarly to the rear.) >Could the stone finish on the chimney on the right be extended to the top? (Geurse: as designed it provides a bit more contemporary feel with the metal roof. Extending the chimney up above the gable may make it look too tall.) >Consider making the chimney on the left side of the same stone. >Noted that the chimney looks like it is floating out from the second floor; look at this. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Will have a problem supporting the deck; has all the earmarks of becoming a party deck. New neighbors could be disturbed in the future. Disrupts the patterns of most of Burlingame's neighborhoods where most activity is on the ground floor. >Could provide a much smaller deck that is less of an impact. >Deck is too large for the property. >East facade fireplace needs a different treatment. >The large deck may have a real impact on the neighbors. >If the deck were converted to a ridge roof, then could provide a cathedral ceiling for the first floor. >Is a handsome project. >Applicant could move forward as designed; if the deck is not revised, then should provide story poles. Can't mock up potential impacts upon noise. >Normally accept decks with depths of no greater than six to eight feet; would require a major reduction in the size of the deck. See nothing unique about this property that warrants such a large deck . Not certain that the story poles will be helpful. >Doesn't believe story poles are necessary to address the concerns expressed. >Reduce the size of the deck. >Reduce at least by half, but willing to listen to a compelling argument. >Would like to seek some other ideas about how to mitigate sound from the deck. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.1566 Cypress Avenue - Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a new, two-story dwelling with detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and applicant; Mission Bay Trust and Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust property owners) (58 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum noted that he met with the neighbor to the left of the site at 1570 Cypress. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she will recuse herself from participating in the discussion of this matter as she resides within 500-feet of the property; she left the Council Chambers. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu and Laura Heisler represented the applicant. Ms. Heisler read a statement into the record. Commission Questions/Comments: >Requested information regarding project details. The project is handled nicely. Is a typical design that has been considered previously. Have crafted a design that fits with the narrow dimension of the property. >Requested clarification regarding the bases for the front columns. (Chu: will be stone, consistent with the rendering.) >The windows look really large in the rendering, but appear properly dimensioned in the plans . Requested clarification regarding window details. (Chu: will come back with more details. The color of the windows is not accurately represented in the rendering.) >The window trims look a bit thin. >With respect to the corbels along the eave line. Is there a vertical element with the corbels? (Chu: yes, there will be knee braces.) >Potential for the project to be richly detailed, but the current presentation has caused neighbor concerns. >With respect to the landscaping, noted that the Camelia bushes appear to be replacing the Rose bushes; can this be revisited? (Chu: yes.) >Requested that transplantation of the Japanese Maple tree in the front yard be considered. >Could the porch be enlarged in size? Could help with the face -print of the building. This could help bring down the scale of the facade. >Requested clarification regarding the finishing materials proposed. Appears that the materials are the same as used on other projects designed by the architect in the neighborhood. (Chu: confirmed that this is true. The owner is a developer and is building it for himself. Wouldn't use lesser quality materials on the house.) >Believes that detailing will help with the flat facade. >A front porch is a key component of a Craftsman style; any consideration to making it more prominent? (Chu: will review. Noted that the house doesn't maximize the floor area.) >Look at interface of stairwell window with neighbor's property. (Chu: can provide a plan that shows the relationship). Public Comments: Dan March, 1556 Newlands Avenue: will the wood fence be placed against the chain link fence around his pool? David McGinn, 1570 Cypress Avenue: Commission has addressed his concerns. Wished to defer his time to Peter Comaroto. Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue: noted a modern home in the neighborhood that was approved that doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Doesn't believe in approving designs that result in an eclectic neighborhood in this area. Encouraged the Commission to pay attention to the predominant style in the neighborhood. His home was insulted by the developer of this project. Would like the applicant to be a part of the community. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the design of the house. Looks like it fits with the neighborhood. >Agrees with others' critique of the detailing. >The details and the porch design need more attention. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The rendering doesn't properly represent the detailing shown on the project plans. >Likes the overall design; a strong single gable is hard to pull off on a narrow lot. Should make better use of the 200 square foot exemption for the front porch: perhaps consider a shed roof over the porch . Look at the porch roof in relationship to the second floor window. >Will fit well in the neighborhood with more detailing. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, that the applicant be placed on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Commission Discussion: >Requested that the applicant consider the rear neighbors concerns regarding the fence near his swimming pool. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.1212 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached one car garage and carport (InSite Design - Audrey Tse, applicant and project architect; Greg and Roseate Wagner, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contract: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum met with the neighbor at 1216 Vancouver Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse and Greg and Roseate Wagner represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In looking at the upper roof, it looks like the upper roof doesn't extend across the top; why? (Tse: for cost and massing purposes.) Will look like a false front, particularly from the left side. Have any 3D views been prepared? (Tse: there are other similar homes in the neighborhood.) Would permit attic storage if it were extended across. May require a rendering from the left side. >On the front, it looks like the arch on the first floor is being duplicated on the upper gable; is this the intent? (Tse: yes.) Feels a bit odd as it appears to be super -scaled; would look better at a smaller scale . Are there other options. (Tse: could bring the closets between the windows closer together.) Perhaps provide a small, clay-tile awning over this second floor area to provide scale. Perhaps prepare a 3D massing diagram. >Agrees with the comments regarding the upper floor windows on the front. >The windows look disorganized; building feels like it was designed from the inside out; feels like the exterior is a bit disorganized. Doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason to the window placement. Looking for something that pulls the design together. With another designer, could have considered referral to a design review consultant. (Tse: concerned more about the side elevations?) Yes, the disorganized windows are primarily on the side elevations; the stair window doesn't appear appropriate. (Tse: the stair Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes window was provided to address the declining height envelope issue.) >Feels the same as the other Commissioners. Not certain that the roof pitch works; was looking for something more like a pattern that is present on the first floor. Also concerned about the parapets . Encouraged the preparation of perspectives from the left and right. (Tse: felt that having a second story with the same roofline as the first floor made it look more like a civic building; were trying to fit it in with the neighborhood.) Is an eclectic neighborhood. Looking for a bit more cohesiveness between the first and second floors. >Provide examples of a couple of homes that have the "western-style" parapet. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Doesn't have a programmatic issue, is primarily concerned about the front facade, how the windows are handled and the scale of the second floor. >Applicant could revisit the stairway window; perhaps consider four smaller window units together that could still qualify for the declining height exception. >A 3D rendering will help reveal how the roofline will work. Referenced a photo in the staff report that shows the strength of the front gable with the clay tile; may find some direction on the second floor by continuing the strong center piece up to the second floor. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - d.1515 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Qi Chen, property owner) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to owner at 1509 Carol Avenue. Commissioner Comaroto spoke to the neighbors on both sides of the property. 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. Dale Meyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The brackets are very striking, will that element be repeated everywhere? (Meyer: yes, though they disappear under the gables on some elevations. Worked with the design of the existing brackets.) Feels more details are needed. (Meyer: are adding other details in addition to the brackets.) >A remarkable transformation. Needs one more pass at the details. On the second floor, is the ceiling Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes going to be vaulted or flat? (Meyer: flat.) There is a high forehead above the second floor windows on the front. Perhaps consider some type of trim in the gable to break up the stucco. Consider breaking up the eave lines around the sides and rear by perhaps adding a gable on the south side elevation to break up the continuous line. >On the landscape plan there is a lot of concrete. Is there any intent to remove some concrete and install planting in some of this area, particularly near the concrete path? (Meyer: on the right side of the bay window, are removing the concrete, but did not include plantings. Could narrow the concrete leading to the front steps. Will review.) >Did a great job on the design. With respect to the windows on the north and east elevations; are these existing windows? (Meyer: existing windows are vinyl windows. In all of the new windows, all of second floor, all of front and in other areas, and on the north elevation, new windows are being provided . On the south elevation will also install new windows. New windows will be metal clad wood windows; is attempting to convince the client to change out the existing vinyl windows.) >Why doesn't the window style match from the first to the second floor on all but the front elevation . Would this detail be the same on all of the new windows? (Meyer: did this on the front.) Look at making all of the new windows the same style with the same mullion style; provide more detail. >Spell out the window trim and provide consistency with the new windows. >Will the front porch stairs be wood with the buttress walls stucco? (Meyer: yes.) >A perspective drawing would be helpful. >Is there anything that can be done to shift the massing to the left? There are a lot of small cottage homes in the neighborhood. There is eight feet between the neighboring cottage property and the common property wall. On the north side, the relief provided by the short roof line helps. Could the right side elevation be broken up by pushing it back a couple of feet to open up more to the cottage to the right? (Meyer: in looking at the floor plans, the issue with pushing the mass over is the stairway. Will review.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: There was no Discussion. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the public hearing on the appeal of the Douglas Avenue project will be held on June 5, 2017. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2017 May 22, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 22, 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 June 1, 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 6/27/2017