HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.06.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 26, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and ComarotoPresent4 -
Gaul, Loftis, and KellyAbsent3 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
There was not a sufficient quorum to approve the June 12, 2017 meeting minutes. They will be
considered for approval at the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.3028 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for an Hillside Area Construction Permit
and a Conditional Use Permit for a new, detached garage. (August Ochabauer, owner
and applicant; Daniel Perez, Studio Perez, architect) (27 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
3028 HIllside Drive - Staff Report
3028 HIllside Drive - Attachments
3028 Hillside Drive - Plans - 06.26.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor at 3026 Hillside Drive.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of Staff:
>Is the height a maximum 9'-6" for an accessory structure? (Hurin: The overall height can be up to 10
feet at property line, and may increase one foot for each foot away from the property line. Flat roofs are
limited to 10 feet. Plate height is limited to 9 feet unless requesting a Conditional Use Permit.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
August Ochabauer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the purpose for the additional parking? (Ochabauer: Has a couple of special cars that would
like to get out of the weather. Tried car covers but on convertibles mold builds up inside.)
>Why the half bath? (Ochabauer: To not go back to the house to use the bathroom when working on
the cars.)
>Concern with the steep slope and the roof height, and getting the roof sufficiently above grade at the
back side. Why not make the roof a bit higher to clear the soil? (Ochabauer: Limited by the 9-foot plate
height. Would like to add an extra 6 inches. However all of the outside lumber making up the roof
structure will be treated lumber.) Could consider digging a light well behind the building with a small
secondary retaining wall. Wants to avoid needing to request a taller height if issues come up during
construction.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>It's difficult to imagine anywhere else on the property to park cars if wanting to get them under cover.
>Fairly atypical site and location.
>Structure is tucked halfway into the hillside, will only see the front facade. Won't affect any other
neighbors by the face of the garage.
>Only concern is non -residential uses in the garage. If this were to become a shop with power tools,
is that sufficiently covered by the existing zoning code or would there need to be additional conditions of
approval? (Gardiner: It is zoned residential so only the uses that can occur in a R -1 residential zone
could be allowed.)(Kane: Incidental homeowner hobby -type uses are allowed in R -1. There is a separate
noise ordinance that would cover the use of loud tools at the wrong time.)
>Large lot to begin with - not a standard lot in a standard suburban space. Can accommodate the
larger garage.
b.309 Primrose Road, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for a health service use on the second floor of an existing commercial
building (Seesaw Psychology Group, applicant; Mark Bucciarelli, AIA, architect; Ruth
Modisette, Ruth Modisette Living Trust, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Keylon
309 Primrose Rd - Staff Report and Application
309 Primrose Rd - Attachments
309 Primrose Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Instead of a variance, could the applicant pay an in -lieu fee for the increase, and how much would
that be? (Gardiner: Yes. As of July 1st the in-lieu fee will be $52,923 per space.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Architect Mark Bucciarelli represented the project, with applicants Sabrina Gabel, Niels Gabel, and Joe
Turner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Does not have many questions regarding Conditional Use Permit. Activating upper floor areas is a
good thing. Does not see the activities themselves having detriment to the neighborhood.
>Is there a strategy for where the employees will park? (Sabrina Gabel: At this point only one person
will drive to work. Hires local residents and give interns stipends for transit and biking. Has bike racks in
front of San Francisco location.)
>Have you scoped out the long -term parking options? (Sabrina Gabel: Might be able to get a space
from another business that has two spaces.)
>Come back with a concrete plan with specifics for where long -term employee parking will be,
including agreement with nearby parking space if applicable. Would allay concerns with the variance.
>The CUP application makes sense. However the variance application does not address the
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the site. It is simple: there is nowhere to put additional
parking on site. Should revise variance application to address exceptional circumstance, and why the
variance is necessary for the preservation or use of the site. The infeasibility of the in -lieu fee is good
support for the second question.
>(Sabrina Gabel: Might have been misunderstanding on the form of how many people will be in the
space. As a child psychology clinic, most of the primary service is neuropsychological evaluations, which
are 1 on 1 with a clinician and one child or adolescent. 99% of the time parents will drop off the child and
run errands, and don't need parking because they don't have to come in. Does a lot of services in the
home as well as at schools. Will not be running classes - offers an approachable, non -stigmatized
experience for families. Social skills training is named "educational services." Clients pay privately, so
some will get reimbursement for some of the clinical services such as a neuropsychological evaluation
or therapy, but with social skills training do not call it a clinical service. They're not big classes - 2 to 4
kids.)
>Is there not a requirement that parents come in to check in? (Sabrina Gabel: No. Lots of the
consultations are done over the phone, and by Facetime and Skype.) This is helpful information for the
exceptional nature of the use - the kids are not driving themselves, they are being dropped off.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Great service and a real benefit to the community.
>Interested to see the revised variance application. Concern with the variance is that once it is
approved it is there forever. It is a high hurdle since it will be there with the property even after with this
user is gone.
>Could drive more traffic to the business to downtown but this can be both a benefit and a drawback.
>Is interested in the drop -off aspects. Expects there will be parents who will want to go up to drop off
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
kids.
>Consideration is a potential intensification of use from a personal service (hair salon) versus health
service. By code health service requires more parking than personal service. Unique situation
comparing clients to hair salon customers who would have driven and needed to find a parking space,
versus this use where a parent can drop off. Comparison of how many potential clients there may be at
a given moment, compared to the previous hair salon.
>Might be helpful to more understand the number of cars parked at site, rather than the number of
people on site. Could craft the variance narrowly so it would not be a blanket increase.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
a.2117 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for One Year Extension of a
previously approved application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a
major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(1). (Javier Medina, Mark
Davis Design, applicant and designer; Lin and Sharon Li, property owners) (36
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2117 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report
2117 Carmelita Ave - Attachments
2117 Carmelita Ave - Plans
Attachments:
b.1722 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for One Year Extension of a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for a Community Center. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (1)(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Nyla Ibrahim, applicant;
Zephyr Jones, architect; Yaseen Foundation, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
1722 Gilbreth Rd. Extension - Staff Report
1722 Gilbreth Rd. Extension - Attachments 1
1722 Gilbreth Rd. Extension - Attachments 2
1722 Gilbreth - Plans - 06.26.17
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
dwelling with detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a) (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and applicant; Mission Bay Trust and
Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust property owners) (58 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1566 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1566 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1566 Cypress Ave - Plans - 06.26.17
Attachments:
This item was continued to the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting because of lack of a
quorum.
b.753 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jennifer Ellison, applicant and
property owner; Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (47 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
753 Plymouth Way - Staff Report
753 Plymouth Way - Attachments
753 Plymouth Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. 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.
Jennifer Ellison represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the cladding on the front stone or brick? (Percy: Horizontal ledger stone pattern.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Changes are subtle but have addressed the issues that the commission requested.
>Likes the material change with the stucco on the exposed side - it grounds the house on that side.
>Appreciates the materials that have been submitted.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
c.1900 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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 site. 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.
Xie Guan, Xie Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments: None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Nice changes. They are subtle but make the house much nicer.
>Great evolution into a project that is approvable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
d.134 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major remodel
and a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached
garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Jerry Deal, JD
Associates, applicant and designer; Sinhad and Asmir Bejic, property owners) (71
noticed)
134 Channing Rd - Staff Report
134 Channing Rd - Attachments
134 Channing Rd - Plans - 06.26.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Sargent was absent from the study meeting but
the video.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Asmir Begic represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments: None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Revisions greatly improve the project. There is added detail on the porch, stone wainscot resolves
itself nicely, has resolved the odd conflict between the bay and the chimney, added muntins on the
windows provide better scale.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.810 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to a single family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for an
accessory structure. (Jo Ann Gann, designer and applicant; David R. Hunsaker Trust,
property owner) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
810 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
810 Crossway Rd - Attachments
810 Crossway Rd - Plans - 06.26.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbors at 800 Crossway
Road.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>What are the current rules for Accessory Dwelling Units, and what restrictions can be placed on
accessory structures? (Hurin: The cooking unit would make it an Accessory Dwelling Unit. There are
minimum requirements such as a lot size at least 6,000 square feet, and a parking space unless located
within 1/2 mile of a train station.)(Gardiner: There could be a condition to prohibit a cooking unit.)
>When are rooms counted as bedrooms? (Gardiner: If the room is enclosed on all sides and has a
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
window, it would be counted as a bedroom including for parking requirements.) It appears there are five
bedrooms. (Hurin: The wall on the extra room could be opened up and the pocket door removed so it
would not be counted as a bedroom.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
JoAnn Gann represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Why a shower as well as toilet and sink in the accessory structure? (Gann: Figured might as well
since they are already requesting a use permit.)
>Will the corner detail be a piece of trim, or will it be mitered? (Gann: It will be a piece of trim.) Should
be noted on the plans, including distinguishing between the Hardie material and wood. Wood is
preferable for the trim, though Hardie can be OK for the siding.
>Will the roof material stay the same? (Gann: Yes.)
>Will the rear gable have the same siding? (Gann: Shingles on the gable, and the rest is Hardie
horizontal siding.)
>It is a large property, over 10,000 square feet, with quite some distance between the recreation
room and main house, but the full bathroom is a concern. The commission has allowed full bathrooms
for pool cabanas. Concern is the property is tight, and there is no opportunity to expand the garage for
an additional parking space to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit. While the current owners do not intend
to use it as a second unit, a future owner might because it has a full bathroom. Does not want to become
an intrusion on the neighbors with additional cars from a second household. (Gann: Could have a
stipulation that there be no cooking facility.)
>The rest of the project is massed nicely, and takes advantage of the underfloor space for additional
living area.
>Likes that the addition has been kept similar to the existing house.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>(Kane: Commission cannot condition the rental of the space. Homeowners may rent out rooms in
their houses, and this would be similar. It would not be a unit since it would not have a kitchen but could
still be rented. However the commission may consider restriction of a kitchen.)
>Needs clarification of the number of bedrooms, and whether the office counts as a bedroom.
>The commission has allowed full baths in detached structures. One of the mitigating factors has
been the Floor Area Ratio of the property, and this is significantly below the maximum.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
b.1029 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a
detached garage. (NOTICE: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 26,
2017 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) (James Chu, Chu Design Associates,
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
applicant and architect; Sherman Chiu, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1029 Paloma Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
1029 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
This item was continued to the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting because of lack of a
quorum.
c.715-717 and 719-721 Linden Avenue, Zoned R-2 - Application for Lot Split and
Design Review for construction of a new, two -story duplex on each proposed new lot
(1448 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; TRG Architects, architect) (35
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Attachments
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 716 Linden
Avenue and 722 Linden Avenue.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Is there not a FAR for duplexes? (Hurin: Not in R-2.)
>The buildings back up to Carolan Avenue. Would there be a way to beautify the fenceline? (Hurin:
The applicant can address the type of fencing and vegetative treatment along that side. There is a
"complete street" project planned for Carolan Avenue where the four lanes will be merged to three and
bicycle facilities will be added .)(Gardiner: Considerations can be given to the design of the rear
elevations and fencing. In this instance there are two sides visible from streets.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant with property owner James Evans and
Landscape Architect Jane Gomery.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Sheet A2.2 there is a wall shown where there should be a door. (Grange: Will be corrected.)
>Are the plate heights 9 feet and 8 feet? (Grange: Correct.)
>There has been great progress since the first time this application was presented.
>Driveways on most newer projects have have concrete of pavers. Has there been consideration of
using pavers? (Evans: Will use pavers.)
>Sheet TM-2 shows the correct configuration of the neighboring property (Lands of Meiswinkel), but
Sheet A1.0 does not match. (Grange: Neighboring properties somehow got reversed on the plan. Will
make the correction.)
>Given the requirement to provide an extra half parking space, where does the additional vehicle fit?
(Hurin: The additional uncovered space may be placed in front of the garage, at the end of the driveway .
The residents will sort out the arrangement.)
>Will the shrubbery on the left (south) be tall? (Gomery: The Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" grows a
maximum 2 feet high and the Phormuim grows to 4 feet high maximum.) Would like something taller to
break up the massing on the left side. (Gomery: Could continue the Prunus caroliniana. It is used as a
hedge shrub and can grow up to 8 feet.)(Evans: Has talked to the adjacent neighbor and has offered to
plant some trees on her side at the project's expense.)
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the looks of the homes. They fit the neighborhood.
>Glad the driveway will have pavers.
>Accepts the logic of the lot split with the 55-foot frontages on Linden and Carolan.
>The buildings are masssed nicely and present themselves well on Linden. Likes the frontages on
Carolan since they present themselves as backs of houses with back porches but are still nicely
composed and massed.
>Does this need to go to the City Council because of the lot split? (Hurin: The lot split will be a
recommendation to the City Council, but the project would not need to unless there is an appeal.)
>General Plan should consider making adjustments for structures where there may be 4 or 5 adults
with 4 or 5 cars in each unit.
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:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
At the June 19, 2017 City Council meeting the mechanical equipment ordinance was reintroduced with
refinements and is scheduled for adoption at the next meeting. Commercial linkage fees were
reintroduced and are scheduled for adoption at the next meeting, with base fees of $7 to $25 per square
feet depending on use, and discounts for projects utilizing prevailing wages.
a.1333 Paloma Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review application.
1333 Paloma 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 Ave - Memorandum
988 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 26, 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 June 26, 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 July 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017