Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.08.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 14, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8a (729 Walnut Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8b (1029 Paloma Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property, and 9c (700 Newhall Avenue) for non-statutory reasons. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: thanked the Commission for not approving the project at 556 El Camino Real. Noted that the property is in a flood zone. Owner has had flooding on the property and will be pumping groundwater on the property. Concerned about the setbacks on the property and lack of parking available. Also concerned about potential impacts to the adjacent condominium property during construction. Concerned about excavation at the property line of the adjacent condominiums; concerned about impacts. Insufficient parking in the area now. The automated parking system will cause delays in parking on the property and could block traffic on El Camino Real. Appreciated requests of the Commission regarding privacy issues and the request for the developer to power -wash her property. The property is too large for that property at that location. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.General Plan Update EIR Scoping Session Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report General Plan EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) General Plan Proposed Land Use Map and Land Use Descriptions City Council Presentation Slides - December 6, 2016 Public Notice Publication Attachments: Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report and introduced Dan Amsden and Victoria Harris from MIG. Dan Amsden and Victoria Harris provided an overview of the General Plan update process to date. And reviewed the purpose of the environmental scoping public hearing. All comments should be submitted to the Planning Division by September 1, 2017 so that they can be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before it is released for public review. Community Development Director Meeker: provided context for the discussion and reviewed the focus areas (Bayfront, north El Camino Real and north Rollins Road) for changes in development policy and population and job growth projections. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why is there a reduction in the amount of office space? (Meeker: represents the impact of the conversion of the north Rollins Road area to residential use.) >Why is there zero growth in institutional uses; assumes this includes schools? Has there been coordination with the school districts? (Amsden: have been in coordination with the public school districts; they have their own planning process. The General Plan projections could lead them to change their plans.) >Will the environmental analysis include a study of the City's infrastructure? (Amsden: will coordinate with the school districts with respect to their infrastructure. With respect to the physical infrastructure, this is a big part of the analysis. Early work included evaluation of the existing infrastructure conditions which will serve as the basis for comparison. Harris: police, fire services, schools, etc. will be involved in the analysis contained in the EIR. A utilities section of the EIR will be included as well.) >Would like to see the sufficiency of public safety services and utilities reviewed, specifically in the Bayfront area. >How are potential impacts upon historic resources addressed in the EIR? (Harris: cultural resources will be addressed in a section of the EIR. In the general plan context, are looking at how the policies in the general plan will mitigate impacts, or identify mitigations and other future measures that will be needed to reduce impacts upon historic resources. Amsden: the "project" is the policies in the general plan. There will be a subset of new policies that may be suggested in the general plan. The EIR will evaluate the adequacy of these policies.) >Would like to see a no -growth alternative considered in the EIR. (Harris: a "no-project" alternative will be evaluated; represents the existing conditions.) >Concerned that the average household occupancy is perhaps too low, has seen other varied numbers . Perhaps look at where the number is derived from. >Are net new jobs directly related to the residential growth? (Amsden: is most likely due to the change in land-uses.) >Will impacts of transient populations (people at hotels) upon infrastructure be evaluated? (Amsden: will be evaluated based upon a commercial use for the hotels and utility impacts will be based upon usage per room.) Noted an error in the representation of the termination of the train on the land-use map. Public Comments: Leslie Austere: requested clarification of the process for notification of the property owners that will be affected by land-use and zoning changes. (Meeker: will directly notify owners of properties that are subject Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to potential changes in zoning.) Bobbie Benson: need to look at means of collecting fees for ensuring completion of the Bay Trail. Need to be able to traverse both ways as you cross Highway 101 via the pedestrian crossing at Broadway. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Ensure that there is an analysis of infrastructure impacts at build-out and of impacts upon schools. >Look at sea-level rise as part of the EIR. >Clarified that historic resources and aesthetics are reviewed at a programmatic level and specific project compliance with the policies is the purview of the Planning Commission. >Appreciated that there will be an analysis of a no growth alternative. b.1399 Broadway, zoned C-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a class use (tutoring) in an existing commercial building (AJ Tutoring, applicant; W.J. Britton and Company, property owner) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon (71 noticed) 1399 Broadway - Staff ReportAttachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had communications with a neighbor at 1129 Capuchino Avenue and an email exchange with a realtor at AVR Realty . Commissioner Sargent noted that he received an email from a member of the public that wasn't sent to the entire Commission. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project. Community Development Director Meeker read the names of the fourteen individuals that submitted written correspondance in advance of the public hearing. Questions of Staff: >What uses are permitted by right in the zone? (Keylon: retail and personal services. Restaurants require a conditional use permit.) >Is payment of a parking in-lieu fee possible in this area? (Meeker: no, the in-lieu fee is only applicable within the Downtown (Burlingame Avenue) area.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Joe Niederman represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How long has the current owner owned the building? (Hudak: four to five months. Prior owner wasn't able to find a tenant and sold the building out of necessity.) >How does the parking lot in the rear function? (Hudak: on a separate parcel and cannot be counted toward required parking. Can't commit that all of the spaces will be available to this tenant, but could be during the time that the adjacent property is vacant.) >Noted that based upon a conversation with the prior owner, they were trying to market the business . (Hudak: were unable to find another operator, so broadened the search for a tenant.) >Requested clarification of the operations of the tutoring center, they appear to be more of an office size and use. (Niederman: the spaces are for one-on-one use. Hudak: worked with staff to determine the best categorization of the use. Meeker: noted that ground floor office is not permitted on Broadway.) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Recalls that there is a classroom component to the location in Menlo Park. (Neiderman: some locations do have classrooms where practice tests are administered.) >How did the applicant choose this location? (Niederman: have been searching for a Burlingame location since 2009. Have looked at a number of other locations, but they were determined not to be appropriate for the use by staff. Usually like to locate near downtown areas and schools.) >How does the applicant forsee that the use will be compatible with the existing and potential uses surrounding it? (Niederman: students, parents and staff would use the businesses in the area. Hudak: doesn't see any incompatibility with surrounding uses; will be complementary.) >Part of the goal is to enliven the Broadway district. Another use may enliven the area a bit more . (Hudak: only other candidate was another coffee shop; felt this would create an adverse impact upon other similar businesses on Broadway. Is challenging to find a business that is seeking this area as opposed to Burlingame Avenue.) >Is Hudak also representing the owner of the property? (Hudak: yes.) >On weekdays the use would be closed until 2:30 p.m., are there other uses that would occur early in the day? (Niederman: administrative staff would be there prior to 2:30 p.m.) >How long has the prior use been gone? (Hudak: about five or six months.) >What is the optimal size space? Are there other spaces east of Highway 101 that may serve the purpose? (Niederman: about 2,000 square feet. Not feasible to go to one of the office buildings east of Highway 101 due to the security aspects of operating within an office building.) >Are there other schools where space could be shared; Mercy High School, Burlingame High School? (Niederman: those schools are not open to sharing space. Hudak: difficult to share with public schools. At Mercy High School, parking is an issue.) >Could the Lions Club be a possible location, it has parking. (Hudak: need to be there seven days per week, this can't be guaranteed at the Lions Club. Trying to find the perfect location is a challenge.) >What happens during the summer months? (Niederman: summer hours would be most similar to other businesses operating hours. Also do academic tutoring in addition to test preparation. Hudak: students are still studying for testing.) Public Comments: Carrie Bitner: owns Que Sera Sera next door. Is aware of comments made by other residents and business owners. Is supportive of the applicant's requests. Would be costly to open a restaurant at the location. Is excited about having the business as a neighbor. Doesn't like having an empty building next door. Barbara Gurkhoff: referenced a project at 826 Valencia in San Francisco. Placed a pirate booty store at the front of the building to provide a retail presence. Draws more people to the area. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Appreciates the need to rent vacant properties on Broadway, but has a hard time supporting this application. Broadway is a retail street. The use doesn't need to be a restaurant, but should be a retail use. The proposed use functions more as an office use, not a school use. Offices are not allowed on the ground floor because they do not add to pedestrian activity in the area. There will be times when there will be no students on the property and only office work is occurring. >There are opportunities for the use to be placed east of Highway 101. Students will be driven to the location, they will not walk and are not likely to hang out in the Broadway district after their sessions. The location allows great exposure for the applicant. >Has difficulty believing that this use and a coffee shop are the only two tenancies that work at the location. >Can't make the necessary findings for a conditional use permit given the lack of activity generated by the use and insufficient parking. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Recalled how Broadway functioned when she was growing up in the area. Noted that she dropped her children off at the AJ Tutoring facility in Menlo Park; she stayed in the car and didn't frequent nearby businesses. Doesn't believe that the students would visit other businesses on Broadway. >Not convinced that a lot of energy has been put into marketing the tenant space. >Concerned about the lack of activity on the site between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. >Has a hard time making the findings necessary for granting a parking variance; generally the problem is created by the characteristics of the business, not some hardship imposed by the nature of the property. Once a variance is granted, the approval runs with the property; is a gift to the property owner particularly since the in-lieu fee can't be paid. >The use will not enliven the Broadway district. >The location should be occupied by a retail use. >Bothered that the property may remain vacant for some time, though does have an issue with granting the parking variance. The use is really an office use. >Seem to try to match the zoning to the project, rather than having uses fit with the zoning. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from the discussion of this project. She left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum noted that he had communicated with the neighbor at 774 Walnut Avenue. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had communicated with the neighbor at 722 Walnut Avenue. 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. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >It was clear in the Commission's prior discussion that there were major concerns about the design; noted that the Commission felt that a talented designer was involved, so no need to refer the project to a design review consultant. Was this not clear? The project remains not approvable since none of the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission's concerns have been addressed. (Raduenz: the planner didn't state that a redesign was needed.) >With respect to the Redwood tree, was any thought given to removing the portion of the tree that is most impactful? (Raduenz: not an option, would severely impact the health of the tree.) >Suggested that the designer watch the video of the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission discussion to learn what the concerns were. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is the arborist in the business of removing trees? (Meeker: the arborist considers preservation of the tree first. The report was reviewed by the City Arborist.) >Feels that the home design is appropriate and not completely out of line with other homes in the area. >Applicant needs to listen to the recording of the prior discussion. The home is too boxy. Felt that the base was too wide. The houses that have steeper slopes are smaller. The house is too wide for the lot . Not approvable in this form. >The designer is experienced and talented and has completed other projects in the City. There have been no changes to the project that were requested. The architecture is still boxy and the roof form is not appropriate for a traditional approach. Looks much like a bed and breakfast. >Expected to see some pretty significant changes. Doesn't fit in the neighborhood. >The house is speculative, not someone's dream house. >The home is placed too close to the tree, take it into consideration. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis5 - Nay:Kelly1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1029 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a 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 Associates, applicant and architect; Sherman Chiu, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1029 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1029 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1029 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. Commissioner Terrones was recused from the discussion of this item. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she had communicated with the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Was the shadow study omitted from this packet of information? Was it not up to standards of the City? (Keylon: not certain why it was omitted. Will review the file.) >Noted that some Commissioners reports are missing page 2 which includes the setback table. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Were any options studied that didnt include the secondary dormers over the shed dormer on the front; adds to the mass? (Chu: are other examples in the neighborhood; doesn't think it is that massive.) Public Comments: Mahesh Patki, 1025 Paloma Avenue: appreciates some of the changes made. As an architect and area resident remains concerned about the mass and bulk of the project, particularly at the second floor . Believes it is within the purview of the Commission to ensure that the project is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Is a two-story box. The second story should be set back and massed differently. The Cedar tree was existing when he installed his solar panels, caused minimal shading on the panels. The shading impacts from the residence will be worse. Additional Applicant Comments: Chu: clarified the proposed setbacks and disagreed with the neighbors allegation about shadow impacts upon his solar panels. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Elimination of the declining height envelope was a good compromise with the neighbor, though the original design was better. Likes the project though still believes the front dormers are too massive. Has visited the neighborhood multiple times and noted that the homes with second floors that are pushed back were originally single-story homes. When such projects have been presented to the Commission, they have been referred to a design review consultant. Fits with the neighborhood. >Likes the project, believes it will add value to the area. >Likes the changes that were made. Would have liked to see the second floor pushed back from the front. Is a good looking project. >Unfortunate that the shadow studies were not included in the report. Recalls that the impingement was in the late afternoon; not unreasonable. There is thirty feet between the structures. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: > Feels that the design places the home too far forward on the lot when compared to other homes in the area. Would have preferred to see it pushed back. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Nay:Gum1 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.400 Chapin Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use and Special Permits for a new detached garage and a new detached guest and pool house. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e) (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit). 400 Chapin Ln. - Staff Report 400 Chapin Ln. - Attachments 1 400 Chapin Ln. - Attachments 2 400 Chapin Lane - plans - 08.14.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto communicated with the neighbors at 405 Chapin. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What was the purpose of the variance granted in 1964? (Meeker: believes it was a side setback variance.) >What is the reason for the limit on the number and size of accessory structures on a lot? (Meeker: ensures that the property doesn't become cluttered and that adequate open space is provided.) >Is there no requirement for a driveway leading to the garage? (Keylon: minimum parking is based upon the number of bedrooms. Generally a required uncovered parking space is located on a driveway, but can be located elsewhere on the property.) >Clarified that two covered parking spaces are provided in this instance. (Meeker: not required to provide an uncovered parking space. Keylon: have provided two covered parking spaces for the seven bedroom house; the uncovered space is non -conforming, but is allowed to be considered as it is not being altered.) >What is the difference between a accessory dwelling unit versus accessory living space. (Meeker: an accessory dwelling unit is a self -contained living space with a full kitchen. An accessory living space does not meet this criteria. Applicant is leaving their options open on how the space is used.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ryan Morris, and Richard and Tina Jones represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How far is it from the tree to the fence that is to remain? (Morris: roughly fifteen feet.) Doesn't look like there is enough room to building what is proposed. How far is it from the Redwood tree to the proposed guest house? (Morris: about three feet; no closer than the existing structure. Are proposing a Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pier/pile construction type to avoid roots for the trees. Will need to map out the roots before placing the piers.) Public Comments: Joe Gurkhoff: none of the Commissioners visited his property, nor did the architect. The aerial view shown by the applicant isn't truly representative of existing conditions. There is a creek present. The only way that they can plant trees to cover the view is to remove all existing vegetation on his property. Will be able to see it from the entire rear -yard of the property, plus the kitchen and two of the three bedrooms. The back of the house is where they live and entertain; their front yard is unusable. The current design is possibly worse than the prior design since it has a broader presence on the property line and has more of an impact from his rear yard. Would be a detraction from his property. Will be very visible from his yard and will detract from the value of the property. There is no code that requires the building to be as large as proposed. The building proposed is twice as large as what currently exists. Even the Jones's wouldn't wish to have this structure looming across their property from an adjacent site. The fence that is there currently is their fence, but is on his property line; wishes the replacement fence to match the height. Carol Leininger, 405 Chapin Lane: appreciates changes that have been made so far, but still has other concerns. Spoke to the applicant on June 12th. The revised plan represents an anomaly in the neighborhood without setbacks. Would like the garage setback from the sidewalk many feet to soften the impact and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Has a large window that looks directly at the proposed structure. Will see a massive rooftop; wishes to have the structure pushed back with something planted to reduce the view. Kate Timberlake, 401 Chapin Lane: adding the guest house and the garage will be over the amount of space permitted and the setback is less than required. Doesn't believe any of the neighbors are against the plans for any other reason than to protect the character of the neighborhood. Feels like a lot of special requests are being made. No one wishes to have an accessory structure up against their property line. Barbara Gurkhoff: emphasized the size of the structures proposed. The applicant indicated that the space was being provided for a place for out of country relatives to stay when visiting. Not certain what the true purpose of the project really is. The only open space remaining will be along Chapin Avenue. Has an issue with calling her property line the rear of her property. Their front property line is on Chapin Lane; there is a covered walkway that leads to their front door; all openings are on Chapin Lane. There is no access to the property from Chapin Avenue. Too many exceptions being requested; looks like a strip mall. Additional Applicant Comments: Richard Jones: have reduced the scope of the project. Responded to comments from neighbors. Ryan Morris: nothing to add. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Still having some issues with the project; corner lots are difficult and have additional restrictions placed on them by the design guidelines. Having a problem with the size of the garage; perhaps bring down the size. The total number of accessory structures is too many, particularly the 200 square foot pool equipment structure. >Doesn't like to see the driveway so close to the street. The garage and the accessory structure are too large. Doesn't seem right to have the structures so close to Chapin Lane. Can't go along with everything being requested. >Seems like the applicant is trying to fit the structures to the landscaping; perhaps look at shifting Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes things around on the property to minimize impacts upon neighbors. >When reviewing the floor plan of the garage, it is only 23-feet x 23-feet; may be an error in the staff report. Commended the applicant for the significant changes made to the project. >Feels that the finding can be made that there is something specific about the lot that supports approval of the variances. >Need to look at the totality of the development on this oversize lot; significantly below the maximum FAR and lot coverage. >What is proposed fits the development pattern of the zoning. When properly fenced and screened, will have little impact upon the neighbors. Is a very atypical lot. Feels it is approvable. >Agrees with prior Commissioner's points regarding the special circumstances. The structures are generally in the location of the existing structures and have eight -foot plate heights with low -sloped roofs. Will have pretty much the same impacts as the existing structures. The front -yard is defined by the City, not the neighbors; must evaluate based upon what is placed before the Commission. >Would like to see the rear property fence repaired. >Feels all of the findings can be made. >No one will come out a winner; there will be frustration on both sides. Agrees with most of the other Commissioners' comments. Primary concern is about the guest house being placed against the neighbors fence; would like more room for landscaping to screen from the neighbor. >Is concerned with the impact that the project has on the street itself. Would like the structures pushed back from the street. >Requested clarification regarding setbacks in the rear portions of the lot. (Keylon: detached accessory structures in the R 1 zone are exempt from setbacks within the rear 30% of the lot. Can request a special permit to permit no setbacks within the rear 40% of the lot.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve with the following additional condition: >The fence on the rear property line shall be repaired/replaced in consultation with the neighbor. Discussion of Motion: >The garage is not beyond the rear 40% of the lot. If it were kept in its original size and location, then a variance wouldn't be required? (Meeker: once the non-conforming structure is demolished, then the new structure must be built in conformance with current regulations.) Is it required that the garage be pushed up to the property line? (Commissioners: the existence of the tree requires the garage to be pushed forward.) Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis4 - Nay:Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1354 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for basement ceiling height for a new, two -story single-family dwelling and detached garage (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1354 Columbus Ave - plans - 08.14.17 1354 Columbus Ave- Rendering Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mac White and Jim Lenihan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the special permit for the basement just to make it livable? (White: yes.) >Clarify that all windows are to be simulated true divided lights. >Is the chimney stone veneer? (White: yes.) >Does the HVAC equipment placement on the roof comply with the new regulations? (Keylon: will work with the applicant to ensure compliance.) >What is the purpose of the dormer? (White: to allow light into the upper floor corridor.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Very nice project, fits well with the neighborhood. >Can support the findings for the special permit. The basement will not have an impact upon the neighborhood. >Nice project, but would fit better on a larger lot; feels it is massive, though beautifully crafted. Design guidelines encourage making two -story structures appear less massive to fit into one and two story neighborhoods . The plate heights on the second floor edges are low, but the large window at the center of the room accentuates the height. Ceiling height is nearly eleven feet at the highest point on the second floor. The clerestory window in the dormer makes it look like a third story. >Likes the design; feels the steep roof slope works. There are a few homes that blend in well with this design. >Is a beautiful project, but feels like a mansion. The general imagery of the structure makes it appear much larger than it will likely be. Well articulated. Believes it is approvable, but there is a funny thing going on with the scale. >Feels the second story bay window on the front accentuates the height. >Believes the project will fit into the neighborhood. There are several larger homes in the neighborhood . The mass is helped because the properties across the street are at a higher elevation. >Had some concerns about the glazing on the right and left, but the homes flanking the property are not really impacted. Fits into the neighborhood and with the neighbors. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion of Motion: >The rendering evokes lodge-style architecture, but when you look at the unrendered elevations, the front elevation is very similar to other projects that have been approved. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Sargent1 - b.1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Scott Duong, applicant and property owner; Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1411 De Soto Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 1411 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Loftis met with the neighbors at 1407 De Soto Avenue. Community Development Director provided an overview of the staff report. He noted a petition from neighbors in support of the application. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of Staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Scott Duong and Jack Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Doesn't fully understand the various different fascia sizes. (Chu: Second floor is 2" x 12" and first floor is 2" x 8" to distinguish the two different facades.) > Why the tall plate heights? (Chu: client wanted taller ceiling heights.) > Shiplap siding shown on plans does not match the siding on the rendering. (Duong: Siding is natural cedar wood.) > Did the neighbors who signed the petition see the rendering? (Duong: No, the rendering was not completed yet.) > It's a struggle of how to incorporate modern architecture into a traditional neighborhood. > This block is primarily Tudor and Spanish style homes. Traditional form and massing with updated materials is ideal in such neighborhoods. This project does not meet that. (Duong: Do not want to build a Tudor or Spanish style. Want something fresh and contemporary.) Public Comments: Sherry Lewis, 1407 De Soto: Concerned regarding how the light to their property will be affected. Has a shadow study been prepared; would like to request one to see what the impacts will be. Did not see the plans or the rendering until Sunday. Concerned about a second floor deck in the rear that would look into their property. Could there be design elements to address privacy concerns. Doesn't feel the architectural Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes style fits within the neighborhood; attractive but is radically different in style to everything else on the block. Other homes have pitched roofs, not flat roofs. Brian Benn, 1408 DeSoto: Materials in this type of design are important to the aesthetics; want more details. Perhaps more use of wood elements. Jan Robertson, 1408 DeSoto: Had only seen architectural drawings but not the rendering until this evening. Is quite modern in design. Other homes are Spanish and Tudor in the neighborhood. Need to be open to new ideas, but defers to the Commission to determine if it fits with the neighborhood. Applicant's Response: Duong: Front, side and rear will include wood siding. Only the left hand side will be stucco. Neighbor to the left's property is much taller than the proposed house. The rear deck is over the new family room, is inset, doesn't project out and is along the driveway side. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >There could be ways to ease the Modern design into the neighborhood. The design looks like the bottom half of an apartment building because of flat roofs. Pitched roofs may help design. With no similar homes around it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. >Is an older neighborhood with mature trees. Not sure that the design fits currently but it could fit. The massing is not done well; everything is two stories; could be broken up a bit more. Would rather see more wood siding. A modern home usually has a chimney that is more squared off. The massing needs to be reigned in a bit more. >Doesn't have a problem with Modern design in a traditional neighborhood if the design still reads as a home. Need to build something that still behaves with its neighbors. There are a number of one -story traditional homes with a few two -story homes. If a traditional design was submitted with this massing, it still would have been too boxy. Need fine detailing to fit into the neighborhood. Scale and proportion need to be looked at; is not necessarily a function of style. Will need to look at the plate heights. >There are fine examples of Modern architecture in the Easton Addition area that fit in well. >The second floor plate height is generally nine -feet, with the main corner element on the front being eleven feet. Could include a mix of sloped and flat roofs. Feels is a good candidate for a design review consultant. >There have been some homes in Easton Addition that bring a Modern take on Traditional architecture . Must be careful with the design. The rear deck will be intrusive to the neighbors, particularly from a noise standpoint. Doesn't believe that the home fits with the neighborhood; would not approve it as designed. >Doesn't feel that this design fits, though appreciates Modern design. Agrees that an updated Traditional design could fit. Would like to see a contemporary home that is made to fit in with neighborhood. >Is a different design than is produced by this architect firm. This design doesn't fit. Would be more likely to approve project if Traditional style with Contemporary features rather than a Contemporary style with Traditional features. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to send the item to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: >The second floor deck appears to meet criteria applied in prior instances in order to preserve privacy of neighbors. >Have generally looked at a 100 square foot threshold for second floor decks. Could also enclose a portion of the deck that would make it fit better. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The applicant is skilled enough to demonstrate that most shadows will be cast to the right. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.700 Newhall Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Parking Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Danny Abajian and Aline Kalebjian, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 700 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 700 Newhall Rd - Attachments 700 Newhall Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones recused himself from the proceedings regarding this item for non -statutory reasons. He left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Gum spoke with the neighbor at 704 Newhall Road. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, and Danny and Aline Abajian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is a straightforward project, should be placed 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. Comment on Motion: >Noted that the owners have done an exceptional job in creating a lovely home. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017 August 14, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:04 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 August 14, 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 August 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 9/27/2017