Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.09.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 11, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 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 8c (1213 Grove Avenue) as she owns property within 500-feet of the project site. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Sargent1 - a.1704 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for One-Year Permit Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure. 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; Barbara Maley, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1704 Davis Dr - Staff Report 1704 Davis Dr - Attachments 1704 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: b.1491-1493 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for One -Year Permit Extension of a previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Lot Merger, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five story, 10-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking. Environmental review for this project is covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration 592-P, approved August 22, 2016. (Mark Haesloop, CHS Development Group, applicant; Chi -Hwa Shao, Sheil Patel c/o CHS Development Group, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1491-1493 Oak Grove- Staff Report 1491-93 Oak Grove - Attachments 1491-93 Oak Grove - Material Board Image Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1354 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1354 Columbus Ave - Neighbor Ltrs 1354 Columbus Ave - plans - 09.11.17 1354 Columbus Ave - Study Minutes-Applicant's Response Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones had a telephone conversation with the neighbor on the right side, and Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor on the right . Commissioner Comaroto met with the neighbors on both sides of the project site. 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. Michael Irmer and Naveen Sastry represented the property owners. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Willing to remove the fountain? (Sastry: yes.) >How critical are the French doors? (Sastry: provide light and air; bay window would not provide this benefit.) >Requested clarification of the locations of the filmed windows. (Sastry/Irmer: stairwell and rear bedroom on the east elevation.) >Requested clarification re: Vastu approach to design. (Sastry: most important parts are how the home is entered and how guests are allowed to enter. Certain orientations are more advantageous than others . Doors facing other doors are inauspicious. Family will generally be entering the house through the mudroom at the rear, near the garage. Irmer: the design to the porch is not unlike other projects in the neighborhood. Irmer: the design approach is consistent with other homes in Burlingame.) >Does the owner usually park on the driveway? (Sastry: usually on the driveway or in the street. Intent is to place one car in the garage and one in the driveway with the new house.) Could park their vehicle in front of the neighbors' living room window currently? (Sastry: yes.) >Requested clarification regarding the fences on the south side. Will the existing fence remain? (Sastry: have a low wall at the front third of the site, then proceeds to a taller fence. Will need to work with the landscape architect. Will be a new fence.) >What type of glass will be installed in the second floor master bathroom? (Sastry: translucent glass.) Will the bathroom facing the street on the first floor also include the same type of glass? (Sastry: the window is high enough that it shouldn't be an issue. >Does Vastu address juxtiposing a door with a neighbors window in the living space; looking into the neighbors' front living space? (Sastry: he isn't aware of anything in Vastu that addresses this issue; he also isn't concerned.) >Concerned about having the patio (gathering space) on the side of the house supporting activity that could disturb the neighbors. Is there anything that can be done to alleviate this concern? (Irmer: there is four feet of garden at that location currently.) >Clarified that "Turtle Glass" will be installed on the rear bedroom windows on the right side elevation. Public Comments: Rich Shoustra, 1350 Columbus Avenue (south of project site): summarized the comments contained in his letter that was submitted into the record earlier in the day. Appreciates the removal of the fountain. Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue: a building must have a relationship to the community and its environment. Doesn't believe the design is neighborly, nor does it fit in the neighborhood. The design vocabulary of the home doesn't fit into the expanded vocabulary present in Burlingame. The design is not in the right place; should be scaled down - too large for the property. Lives next door to 1354 Columbus Avenue where extensive excavation has occurred - it is very disruptive to the neighbors. Holly Rogers, 1354 Columbus Avenue: the request regarding the windows on the rear bedroom is not a new request to the applicant; the request was sent to the applicant prior to Labor Day. Doesn't feel that installation of transom windows will not affect the light into the bedroom. Lives part of her day in a wheelchair and cannot access the second floor. The movement of the driveway has placed the home closer to her primary living space. Rebuttal by Applicant (Sastry and Irmer): are well within the declining height envelope. Maximizing sunlight on the project site doesn't necessarily impact sunlight on the neighbors' property. Doesn't feel there is an impact. The first floor windows are only slightly larger than those present in the existing home. The house is lower, so with the fence there should be less of an opportunity to look into the neighbors' property. Will do everything possible to minimize neighborhood disturbance during construction. The central transom into the stairwell is pushed back to allow light into the central portion of the house. Additional Commission Questions: >Requested clarification regarding the location of the seven foot fence along the south side of the Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property; how does it relate to the elevation? (Sastry: needs to be further fleshed out, but willing to extend it further forward if needed.) >Will installation of a wall or partition outside the music room conflict with Vastu principles? (Sastry: willing to make the fence higher or plant additional landscaping at this area to help preserve the neighbors' privacy.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Feels like something is going on besides the architectural design; feels the design fits with the neighborhood and it meets the Design Guidelines. Doesn't want to get involved in the dispute between the neighbors. Supports the design as presented. This type of design occurs in a City such as Burlingame with smaller lots. Not over -scale; fits within the regulatory envelope for the property. Encouraged the applicant and the neighbors to sort out the differences. >Agrees with the prior comments. The only special consideration is the height of the basement; have generally been approved. There are some issues that have been taken into account even though not specifically within the regulations (i.e. the French doors leading to the side -yard). Changes that could be made may be addressed via an FYI, or a condition of approval. >Project is very well crafted. Is a fresh approach to the design; likes the way it looks. There are projects on the street that are similar in design. The applicant has gone a long way to address the concerns of the neighbors. The house will be much more appealing to the neighbor than having a driveway with a car parked on it. Supports the project. >Believes the privacy issues can be ironed out between the neighbors. Likes the project. >Would like the neighbors to work out solutions to their concerns. >Applicant has done so much to meet the neighbors' requests and the requirements of the Design Guidelines. Feels that work could still be done to address privacy concerns on the south neighbors' side; could the number of windows be reduced? Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following added conditions: 1. Include window film on the stairwell, stair clerestory, and bedroom two windows. 2. The master bathroom window whall have translucent glass. 3. The fountain shall be removed from the project. 4. An FYI shall be submitted to clarify the fencing and low wall design and placement and revisions to the patio are to reduce its size, potentially through revisions to the landscape plan on the south side of the property. Discussion of Motion: >Ideally the revisions requested would be addressed through cooperation of the neighbors; can't require it, but should attempt to minimize potential impacts. This commission has raised concerns regarding side patios in the past without having a neighborhood raise the issue; the neighbor is raising the issue in this case. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.1516 Highway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(2). (Form One Design, applicant and designer; Yousef and Gina Shamieh, property owners ) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1516 Highway Rd - Staff Report 1516 Highway Rd - Attachments 1516 Highway Rd - Plans 1516 Highway Rd - Memorandum - Engineering Division 1516 Highway Rd - Tentative Parcel Map Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Liked the wavy siding that has been removed. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Very nice project; is different. Could go either way with the wavy siding. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >Willing to consider an FYI in the future if the applicant wishes to use the originally proposed wavy siding. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1213 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a half bath and skylight in an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e) (2). (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Meghan and Jason Dunne, property owners ) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1213 Grove Ave - Staff Report.pdf 1213 Grove Ave - Attachments.pdf 1213 Grove Ave - Plans.pdf Attachments: Commission Comaroto recused herself from the discussion regarding this item as she owns property within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers. 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: >If the neighbor to the right needs to not use her driveway during the construction, can the City reserve a space on the public street for her? (Meeker: no, not the jurisdiction of the Commission.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joanne Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has any progress been made with the neighbor regarding the shared driveway; the neighbor has the right to place a fence there if they wish to currently. (Gann: working with an attorney to revise the deed.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The property owners are working out the shared driveway situation. >The applicant has addressed the issue regarding the full bath in the accessory structure. >Findings can be made in support of the project. >Appreciates that the porch had to stay small. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, and Kelly5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1304 Mills Avenue , zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - plans - 09.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Loftis, Gaul and Gum spoke to the neighbor at the right at 1300 Mills Avenue. Chair Gum also spoke to the neighbor on the left. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Noted that the reference to the attached garage in the staff report should be changed to detached garage. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kiki Durphy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the left elevation, regarding the full -length window in the stairwell, has the property owner spoken with the neighbors to see if they have concerns with this window? (Durphy: no. But knows that the neighbors have seen the plan. There are some trees on this side that are maturing.) >The window on the far left on the left elevation, is there any reason why it has a different divided light pattern? (Durphy: the window size prevents the divided lights from being the same as other windows. >Has a survey been prepared for the property? (Durphy: a full survey was not prepared; based upon spot elevations. Didnt set corners.) Would like to have clarification regarding the placement of the fence and the neighbor's garage. >Is there a plan for a tree to replace the one that is to be removed? (Durphy: working with the Parks Department regarding the issue, but there are lots of other trees on the property.) Finalize the Parks Department's requirements before returning to the Commission. >Any thought given to providing more detailing to add variety to the right elevation; looks like a layer cake. Craftsman style homes usually have more detailing. (Durphy: added varied materials, including water table and stone veneer. Gables on that side would not work with the declining height envelope.) >What is the head height of the windows on the second floor; how does this relate to the nine -foot plate height? If the plate height were reduced, could still maintain the proper gable articulation. Feels top -heavy as designed. (Durphy: is problematic with the declining height envelope. Want to provide tray ceilings on the second floor.) >Why are the front porch steps off -center? (Durphy: centered on the gable. The porch and the front door are existing.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Applauds the desire to move toward Craftsman styling. However, the design appears very boxy; both floor plans are very similar. The left hand elevation is very sheer, the right looks like a wedding cake . Good candidate for a design review consultant. >There might be better justification for the higher plate height on the second floor if there was better Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes articulation on the second floor. >Likes the detailing of the windows. >Likes the stone base for the house. >Massing needs more work. >Concerned about the location of the fence; a survey should be prepared. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: >Ensure that the concerns of the Commission as expressed in the discussion are provided to the design review consultant. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director Reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:48 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 September 11, 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 September 21, 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 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017