Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.09.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 25, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and ComarotoPresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - a.August 14, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 14, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: Correction on Page 13, Commission Discussion, 2nd bullet, modern "nome" should be corrected to "home." b.August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 28, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 25, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action Items. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1357 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Steven F. Baldwin and Therese M. Baldwin TR, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1357 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1357 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1357 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with the neighbors at 1359 Columbus Avenue regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors at 1359 and 1353 Columbus Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is a building section required to be included in the plans for a new house? (Hurin: Not required but it is typically provided. It can be requested of the applicant.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steven Baldwin represented the applicant, with designer James Chu. Commission Questions/Comments: >Per the letter from the neighbors at 1359 Columbus Avenue, is there possibility of adding additional taller landscaping along the side? >Revisit the stairwell window to see if there is a way to work something in to reduce the impacts on the neighboring property such as a tall hedge or tree. There is some area with the setbacks, since a lot of the wall is pulled in more than the required 4 feet. >Front porch height seems high. The posts look tall and gangly. Could bring the plate height down on the front of the porch to 8 feet, which would also help the second floor windows with more freeboard below the sill. Gutter and eave do not need to align with the top of the belly band - could align or fall just underneath it. >A railing would help the porch. (Baldwin: There will be a railing on the porch that fits with the craftsman style.) >Special Permit is from upsloping lot, which causes the house to be taller, as measured from average top of curb. The back patio doors are aligned with the rear grade, so the finished floor is as low as possible, correct? >Rear and side of the garage would be plywood, but there is only 1 foot between the garage and the fence. Concerned with maintenance. Consider moving the garage further out so there is room to maintain it? (Baldwin: Fence could stop at the garage in the rear.) >The Special Permit application mentions a metal roof. (Chu: No metal roof is proposed.) >On the right side the fence has suffered since the pittosporum was removed. (Baldwin: Has been coordinating with the neighbors and will build a new fence. Would prefer the fence go the full extent of the Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 25, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property line, past the neighboring garage.) >If the fence is being replaced it should be indicated on the plans. (Baldwin: Will probably happen sooner than the house would be built.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nicely crafted project. >Applicant should consider the suggestions made by the commission to improve the project. 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, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling and a new detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Rick Lund, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 852 Paloma Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 852 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Are the uncovered portions of front and rear porch counted towards lot coverage? (Hurin: As long as they are less than 30 inches above grade and is uncovered. The front elevation specifies 29 inches maximum, so it would not be counted.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owner Chandra Lund. Commission Questions/Comments: > Hard time finding justification for the variance. There needs to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this lot, that do not apply to other lots. The lot being small is not an extraordinary circumstance since lot coverage and FAR scale with the lot. The lot coverage and FAR are intended to prevent over -building the lot. (Geurse: There are five children, and trying to make the bedrooms work.) >The amount of house is causing the lot coverage to be maximized, and the amount of garage, but not the amount of porch. (Geurse: Wants to get the space on the lower level to work properly. Wants to work in a decent-sized house that resembles a one-story to blend in with the neighborhood.) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 25, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Hardest part on a variance application is making the case that there is something unique about the lot that is different from any other lots in the neighborhood. The detached garage allows for a larger house since it provides an additional 400 square feet. >Believes there are other design options that would allow maximizing the FAR without needing a lot coverage variance or sacrificing the porch. Could put more square footage on the second floor. >The driveway is narrow. Is it usable? (Lund: It is narrow but usable.) >Is the space below the dormers inaccessible? (Geurse: Yes.) Is the plate height 10 feet? (Geurse: Yes, the 10-foot plate height is at the intersection of the roof and the ceiling, then pitches down.) Looks like it is designed with space that could be captured later. Also the dormers add to the mass of the house, and the height is already higher than the two -story house to the left. (Geurse: House has the appearance of a one -story house with a high pitch, which is common in Burlingame. Most of the second story is buried in the attic space.) >Chimney looks odd coming out of the middle of the dormer with windows below it. >Public Works notes the property is in a special flood zone. Has that been mitigated? (Geurse: Yes, using existing foundation and floors. The base flood line is at 16 feet, and the finished floor is currently at 16.7 feet.) >Will there be a pump for storm runoff? If there is a pump it should be located on the plans since it will be external mechanical equipment. (Geurse: Will locate it on the plans.) >Why does the chimney from the family room shift at the second floor? It looks odd to see the chimney come down with a window below. (Geurse: Wanted to tie the chimney against the wall so it is not free floating. It can be relocated.) >Finds the cutline confusing with not showing all the shingles. Would rather see the shingles shown on the elevation to be able to make a judgement. >Has there been thought to landscaping on either side for neighbor privacy? Particularly to the neighbor on the right. Any way to screen the views from the second story to the neighboring house? (Geurse: Neighbor is redesigning their house with a second story as well. The neighbors could discuss whether this is a concern. The driveway is too narrow for landscape screening.) >One chimney is stone, the other is shingle. Is this deliberate? (Geurse: Yes. If the chimney comes out of the ground a solid material is more typical.) >Will the windows in the dormers on the left allow light into the bedrooms? (Geurse: Yes, and also provide more articulation to the left elevation rather than having so much roof.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Well crafted, nicely articulated and detailed. >Struggling with the variance. Does not see an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance related to the site. >Likes how the dormers break up the massing of the roof. Agrees with the concept that the second story is tucked underneath the roof springing from the first floor. Without the dormers there would be a lot of expanse of roof shingles, and the dormers will bring light in. Adding the architectural feature without the additional floor space is analogous to a bay window that is stepped up into. >Chimney on the side is odd, disquieting. >Dormers seem to offer the potential to increase the FAR. >The roof will be framed and the dormers will be overlayed. The floor of the dormers will be the sloping roof below. Section C on Sheet A .7 shows how the dormers are framed. The dormer sits on top of the roof. >The offset chimney and the chimney above the window seem odd. The chimney going through the dormer doesn't work. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 25, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >(Kane: Variance findings need to be from the unique characteristics of the lot, not the family occupying the house. It is a land use determination that will go with the property regardless of the occupants.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners ) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull Proposed Project Analysis 160 Elm Ave - plans - 09.25.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Page & Turnbull has already recommended the changes. So is the Planning Commission meant to comment if it does not agree with the recommendation? (Gardiner: Correct.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Diana Ruiz, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Which windows are being replaced? Is it just the windows with the New symbol being replaced? (Ruiz: Yes.) >Will the new windows match the existing windows? (Ruiz: Yes, they will be similar in style.) >The new windows are identified as painted aluminum -clad. The existing windows are wood, correct? (Ruiz: The new windows will be similar in style with the divided lites, but they are aluminum -clad for the energy requirements.) >Per the Page & Turbull report, is there direction yet on where the rafter tails will be eliminated? (Ruiz: No yet. It will be shown on the revised plans.) >Does the hatch pattern on the second floor plan represent non -accessible area under the roof? (Ruiz: Yes.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017 September 25, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Project looks good. >If it comes back with the recommendations in the Page & Turnbull report it is approvable. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 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 25, 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 October 5, 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 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/17/2017