Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.03.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 28, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Sargent, Sargent, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent5 - DeMartini, Gum, and TerronesAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.March 14, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Approval of the minutes of the March 14, 2016 meeting were postponed until the next regular meeting as there was not a quorum of members present that were in attendance at the subject meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 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 There were no consent calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved design review application for a first and second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There we no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Anthony Ho represented the applicant. Commission questions: >What are the intentions with the landscaping on the affected side of the home? (Ho - there will be a fence along this side of the site.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels the fireplace venting will be mitigated well. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - b.11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a Negative Declaration and Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Patrick and Brittney Aitken, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the neighbor at 19 Carol Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report. Vice-Chair Loftis indicated that he had reviewed the recording from the design review study meeting on February 22, 2016, though he wasn't present at that meeting. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Suggested centering the front window on the ridge rather than on the front door element. The current placement appears awkward, but not a deal breaker. (Raduenz - would be open to coming back to the Commission with an FYI if the Commission directed restoring the original window design.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Project has improved since last review. Likes the windows better now. >The changes that have been made look good. >Would like to see an FYI submitted with the window centered. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application and adopt the negative declaration with the added condition that the placement of the front window, centering it with the ridge, be submitted as an FYI. Vice-Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - c.1709 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling (Grace Sun, applicant and property owner; Chu Design Associates Inc.) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent met with the applicant and general contractor. Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Grace Sun represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Why was the post design changed? Thought that four, four -by-four posts were the original post design. (Sun - the wood design color would not match the stucco; wanted the colors to match so stucco was selected.) >Has a real problem with all of the changes, particularly since they were all made without approaching the Commission first. Doesn't believe the project would have been approved as constructed. The Commission's approval has no value if projects are not built according to the approved plans. Maintain high quality design with use of quality materials. Is disappointed with the results in this case. >Doesn't believe that the window grid design would have been approved; a lot of windows were installed that were not as approved. Muntins are flat against the glass. (Sun - approached the Planning Division with the change and was suggested a trial applying the muntin bars. The current window design was presented when ordering the windows. Didn't know the difference.) Wasn't the original designer involved in the decision? (Sun - no.) >Has a real problem supporting the changes that have been made; has a tendency to not approve the changes and require the project to be built as approved. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The front porch columns are not as approved; who had control of the project? (Sun - is the property owner, but doesn't understand much about the construction.) >Does the applicant intend to live in the home? (Sun - originally had planned to live there, but the family circumstances have changed.) >Referenced letter from neighbor. Noted the comments regarding two sets of security floodlights . The Municipal Code does not permit light to shine off of the property. (Kane - verified that the lights could be subject to code enforcement.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Agrees with comments from other Commissioners. A litmus test that has been used previously is determining if the changes would have been approved as part of the original design. Doesn't feel that the windows and the column design would have been approved. >Ambivalent about the changes to the window trim, but does feel that the approved trim is more consistent with the architectural style. >Doesn't feel that there would have been a problem with the change in the rear deck railing. >The Commission has consistently disapproved window designs similar to what has been installed in this project. If this type of change is approved after the fact, it makes the Commission's efforts worthless. >Feels the finish quality of the house is very low. Would not approve the the window change, the trim change or the column change. >We need to put a process in place that prevents these types of changes being made without prior approval. >Maintaining the architectural character of the community is important. >Cannot approve the windows or the front-porch columns. >Can go either way on the window trim, but has real issues with the windows and the column design . The change to the pathway is acceptable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve only the change to the railing on the rear deck, the design of the garage door and the change to the pathway along the west side of the residence. Changes to the window design, the window trim and the front porch columns are not approved. Vice-Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - d.1380 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment in an existing commercial building (Nicole Zarate, applicant; Ray House, architect; Dorothy R. Wurlitzer Tr Et Al, property owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Maria (last name not given) represented the applicant. Commission questions: >How will recycling, trash, etc. be handled? (Hudak - is an outside area within an easement area that will continue to be used, but will be upgraded for this use.) >Question regarding "bicycle" coffee delivery? (Maria - explained the procedure.) >Has opening the business on Broadway been considered? (Maria - has always been focused on Burlingame Avenue.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: There were no additional comments. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Vice-Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - e.612 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for substantial construction for a major renovation and single story addition (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Gordon Bull, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission questions: There were no questions of the applicant. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >Likes the project and the changes that have been made. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Discussion of motion: >Vice-Chair Loftis noted that he had reviewed the recording of the February 22, 2016 design review study session for the project in advance of the current public hearing. >Nice design that fits in massing-wise, but the style doesn't necessarily fit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.438 Marin Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Rob Simonds, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Always difficult to place an addition on a split -level home. Struck by how tall the finished home will be. Any ideas on how to reduce the apparent height? (Geurse - could reduce the roof pitch, but concerned it could make the affected area look "squished".) Not sure how the new roof pitch fits in with the existing roof pitch. Could consider installing a skylight rather than a dormer above the stairwell . (Geurse - not big on skylights, but will review.) >Has broken up the design well, particularly since it is on a corner lot. There are four different roof pitches; would like to see one or two different slopes that could reduce the apparent height of the structure. (Geurse - will review.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Geurse - yes.) >Is very nicely proportioned and composed. >May wish to alter the design of the chimney to better fit the home design. >Agrees that the apparent height may be an issue. Public comments: There were no public comments. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: There were no additional comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the regular action calendar when revisions have been made and the project is ready for consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - b.1349 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and architect; Daniel and Andrea Valim, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the neighbor across the street at 1344 Paloma Avenue. Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding the side setbacks from the existing and new walls. (Keylon - provided clarification.) Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer and Daniel Valim represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Was an addition at the rear considered as an alternative to building an addition on the second floor? (Meyer - wanted to keep as much of the rear yard as possible. Wanted to keep the childrens room close to the master bedroom so they could keep an eye on the children.) >Have the plans been reviewed with the neighbors. (Valim - have shared the plans with the most affected neighbor who had no issues with the design.) >Will the landscaping be changed? (Valim - have no plans to change the landscaping.) >Are there any issues with the height of the side gate? (Valim - no plans to change it.) >Were larger windows considered on the side of the addition to break up the wall space? (Meyer - the window on the right is in a closet. The other window is in the master bedroom area, but is in an area where an entertainment center would likely be placed.) >The new facade with the medallions appears very flat. Is the window operable, leaded glass; the railing functional? Is there some form of three -dimensional design feature that could provide relief? (Meyer - will review.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Doesn't have a problem with the height issue. Does have a problem with the declining height envelope encroachment. The house already appears prominent from the adjacent rear yards; the addition may further impose upon the neighbors' privacy. Additionally, the lack of windows on the elevation makes it appear plain. >Doesn't feel that the addition fits with the rhythm of the existing design. >The addition is nicely done and supportable. >The height and the declining height envelope requests are supportable due to the change in the grade. >There could be a way to add at the rear of the property without the current design. >Feels there is a lot of blank space on the northwest elevation. >Appreciated keeping all of the trees. >Agreed with looking at the rear for an addition, but couldn't determine how this could effectively be achieved. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: There was no additional discussion. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the regular action calendar when revisions are made and the item is ready for consideration. Discussion of motion: >May helpful for the applicant to do a study of other potential locations where the addition could be placed. >Suggested perspective drawings and massing drawings be provided. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Loftis, Sargent, and Bandrapalli3 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - c.1491-1493 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five story, 11-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (Mark Haesloop, CHS Development Group, applicant; Chi -Hwa Shao, Sheil Patel c/o CHS Development Group, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Are there any findings that need to be made regarding the lot combination? (Kane - will bring back any findings at the time of action.) >Commissioner Sargent noted that he reviewed the recording from the last design review discussion prior to tonight's public hearing. >Noted that the elevator shaft appears to exceed the height limit. (Keylon - indicated that there are exceptions for equipment enclosures and other items.) Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Toby Levy and Mark Haesloop represented the applicant. Commission questions: >What issues were raised by the neighbors at the two community meetings? (Levy - some of the neighbors are present and will likely address their concerns. Haesloop - neighbors expressed concern regarding the view from the building adjacent to the proposed building. The issue of the tree on the side where the green wall is proposed was discussed at length; a tree at this location is not possible since it would be atop the podium. Are still determining where the green wall can be placed. The second meeting was attended by only two people, though broadly noticed. Have eliminated the front of the fifth floor; should not be visible from people across the street. Have agreed to include a condition of approval to power wash adjacent buildings at the conclusion of construction.) >Are any of the units proposed to be below market rate? (Haesloop - will be all market rate.) >Appreciates the effort to reduce the apparent height of the building by moving the fifth floor unit back from the street. Concerned that the stair tower may still be an issue. (Levy - tried to step up to the stair tower and used it to help disguise the elevator penthouse. Can certainly look at the issue again.) >Noted that all spaces will be unistall; concerned about the use of the spaces with the smaller than standard size. (Levy - the neighbors wanted as many parking spaces as possible. Could eliminate a space and make the rest larger; open to guidance.) >Will all of the spaces be assigned? (Levy - one will be assigned per unit, with an additional space for the three-bedroom unit.) >Believes the vegetable boxes in the rear yard are a nice idea, but concerned about how much light they will receive? (Levy - were provided at the request of a former Commissioner. Could draw people into the rear yard to tend the planters.) >Concerned regarding parking impacts given the presence of the school across the street. (Levy - the five spaces at grade are intended to be "floaters". The residents of the building are not the ones that will be creating the parking problem. Have more than met the requirements.) >Is the metal element at the stair tower in front of glazing? (Levy - will be an open stairwell with a lattice/trellis type of covering.) >Questioned the material used to enclose the other stair tower. (Levy - will be Hardie Board.) >Where will the plant materials be planted that will cover the green wall? (Levy - can be designed with pockets for plant materials, but can also bring the element to the ground. Will study further.) >Look at the unistall spaces; the harder it is to get into a space, the less likely to be used. Public comments: Stephen Kaufman - spoke on behalf of the HOA of 1499 Oak Grove Avenue. Met with the developers previously. The developers added the trellis facing their building, but are concerned about the long -term maintenance of this element by the new development's HOA; could become an eyesore. Still concerned about the boxy nature of the building. Are at the very edge of the Downtown Specific Plan Area; a five-story building and the height are an issue given the predominant heights of the other existing buildings in the area. Parking problems are exacerbated by the school and the churches in the area . Still a section of the fifth floor that is right in front of their building. Betsy and Rick Valdez, reside across the street from the project site - concerned about the boxy nature of the design and the design and bulk. Looks like an office building; is taller than other buildings in the area. Their living room will look out at the stair well structure; suggested visiting their property to gain Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes perspective. Concerned that the lighting of the stairwell will be an impact; compared to the stairwells at Safeway. Parking is an issue particularly on weekends due to the churches and during the week due to the school. Noted that people park in the neighborhood to go to the airport. Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Has the same concerns regarding many of the neighbors given the transition in zoning. Would like to see a smaller building that better fits with the character of the neighborhood. Has a more industrial feel. >Reviewing the floor plans reveals the boxiness of the building design. The stairwell element is a bit disturbing because it lends more to an industrial design. Would like a design that is more in keeping with residential design. >Doesn't support the building height. >As a concept doesn't have a problem with the height, but given this location could be a bit much for the area. >The issues raised at the prior design review meeting echo concerns that were expressed during this hearing. >Makes more sense to have standard sized stalls. The neighborhood as a whole has a parking issue; cannot be solved by an individual project. Doesn't feel comfortable with deviating from the standards developed with the Downtown Specific Plan. Noted that the trend is to provide less parking in this type of setting. >Design is boxy and massive; should be brought down in scale. Could support it as a four -story building. Needs to appear more residential in nature. >Proposed eliminating the fifth floor and retain the number of parking spaces. >Review the landscape plan for the site. >Feels there is plenty of precedent along El Camino Real for "Modernist" residential projects . Believes the stepping back of the fifth floor helps to reduce the scale. Believes that the small multi-family project to the left will likely be redeveloped at some point. >Would rather not lapse into nostalgia with every building; there is plenty of opportunity to design buildings of non-traditional design that are more cosmopolitan. >Requested that the applicant meet with the neighbors one more time and really address the concerns. Community Development Director Meeker noted that no action is required this evening. The comments received will be considered by the applicant and the project will be brought back for action following completion of the environmental analysis and any required public circulation period. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Vice-Chair Loftis noted an upcoming community center CAC meeting on April 20, 2016. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that Commissioner Sargent was re -appointed to the Planning Commission by the City Council at its March 21, 2016 regular meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/26/2016 March 28, 2016Planning 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 March 28, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 2016, 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 4/26/2016