Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.04.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 25, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and SargentPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.March 28, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the minutes of March 28, 2016. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent4 - Recused:DeMartini, Gum, and Terrones3 - b.April 11, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the minutes of April 11, 2016. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Recused:Loftis, and Sargent2 - 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 a.223 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family dwelling (Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Chris Bush and S. Jane Woolley, property owner) (66 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 - Recused:DeMartini1 - b.1116 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Dustin Finney, property owner ) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones noted that he resides within 500-feet of the subject property. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2714 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Floor Area Ratio Variance to convert crawlspace to habitable area. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, Architect; Bill Cunningham -Corso, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair DeMartini and Commissioner Sargent noted that they received a tour of the property from the owner's representative. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Gary Diebel, Bill Cunningham-Corso, and Mike Cunningham represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >How did it happen that the over -excavation occurred; it seems that just the space for the footings would have been excavated. (Diebel - referenced soils report and structural report. The contractor needed to dig deeper than normal to create the foundations required. The structural engineer wanted a slab across the area to tie the areas together at the foundation level. Cunningham - soils engineer Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes required over-excavation to provide a bearing surface for the wall. Also required all areas of that level to be tied together with a slab.) Public comments: Judy Farina, caretaker for the estate - Have received a lot of support from the neighborhood. The improvements have increased the values of other homes in the area. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Can support the application. The applicant has made the argument that this is a unique hillside site that is not in the hillside area of the City. The volume was already enclosed. Agreed with the findings of the structural engineer and soils engineer. Has no greater impact than existed previously. >The laundry and storage space will not impact the neighborhood. >Can also support the arguments presented by the applicant, but is struggling with the legal basis for granting the variance. Is a question of fairness; similar conditions could exist for many homes with basements. Knows of instances where a space such as this has been filled in in order to comply with the City's regulations. Can't support the application. >Is swayed by the suggested findings in the staff report, though at first felt strict compliance with the City's regulations was necessary. Does approval of this request set a precedent for future similar requests? Is falling on the side of supporting the request at this time. >Because of the nature of the lot, it is infeasible to install a normal basement. Appreciates that the owner has preserved the home. Approval of the request will not change the nature of the use, nor be visible, nor will additional parking be required. >Appreciates that the home's footprint hasn't been expanded. Understands the difficulty and will support the project. >Is a case of no harm, no foul. FAR is a means of regulating bulk and mass; the proposal does not affect the mass of the building. The loggia is also being counted as floor area. >Has difficulty making the findings that are necessary for approval of the variance. If the proposal is approved, then more requests may come in seeking similar relief even though it is expensive to achieve construction of a basement. >Is not using the argument that it is difficult to build a basement. Does feel that there are exceptional circumstances given the nature of this property. The sloping hillside site, the existing volume that exists, the engineering challenges. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Chair DeMartini asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Nay:DeMartini, and Sargent2 - 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. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair DeMartini and Commissioner Terrones noted that they had reviewed the video of the design review study hearing. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer and Daniel Vadim represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: There were no questions/comments. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Have done a nice job with the design. The renderings were very helpful in determining potential impacts. Can support the project. >Appear to have addressed most if not all items discussed at study. Is difficult to add on to this type of home. Can support the special permit request for height. >To have requests declining height envelope and height leads him to believe that the design is pushing too far. Feels there may be a means of adding to the home. The architecture isn't helping with the privacy issues. >Given the sizing of the windows, it appears that the designer is also concerned about impacts upon neighbors. >Supports the special permit findings. The proposed addition cannot be achieved without exceeding the height limit. No neighbors have expressed privacy concerns. Can support the application. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 - Nay:Gaul1 - c.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. Chair DeMartini noted that he had viewed the recording from the design review study meeting and had a discussion with the applicant. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had reviewed the recording as well. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission questions/comments: >Noted an error on the garage elevation that indicates the incorrect roof pitch. >What is the story with the tree that has reappeared where the porch is located? Is the tree protected? What will the applicant do to address the issue? (Geurse - is a Gingko tree and is not known if it is protected. Hurin - will have the City Arborist review this and make a determination.) Would be helpful to have this information ahead of time in the future. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Has made nice changes that have addressed the height concerns. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the applicaton. Chair DeMartini called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.605 Vernon Way - zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit for height (Dan Biermann, Design Studio, applicant and designer; Hunter and Elena Middleton, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum had communicated with neighbors at 620 Vernon and 337 Clarendon. Chair DeMartini had a brief interaction with the neighbor at 615 Vernon. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Noted a discrepancy regarding height measurements on the plan, relative to curb versus relative to grade. (Meeker - noted that this is a question for the applicant.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Dan Biermann represented the applicant. There was a survey prepared that outlines the property lines . The six-inch difference represents the difference in elevation at the curb versus at grade. The height envelope is from the curb. Commission questions/comments: >Handsome design. In the typical gable it appears that there are vents, then some squares below; what are these? (Biermann - accent items and a ridge vent.) >Noted the tapered wood columns at the front, but at the rear it appears that a stucco post extends up to a stucco header and to the windows on the right side. (Biermann - the base will be stucco. The columns and the header on the rear are to be wood, not stucco. This wood trim will extend along the right side near the windows.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Biermann - yes.) >Has window material been chosen yet? (Biermann - aluminum-clad, simulated true divided light . Wood on the interior.) >Concerned that a lot of the details will add to the cost - concerned about any potential changes . (Biermann - have confirmed with contractor that the design is within the proposed budget.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: None. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent7 - b.1308 Castillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Brian Roche, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. James Chu and Brian Roche represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >The plans show the stairway enclosure to be curved, will the windows be curved too? Looks like there may be corners where the curve breaks. The execution of the curve is critical. Wants to make sure that it doesn't appear cheap. Doesn't want to see a lot of ridges on the roof of the curved portion . (Chu - noted that the curved wall has been done before. The windows will be flat.) >What is the thinking behind the shiplap bays and the arched roofs? (Chu - wanted to provide a bit of a difference in the materials.) >Feels that the proportion on the front dormer makes the second floor look a bit heavy; revisit. >What is the wide path to the right of the driveway? (Chu - an easement that can't be used for anything. Roche - will have a fence placed there.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >The rendering is helpful, but makes the home look wider than it actually is; this makes the bay on the front stand out more. Likes how the plan is represented in the elevations. Critical to property execute the curved wall. Can come back on Consent. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for consideration. Discussion of motion: >Reconsider the positioning of the front dormer. >Something bothersome about the design as represented in the rendering; looks suburban. >Not convinced with the explanation regarding the use of shiplap siding. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent7 - c.1128 Rhinette Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and a new detached garage (Deborah Vieira, applicant and designer; Gabriel and Molly Lamb, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair DeMartini met with the applicant and had a tour of the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is it true that the trellis /carport must be removed? (Meeker - noted that staff research found that a permit was issued previously for a carport that was made of metal, set back three feet from the property line. The current carport is apparently a replacement that is of flammable material and cannot be permitted to remain on the property line.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Deborah Viera represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >The monochromatic renderings are difficult to read; suggested perhaps turning off this feature on future copies so that the details may be better determined. >What windows are to be installed? (Viera - Marvin Integrity with simulated, true divided lights.) >Will the front door be glazed? (Viera - noted that that is the dining room door, the entry is off to the side.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Gabriel Lamb, property owner - yes.) >The facades are pretty blank, but a lot of brackets are being used. (Viera - are trying to honor the original design of the structure.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >The brackets appear very prominent in the drawings, not certain that they will appear as prominent in reality. Draws attention to the big, blank surface. >Feels the brackets tend to gingerbread up the facades. The upper walls seem long and flat. The upper level seems to just stack on top. Is there a means of breaking up the side walls? >Does this item merit design review consultant? >Generally the massing is done well, but is swayed by the comments regarding the blankness of the facades. Need to give clear direction. >There is something to be said for simple detailing - don't need to load up with details. Detailing to break up the massing would be helpful. >Elevations are nicely composed, but some of the details need to be beefed up to bring down the massing of the second floor. >If subtle detail changes are requested, it doesn't necessarily warrant referral to a design review consultant. Give the designer another opportunity to address the comment. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Discussion of Motion: >On the southwest side elevation. The wall with the chimney has a much larger fascia than anywhere else, this is not true everywhere on the structure. there is a mix of spindly features. >Distribute some of the elements of the front porch around the project. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent7 - d.712 Vernon Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Brian Milford, Martinkovic Milford Architects, applicant and architect; Jason and Susan Cooper, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, DeMartini and Sargent met with the applicant and their representatives. Commissioner Gum met with the property owner behind the site at 715 Lexington. Commissioner Gaul met with the project designer and a former Planning Commissioner. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Noted a discrepancy between the staff's and applicant's calculations of FAR. (Hurin - noted that there is sometimes instances where the applicant may not have included certain items that are included in Burlingame. >Is the entire trellis being counted toward FAR? (Hurin - yes.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jason Cooper and Nate Hanes represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Thanked the applicant for reaching out to the neighbors. >With respect to the lot coverage variance, is there any reason why the trellis couldn't be reduced to 24-inches? (Cooper - no problem.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is a sensitive neighborhood in terms of second floor additions. Understands the applicant's approach to the design. Can understand the logic and support for the variance. Supports the application. >The variance is supportable because it is on the interior of the structure and doesn't impact anyone else. >The new addition appears to be cement shakes versus the existing wood shakes on the existing roof - clarify when resubmitted. >Appreciates reducing neighbor impacts by not having second -story windows on the sides. Look at this again, however; neighbor impact needs to be balanced with development rights of applicant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Discussion of motion: >Can support that there are exceptional circumstances due to the design of the courtyard-style house, but doesn't support smaller lot size as justification. The lot size is not a factor in granting the variance request. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Bandrapalli, and Sargent7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair DeMartini note that the next General Plan CAC meeting is on Wednesday, April 27, 2016. Commissioner Loftis noted that the Community Center CAC met on April 20, 2016 where it was presented a couple of options. There was consensus to move forward in a specific direction on the design. Packets will be prepared for the CAC to use for outreach regarding the project design. Chair DeMartini noted that the Commission officers will rotate at the next meeting; Commissioner Loftis will become Chair, Commissioner Gum will become Vice -Chair and Commissioner Gaul will become Secretary. He further thanked his colleagues on the Commission and staff. Commissioner Terrones thanked Chair DeMartini for his service over the past year. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker reported that the City Council introduced the proposed amendments to side-yard setback requirements in the BMU, MMU, HMU and CAR zoning districts at its meeting of April 18, 2016. The amendments are scheduled to be adopted at the May 2, 2016 City Council meeting. City Attorney Kane noted that an appeal of the Commission's approval of the project at 225 California Drive had been received. The hearing on the appeal will be set by the City Council at its upcoming meeting on May 2, 2016. a.205 Bayswater Avenue- FYI to review proposed changes to a previously approved Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016 April 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Design Review application Accepted. b.616 Vernon Way - FYI to review proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application Pulled for a public hearing. The revisions to the front porch are not acceptable and change the character of the design. Also look at the design of the front window - appears out of proportion. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 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 April 25, 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 May 5, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 5/13/2016