Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.05.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 9, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - BandrapalliAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.April 25, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the April 25, 2016 meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Gum, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - a.1308 Castillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - 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). (Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Brian Roche, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.225 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for one year extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and 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 (e) (2). (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Sinhad and Medina Begic, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber c.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 . This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e)(1). (Dan Biermann, Design Studio, applicant and designer; Hunter and Elena Middleton, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1128 Rhinette Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Deborah Vieira, applicant and designer; Gabriel and Molly Lamb, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant prior to the Design Review Study meeting. Commissioner Loftis talked with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Deborah Vieira represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: There were no questions/comments. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Double fascia is an improvement. >Bump-out adds to the side. >Fits in well with the neighborhood, and meets the design review criteria. >The articulation is in keeping with the original architecture. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2).(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 DeMartini, Terrones and Gaul met with the applicant and consultant prior to the Design Review Study meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Brian Milford represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Is there a plan to replace the tree in front? (Milford: Has contacted an arborist, will replant after the construction. Will plant the same kind of tree or something similar.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Fits in well with the neighborhood. Good massing and articulation. >Has done a lot to mitigate the additional square footage. >Unique circumstance since the house is already pushed out to all four corners of the setbacks, so any addition will need to be on the interior courtyard. What might normally impact the neighbors does not impact here. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - c.1580 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration and Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, inSite, applicant and designer; Parviz Kamangar Tr, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and property owner prior to the Design Review Study meeting. Commissioners Gaul and Terrones met with the property owner prior to the Design Review Study meeting. Chair Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >How will the frosted glass be obscured? (Tse: It will be a matte-look glass, satin-etched.) >The bathroom window is missing on the rendering but show on the elevation. (Tse: It was an oversight, and will be included as shown on the elevation.) >Exterior lighting is not consistent with city regulations and guidelines. (Tse: Have found that contemporary homes with deeper eaves can be enhanced with canned lights recessed into the eaves . Could reduce the lighting on the side against the cedar siding. On the front it helps to light the balcony outside the Master Bedroom. Has reduced the amount of lighting already.) Surfaces are not supposed to be highlighted except for landings or balconies, should not be more than 9 feet above adjacent grade, walls should not be floodlit, and landscaping should not be illuminated. (Tse: Would like to retain lighting on balcony and entry porch area, can be reduced along the sides. Lighting will be recessed and is not intended to throw off a lot of light .)(Hurin: Staff will work with the applicant on conformance during the building permit process. The lighting on the balcony and porch would be permitted, as well as some wall fixtures.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Changes have been good, such as the wood siding and the increased size of the porch. >Concern with the impact of the second story to the neighbor on the right side, proximity to the adjacent home. >Not asking for a side setback variance - are building within the allowed setbacks. It is not an encroachment, and complies with the Declining Height Envelope. >Neighbor is no longer expressing concerns. The concerns have been addressed with the frosted glass. >The project is well-designed and well massed, but still concerned with neighborhood compatibility . The neighborhood has less traditional design around it however. >Exterior lighting should be removed except for what is allowed by code. >Reduced height is not significant but is a concession that should be taken into account. >In this neighborhood this lot is one of the few that could support a design of this sort. >Has been working with the Building Official on the setback issues, and with a structural engineer on the foundation. >No issues with the CEQA based on the historical evaluation and Initial Study. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the environmental review. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0-1. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: >that the applicant shall work with staff to comply with standards for landscaping and overhead/exterior lighting, and that revised plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Nay:Gum, and Sargent2 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1345 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for design review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Nancy Scheinholtz, applicant and architect; Adam and Denise Steinberger, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >If a future owner added a closet to the media room, would it be considered a bedroom? (Hurin: Closet is not a consideration for determining a bedroom. Definition requires that it a bedroom be at least 70 square feet, minimum dimension of 7 feet, and have a door and a window. Also cannot walk through to get to another room.) >Why is this not considered three stories? (Gardiner: The lowest level meets the definition of a half-story.)(Hurin : A half-story is defined as an area that is no greater than two -thirds of the area above it or below it. It may either be an upper level of lower level half -story. From the rear it appears like a 3 -story house, but technically it is considered a 2 1/2 story house. The definition is to accommodate split-level houses and houses on sloping lots.) >Is the office considered a bedroom but the media room is not because it has to be walked through to get to other rooms? (Hurin: The office is considered to be a potential bedroom. Can follow up with the status of the media room.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Nancy Scheinholtz represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >The existing fascia and rafter tails have different sizes. Will these be retained? (Scheinholtz: The front will be matched, and the sides will match existing.) >Right side rafter tails are not shown in the plan. Is it just a drafting error? (Scheinholtz: Yes.) >What type of windows will be used? (Scheinholtz: Wood clad.) Plans just say wood, so details should be clarified. >Main level fireplace pops out on the side but is not shown on the elevation. Can there be a short chimney with a vertical termination? (Scheinholtz: Chimney would need to be very high since it is at the low portion of the roof.) Zero clearance direct-vent units do not require those same clearances. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >On the rear elevation add some structure to the bottom of the bay to give appearance of support . The style of the house shows supports like the rafter tails. Brackets below the bay, for example. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. Second floor is integrated much better than the original addition. Height has been brought down. Supportable with some of the details. >Right side looks like a three -story house. Wants to see what it would look like two doors down looking up the hill. A rendering would be helpful. >Two-dimension drawing is deceiving. From the front the part that comes forward is over on the left. >Changes will not impact the right elevation, it will improve it. >Drafting error in the muntin pattern on front window. There are a lot of patterns going on. >There are a lot of security lights on the existing house, directed towards the street. >Arched-topped doorway seems odd since it is the only arch in the design, however it is existing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS The General Plan Community Advisory Committee meeting last month discussed circulation, including bike paths and different street configurations. Community workshop upcoming on May 21st, which will include presentation from Burlingame High School students on their Bayfront project. Chair Loftis will check in with commissioners serving on subcommittees to confirm assignments. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS On May 2nd the City Council approved the revised side setback regulations for mixed use zones in the Downtown Specific Plan area. It also made some agreements to consider the sale of Parking Lot E as part of a re-use development of the former post office, provided the proposed project meets the expectations of the community and is approved. There will be a community engagement process to obtain input on the proposed project. On May 16th the City Council will consider the proposed amendments to the covered porch floor area exemptions. The appeal of the 225 California Drive approval has been withdrawn. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016 May 9, 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 May 9, 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 19, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/24/2016