Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.06.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 13, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.May 23, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve as amended the May 23, 2016 meeting minutes with the edits as submitted to staff. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 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 There were no Consent items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1217 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Ben Shapiro, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owner Ben Shapiro. Commission questions/comments: >Have the revised plans been shared with neighbors? (Shapiro: No, did that initially but all feedback before came through the public hearing process rather than back directly. Everyone had their numbers from before.)(Geurse: Some of the previous lettes were anonymous, so could not respond. Public notices were sent out from the Planning Division, and people could visit the Planning Division to review the plans.) >Why were changes not made to the metal chimneys per the design review consultant's suggestion? (Geurse: Has raised brick chimney and lowered the flue. They are not visible from the street.) >What will the finish on the flues be? (Geurse: Painted. Not raw aluminum.) >What is the thought process behind the chimneys? (Geurse: Wanted a bit of a modern flair, with the chimney as an accent feature. The house has some features of contemporary architecture .)(Shapiro: Found seven examples of brick chimneys with metal flues within 1 1/2 blocks.) >What is the material of the ridgeline skylight? (Geurse: Aluminum with glass, not acrylic.) Should specify that as glass. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Still struggling with the chimney design. It is the one part of the design that is not working. Has seen metal chimneys on brick such as the 1100 block of Drake, but should not necessarily be considered precedents if they are bad designs. They will not be seen from the street but will be seen from other neighbors. >Revisions have turned out well. Scaled nicely, overall will fit in with neighbors. If the flues have a painted finish they will be OK. It is a vestige of the contemporary look of the earlier design, and could add a spark depending on the color. If black they will disappear. >The tall flue looks like they did not want to spend the money to extend the chimney. >Has made tremendous strides on neighborhood compatibility. >Would prefer a lower plate height on the second floor. The higher plate height makes the second story feel pronounced. Could keep the plate height but tuck it into the roof structure. >Chimney is not very visible from the street view, so is OK. >Style, mass and bulk of the structure is good. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the item. Discussion of the motion: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Will not support the motion, since the house is approvable as it stands. >Reason to support the motion is simply the metal chimneys. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul4 - Nay:Terrones1 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - b.1345 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for design review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Nancy Scheinholtz represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >A rendering was suggested but not provided. The reason given was time and cost. What would be the cost for the rendering? (Scheinholtz: At least two days of work, approximately $2000. Thought the setbacks were fairly significant on the sides, from 7'-3" to 12'-9" on the side in question, which would be significant enough so it would not read as a three-story structure.) >Could a band be added to the bay in the back? (The house is very simple, there is no ornamentation at all on the existing house other than projecting rafter tails. Adding corbels and bands would not be consistent with the architecture of the existing house. The bay in itself breaks up the flatness of the facade. Adding ornamentation to a house that is so simple will call attention to something that shouldn't be. Is only seen from the back.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. >Architect has taken an addition that was added on the back and better integrated it. >Likes the simplicity. >Still has concerns with the right side elevation. Needed to see a rendering to be convinced, but it Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes wasn't provided. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Nay:DeMartini1 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.119 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Brian and Jennifer Buhl, applicants and property owners; Ruff + Associates, architect;) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >When do changes become a new design or a whole new application? This has gone beyond just a few changes. (Hurin: Considerations would include if there is a change to the envelope of the building, a significant change to the design, etc. In this instance there were not significant changes to the overall envelope of the building.) >Why was no design review board posted? (Hurin: Signs are not typically posted for Design Review amendments. Signs are only posted for new Design Review applications. However this can be reconsidered where there have been significant changes to the design.) Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Martin Breuer, Ruff + Associates, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Any thought given to a flat roof given the modern approach? (Breuer: Thought about it but thought it would push too much given the neighborhood. Thought this roof would fit into the neighborhood well.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Changes are remarkable. The changes were made voluntarily, and the new design is better than the originally approved design. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Loftis1 - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1909 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation and a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Jeremy Gordon and Jean Phatthanaphuti, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff/comments: >PDF writer is not good for graphics. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Why were shutters not added as suggested previously? (Bergman: Wants interior and exterior to look simple and compatible. Some banding was added to the bottom of the windows at the front and at the entry way to be more inviting give the windows more of a relationship.) >Were any changes made to the windows on the Master Bedroom and Study? (Bergman: Windows have been made more narrow and smaller, window seat has been brought forward.) >Appreciates that construction hours will start at 8:30 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Changes are good, supportable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.832 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were not ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steven Clark represented the applicant, with property owner Eric Fanene. Commission questions/comments: >What is the justification for the attached garage? The Special Permit application does not address the questions. (Fanene: Home next door is two stories, so wanted a design that would provide privacy on the lot.)(Clark: Garage is almost in the same location as the existing detached garage. Wants the garage to be as far forward as possible from an aesthetic standpoint. A detached garage would take up more of the usable lot. Attached garage is a more suitable solution for the width and depth of this particular site. It steps the house from the side yard up to the second story addition. If it was separate it would be like a shed in the back of the residence. The adjacent two -story structure overpowers the house.) >The design guidelines emphasize detached garages particularly where the preponderance of the garages in the neighborhood are detached. In this neighborhood the pattern is primarily detached garages. (Clark: Would prefer to have the attached garage as it makes the house more livable. It allows the area behind the garage to be used as residential living space.) If the preference is to retain the attached garage, the questions on the application need to be recrafted. >Why is the addition situated to the back? (Clark: Structurally it is easier to build over new rather than over existing. Could extend the slope from the front of the house up to second story, with cutouts for the windows on either side. Can look at alternatives.) >Has the design been shared with the neighbors? (Fanene: Yes. They are happy the house is being cleaned up.) >PVC 6-inch white fascia boards are shown on the elevation. Is that referring to polyvinyl chloride plastic? (Clark: Does not know, needs to check with the contractor.) Should be clarified; do not want to see plastic fascia boards. >The elevation on the front on Sheet A .3 does not look accurate. The window with the prairie -style grids appears wider in the drawing than in the photo or in person; the dimensions of the elevation do not appear accurate. Also the window does not match the rest of the windows. >Bay window on the driveway side gets cut in half with the garage addition. (Clark: They like the bay . It still reads as a bay from the interior; on the outside it reads as a bump.) >(Clark: With the attached garage the stairs are hidden by the garage, and the play alcove is hidden by the garage. Would regret losing that with a detached garage.) >Could re-craft the Special Permit application based on the location of the existing detached garage, in terms of existing mass and character etc. >Who is doing what on the project? (Clark: Is an architect, has moved out of the area but still does design analysis and preliminary design up to a point. Kanler takes over the project as design-build.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Looks like house behind a house in front. The right elevation looks like a duplex. >Would prefer a wood garage door rather metal. >The plans indicate that the existing landscaping will remain, but the existing landscaping is in poor condition. The landscaping on the plans should be improved. >Addition could be integrated into the existing house better. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Compatibility of the garage is important. The Special Permit application needs to be recrafted and edited - it is hard to follow. >The application will benefit from consultation with a design review consultant. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the Discussion Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.320 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, and Special Permits for a basement and attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Eric and Donna Colson Tr, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as his office is the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor to the left at 330 Pepper Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong represented the applicant, with property owner Eric Colson. Commission questions/comments: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Colson: Yes, on all sides. Five neighbors total.) >Will the firepit be gas or wood? The neighbor's tree seems to overhang, and there is an existing dogwood. (Colson: A low gas grill next to a little putting green.) >Was a detached garage considered? (Furling: Looked at options but the front third of the site is consumed by the creek. A detached garage would limit the outdoor usable area on the site. It is also the pattern in the area. Have tried to minimize the impact by turning the garage doors away from the street and providing side access.) >Why a two-car garage when only one is required? (Furlong: Provide more off-street covered parking, and keep vehicles out of sight.)(Colson: Also to have space for bicycles.) >Concern with the front windows looking directly into the garage? (Colson: The creek and landscaping will block the view from the street .)(Furlong: Wants the window so it does not appear to be a garage facing the street. Wants to give a nice face to the street.) >What is head-height storage? (Furlong: Enough room to provide walking room.) >Have the neighbors expressed any concerns with digging? (Colson: The street is under construction right now so people are concerned with that. Nobody has brought up concerns with digging or the basement.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >Likes the design. Is consistent with the neighborhood design guidelines. >The reason the neighboring houses have two -car garages is because they are 5-bedroom houses so it is required. However it matches the pattern of the neighborhood and it is a unique situation with the creek. >Benefit of the 2-car garage is it encourages a second car to be removed from the driveway. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when the environmental review has been completed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.1152 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for facade changes for a new restaurant (Lemonade Restaurant Group, LLC, applicant; Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc ., architect; Johal Family Trust, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Brady Titus and Alan Jackson represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Why wood siding? Other Lemonade locations do not have wood, and it is not typical of Burlingame Avenue. (Titus: Not a direct response to anything particular on Burlingame Avenue. Southern California restaurants are very bright with lots of glass and metal. Felt that aesthetic didn't translate into this area . This is a design move for all Bay Area locations. Wants to keep the brand integrity similar throughout the Bay Area.) >Seating against the building is two -seats wide, but one -seat wide is more typical for Burlingame Avenue. Would that block the sidewalk? (Titus: Wants to provide as many seats as possible from a business standpoint. Won't encroach on the full width of the pathway; is applying for an encroachment permit. Rendering may not be fully accurate .)(Kane: The Engineering Department has standards for where the tables can go on the sidewalk, so will be a subject for discussion with that permit.) >Rendering should show street trees and furniture. >Why is tile parapet not shown correctly? Are changes being proposed? (Titus: Mistake in rendering . Wall wood expanse will be 1 1/2 - 2 feet shorter than shown in rendering. Tile is not being touched at all.) >Is lighting under the awning for the tables or just decorative? (Titus: For the tables. Stays open until about 9 p.m., wants people to be able to see the tables.) >Page A-3.0 shows a large security camera. What is it for and will it be as large as shown on the drawing? (Titus: Cameras are about 4 inches round. Small black dome, inconspicuous. Intended to show who is coming in and out of the front door in case of robbery or theft. Cameras are both inside and outside.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Lights and heaters should be shown even though they would be subject to a separate permit. >Sheet A-4.2 script sign mounting detail is for the sign to be mounted to a wall. (Titus: It is a mistake. It is a holdover from an interior sign at the back of the building.) >Will menu board be mounted outside? (Titus: No, it will be on the inside.) >Will the siding be wood or Hardie plank? (Titus: Hardie plank. Concerned wood would be too soft and could be scarred by customers or chairs. Same look and feel but more sturdy.) Should provide a sample. >Is the wood driven from design consultants or is it the franchise look wanting to be achieved? (Titus: It is the franchise look wanting to be achieved for the Bay Area.) Feels like a lemonade "shack" - doesn't make sense for Burlingame Avenue. >Traditional buildings would have a knee wall along the base to protect the wainscot from people leaning up against it. La Boulange had its own identity but had some detail and contributed to the texture and feel of Burlingame Avenue. Can understand wanting to strip away and do something different, would like some kind of detail and design that continues the texture of Burlingame Avenue. (Titus: Roofline will mitigate the paneling. Awning is a contrasting material and the underside is bright shiny white with yellow on the front, very smooth and slick look, projects 4 feet from the building face. Would not want to entirely eliminate the board material as it is being carried through a number of locations. It is part of a branded environment and doesn't want to compromise the brand too much.) >Needs more than just reducing the amount of wood and correcting the rendering. The siding can be used handsomely, possibly with reworking the knee wall. >The design review criteria emphasizes restoring or retaining existing original architectural features. >Is there a location using this design currently? (Titus: Two locations in development. One is under construction, one is in planning.) >Do the branding guidelines specify Hardie plank specifically or just wood -like exterior? (Titus: Neither. It is a new material chosen specifically for the Bay Area. The awning is ubiquitous in all locations.) >What is the depth of the sign? (Titus: The stroke is 2 inches in depth. The face of the letters is flush with the front of the awning with light reflecting on a matching plate behind.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concerned with compatibility to Burlingame Avenue. Understands desire to project a brand across multiple locations but needs to fit into the streetscape. Needs to go further than tweaking the rendering . The elevation is a long way away from being approvable. >Did not see the same design over and over at its other locations. In Los Angeles did a good job fitting into the communities. Design is not consistent in the Southern California locations and it works well; not sure why all the Northern California locations need to have Hardie plank. >Does not want to be the same as every other community. Go into each community and think of what would fit in. >Would be taking the design of Burlingame Avenue backwards. Looks like a 1970s makeover to a traditional facade. >Likes the detail being described for the awning and signage, but the rest of the facade needs some work. >The upper portion is so blank - no articulation or architectural features. >Respectful of corporate identity and design, but that is not a criteria of the design review guidelines. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/29/2016 June 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS No commissioner's reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS A study session is being planned for the Planning Commission to review the progress and provide input on the General Plan Update. Staff will poll commissioners on availability. There is an online survey for the General Plan available until June 24th. The survey duplicates the exercises from the most recent community workshop. The survey may be accessed at www.envisionburlingame.org. a.1580 Barroilhet Avenue - FYI to review requested follow -up to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:58 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 June 13, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 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 6/29/2016