Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.06.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 27, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and SargentPresent5 - Bandrapalli, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.June 13, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission. Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Recused:Loftis1 - 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 a.2664 Martinez Dr- Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit and Conditional Use Permit for a new, detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Designer; John Doran, property owner) (46 Noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that the applicant allowed him to visit the rear yard of the property. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. John Doran and James Chu represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Is the garage to be insulated? (Chu - can build either way.) >Will the garage be conditioned space? (Chu - no.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Requested that the applicant to address the compatibility portion of the conditional use permit findings in more detail. >Noted that the conditional use permit is required due to the difference in grade on the lot. >Concerned about the aesthetics of having both garages - could have two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway. The application would create hardscape driveway along more than half of the side of the house. Doesn't want to open up this type of request to other areas of Burlingame. Doesn't fit with the neighborhood. >Asked if staff has a position regarding encouraging or discouraging the construction of second garages? (Meeker - noted that staff cannot encourage or discourage provision of additional garage space beyond the minimum requirements as there is no prohibition within the Zoning Ordinance to providing more than the minimum standard.) No action was required on this item. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.204 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for a new detached garage located in the rear 40% of the lot and for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to modify conditions of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit . (Vicki Collins, applicant and property owner; J. Deal Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Sargent recused himself from the discussion of this item as he owns property within 500-feet of the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Jerry Deal represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Is the intent to use the garage for vehicles? The driveway appears to be pretty constrained. (Deal - yes. Placing the driveway on the right side would have raised objections from the neighbor on that side.) >Will the existing tree near the garage survive? (Deal - the garage is already at that location, though some roots may be cut. If moved further rearward would require removal of other trees.) >Is the existing garage used for vehicle storage? (Deal - no, due to its condition.) Public comments: Mike and Diane McGill, neighbors to the left - the garage on the subject property has never been used for parking. The width of the driveway creates challenges. There is a significantly aged vine and a tree adjacent to the garage that may require cutting; they have not been consulted. Want to ensure that these features are preserved. (Deal - the owner stated that he had spoken with the neighbors. The bushes will need to be trimmed.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels the findings for the special permit can be affirmatively made. The applicant needs to coordinate with the neighbors regarding the landscaping. Need to include a condition of approval to address this matter. >Supports the special permit since it permits the retention of the trees at the rear of the lot. >Noted that the vines that cross the property line from the neighbors property may be trimmed by the applicant on his property. >Encouraged discussion between the neighbors regarding the trimming of the vines. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the application with the following additional condition: >That the shrubbery growing along the fence on the left side property, abutting the driveway, shall be trimmed from the sidewalk back to where the new garage starts to allow for a clear passage of vehicles prior to final permit sign off for the construction of the new detached garage; the adjacent neighbors to the left at 208 Bayswater Avenue shall be notified of this trimming 7-days prior to work commencing. Discussion of the motion: >This approval has no impact upon the prior approval for the art studio The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1505 Sherman Avenue, Zoned R-3 - Application for an amendment to add four additional students to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a pre -school use at a church. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Rev. Schufreider and Dan Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ionescu, applicants; Trinity Lutheran Church, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones met with the neighbor at 1519 Sherman Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Dan Ionescu and Reverend Jeff Schufreider represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Noted that the State of California License has different operating hours than the conditional use permit. (Ionescu - the church is trying to be as accommodating as possible for the parents. Allows for less impactful drop-off and pick-up of children. Schufreider - currently start operations at 8 a.m. and do not intend to change to the earlier hour.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Appears that the use appears to be operating smoothly due to the lack of complaints. >What is requested is already approved by the State of California. >Commended the church for working with the community and making the use work - noted that no one came to the hearing this evening to speak regarding the matter. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.816 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One Design, applicant and designer; Scott and Kristie Cairns, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Gum met with neighbors at 822 and 817 Walnut. Commissioner Sargent met with the applicant at the project site. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Courtney from Form One Architects represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Is replacement of the fence on Arc Way part of the project? (Courtney - are considering replacing it like for like.) >When was the prior addition completed? (Courtney - 20 years ago, prior to the current ownership.) >There is a variety of different glazing and light styles with the windows, is this intentional? (Courtney - are attempting to preserve funds for the addition; the existing windows are to remain.) >What is the finish below the transom window on the second story, rear? (Courtney - likely a wood finish.) Public comments: Diana, resident across the street on Arc Way - the home is in her direct line of vision. Is seeing the area becoming more impacted with cars and green space is disappearing. Are these applications for second stories considered on a case -by-case basis? Are there further studies being done? (Meeker - can build what complies with the code as long as it is compatible with neighborhood character and with the architecture of the home. Courtney - are not adding cars and are not removing existing landscaping.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The massing of the second story addition helps with the overall massing of the house; the prior addition did not do so. >Provide details of the finishing below the transom window on the rear. >Massing is handled well. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Discussion of motion: >Agrees that the massing of the addition helps the cohesivness of the design. >Would not add an additional material to the area below the transome window. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - b.146 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design Associates; Raymond Wong, property owner) (43 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Requested clarification of the maximum FAR for the property; is this an interior lot? (Keylon - referred to the staff report's calculation of the FAR. The lot is only 6,100 square feet with a one-car garage.) >Is there anything that should be discussed regarding the slope of the property, due to written comments received? (Keylon - the grading and drainage will be reviewed by Public Works as part of the building permit process. >Generally speaking, isn't it the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that there is no drainage impact upon the neighboring property? (Meeker - correct.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission questions: >The right elevation is the prominent side; is there some way to break up the mass more? >Has the applicant considered pulling in the kitchen pop-out on the left elevation? (Chu - will review.) >How tall will the fence be along the left side of the property, particularly at the rear? (Chu - may not construct a fence, but install landscaping. There is a fence on the park side of the property line.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >Would like the architect to review the kitchen pop-out near the neighbor on the left. >Agrees with the comments regarding the right side wall. >Likes the wall facing the park. A motion was made by Vice Chair Gum, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - c.1138 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Design Review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage (One Douglas Avenue Investment LLC, applicant; Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer; Dennis L. Pelino Tr, property owner ) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones recused himself from the discussion of this item as his firm is involved in the pending application for the property adjacent to the project site. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had a brief discussion with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu and Craig Suhl represented the applicant. Commission questions: There were no Commission questions. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Handsome design. >Doesn't feel that the proposed design reflects the character of Burlingame; it is a cookie -cutter design that could be found in Easton Addition. Feels that the architect could propose a design that is closer in character to the home being removed. >Likes the design that is proposed; could have proposed an apartment building. Will be a credit to the neighborhood. The historic assessment didn't find historic value for the home either due to architecture or due to the prior occupants. >Feels that the presence of the three- and four -story apartment buildings mitigates the design of the proposed home. Other adjacent homes are likely to be removed in the future and replaced with multi-family buildings. In favor of the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Sargent4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Recused:Terrones1 - d.2721 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one -half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a discussion with the neighbor at 2701 Easton. Chair Loftis had a discussion with the neighbor at 2711 Easton. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Asked who the author of the letter that was received? (Commissioner - Koblis) >With respect to the driveway on the right -hand side, it appears that the driveway crosses the property line - the neighbor has requested that the driveway be permitted to stay at its present location . Is there a prescriptive easement that exists? (Kane - hasn't reviewed the letter, but generally speaking that issue is between the private property owners. Would be handled through a legal process. Consider the application as it is before the Commission. Can encourage the neighbors to discuss the issue. Not something the Commission can weigh-in on.) Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Alex and Marcia Tikhman represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Is there a reason why the existing residence can't be renovated? (A. Tikhman - have considered . There is significant sloping in the floors. There is nothing that can be done without a significant renovation. They wish to have an attached garage; there is no way to do so with the existing home . The architect could speak more directly to the issues.) >Is there a reason why the particular style was selected as opposed to something that is closer to the existing home. (M. Tikhman - there are other similar homes in the neighborhood. A. Tikhman - made a conscious decision to look at other designs.) How committed is the applicant to the proposed style? (M. Tikhman - could consider another style, but the proposed style is represented in the neighborhood .) There is a pattern in the neighborhood with similar styles grouped together. Asked that the applicant consider the pattern that exists in the neighborhood. (A. Tikhman - really like the proposed style; is a preference.) Public comments: Nicole Koblis, neighbor to the left - excited to have a young family move into the area. Are concerned about the neighborhood character. Concerned about the entertainment patio on the left side of the property at the rear. Feels it is a bit awkward. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Agrees with Commissioners' comments regarding the neighborhood character and the compatibility of the design with the homes next to it. The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood; where they do exist they are typically only one space wide. >The double wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. >Has no problem with the proposed plate heights given the topography of the lot and the presence of larger homes in the area. >Primary concern is the compatibility of the style with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectural gem, the proposed home is less than that. There are other means of attaching the garage in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. >The existing home has a gracious porch that presents itself to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears to be a simple stoop. Knows the architect has the ability to address these points. >Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the character of the neighborhood. >There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber to the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for front porches. >Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. >The plate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. >Disappointed by the design that was presented by the project architect. >Feels it is the wrong place for this design. Feels decidedly suburban. >Would hesitate to dictate a style, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. >Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. >Has a problem with the gathering area to the side of the house, as opposed to the rear. A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016 June 27, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Loftis confirmed subcommittee assignments as follows: >Commissioners Gaul, Sargent and Terrones on the Neighbhood Consistency Subcommittee >Commissioners Sargent and Terrones on the Neighborhood Design Guidelines Subcommittee (Modern homes) >Commissioner DeMartini on the General Plan Community Advisory Committee >Chair Loftis on the Community Center Community Advisory Committee 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council adopted the FAR exemption for street facing porches in single -family districts at its meeting of June 20th. He also noted the the Planning Commission will have a study session regarding the General Plan Update on July 13th - more details to come. 12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Loftis adjourned the meeting at 8:54 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 27, 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 July 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2016