Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.07.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 11, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and GaulPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 27, 2016 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the meeting minutes with the edits that had been submitted before the meeting. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1731 Adrian Road #14, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Parking Variance for a Commercial Recreation use. (Wing Lee, applicant and architect; Steven Chou property owner) (25 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini talked with the developer of the property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Parking assignment does not look like each suite has been assigned two spaces. Suite 1 has 6 spaces, and Suites 2, 7, 9, 11 and 13 have 3 spaces. Only four spaces are unassigned. The information Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes provided by the applicant is not consistent with the onsite conditions. Wants to see a copy of the CC&Rs and parking plan. (Keylon: The applicant will need to provide that information.) >Complaint was lodged about work being done. What was the nature of that complaint? (Keylon: Building Inspector reported framing being done below the existing mezzanine without permit. That work did not seem to be consistent with the plans being presented, so would need to be removed.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Wing Lee represented the applicant, with property owner Steven Chou. Commission questions: >If there will only be two people on the premises at one time, at some point wouldn't someone else come by as a visitor or drop in? Expect there could be three, maybe four at a time. (Chou: Will be done with appointment. Approach is to give full attention to client, would not have visitors coming in at same time.) >Do you have other places where you teach? (Chou: Some people have gyms at their homes. Clients range from 80 to 10 years old. Also provides private chef services. Training is only a part of the profession.) >What is the Return on Investment (ROI) with just five people scheduled? (Chou: Used to have equipment at home, now will bring it here so will be storing equipment. Also does some online coaching.) >The stove seems unusual for a commercial building. Usually just a microwave and refrigerator . (Chou: Minor use. Some people are very fitness -minded and will bring their food for before or after a workout, ready to go. This is a convenience for them.) >There is a precedent for commercial recreation uses with variances for parking. There is a symbiotic relationship with other businesses in the area in the hours of operation. The only path for the variance would be that this is an unusual use, based on business plan with only the owner and the client on site at any given time. However the plan has a reception area with some seats, a juice bar, washer dryer, and very large closet space. Hard to accept and understand that there will be a maximum of two people on the site at any one time. There is a logic to the Conditional Use Permit but hard to find the circumstances for the Variance. (Lee: If there were multiple people using the facility at the same time, the unisex restroom and locker room would not work. Reception is for the "wow" effect. Juice bar idea wants a casual seating arrangement indirect with each other that is less formal, will not have three people sitting there at the same time.) >Which parking spaces are assigned to this unit, and which are unassigned? (Lee: Condo map has two assigned spaces for this unit. Could not find the shared space in the CC&R document, will need to talk to the agent.) >Are the Visitor spaces allowed for anyone to use, or just the space in front of the suite? (Chou: Any visitor, whoever gets there first. Space 39 is the Visitor space for this unit, 40 and 41 are assigned to this unit.) What about Space 36? (Chou: Would not need to use it with only two people on site at one time.) >CC&Rs specify that no unit shall not be used for any purpose which would cause the total number of parking spaces to be less than that required by the City. Does the association require going to the City to get a variance, and would the granting of the variance be considered compliance with the CC&Rs? (Lee: With condominiums usually there is an HOA meeting to review the plan, but here there is no procedure formalized for a project like this.) Wants to make sure there have been the necessary steps to make sure this is allowed. >CC&Rs limit the percentage of office space. Assuming this is for parking rules. Is type of use considered similar to an office use in parking demand? (Lee: Client should talk to the other 13 owners and request a letter from the owners saying they are OK with the proposed design and use.) >Concern with noise and vibrations from people dropping weights. >Where did the parking log data come from? (Lee: Not scientific, based on a recommendation from the planner to do an informal log.) Public comments: Bob DeVincenze spoke on this item: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Owns and operates a business at 1717 Adrian Road, to the west. Sheet metal manufacturing facility. >Has 60-, 40- and 30-foot trailers coming in to supply the facility. >The back of the building is vulnerable to having someone park parallel and block trucks. >There has been total cooperation from the 1731 Adrian Road occupants. Never had a problem. >Concerned with the traffic from people coming for appointments and parking behind the building. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >Would like to see the CC&Rs to make sure what is being proposed would be allowed. >Wants to know the terms of the visitors' spaces, such as whether there is a time limit or if they can be all day. >It is an active area, particularly Units 1 and 2. Does not know how the spaces are being shared with the different units. >Just because the units and parking are vacant now does not mean they will be vacant in the future . Depending on the other businesses parking could be an issue in the future. >There is nothing on the west side of the building that says "No Parking." If people park there, there could be an issue with blocking. >If this was a clean application at its outset and just evaluating the tenancy it would be one thing . Difficult given prior work done without a permit. Being asked to accept the veracity that there will be one customer at one time in perpetuity. >There is a precedent for accepting Commercial Recreation uses when all the details hold up and it can be shown it won't cause problems under the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit findings. >It is a curious design with the juice bar and reception. >If there are spaces reassigned by a neighboring unit, it is not reflected in the CC&Rs. For the purpose of a variance the Commission is left with what is assigned in the CC&Rs. There is no action on this item since it is a Study Item. It will return on the Regular Action Calendar. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.816 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Enviornmental Quality Act (CEQA) per SEction 15301(e)(1) (Tim Raduenz, Form+One Design, applicant and designer; Scott and Kristie Cairns, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1138 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Design Review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (One Douglas Avenue Investment LLC, applicant; Chu Design Associates Inc., designer; Dennis L. Pelino Tr, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Dennis Pelino. Commission questions: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Pelino: No. This is not a typical neighborhood with a lot of families around. There is a medical building nearby, the library across the street and apartment buildings.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >In the study meeting the question was whether it fits into the neighborhood. Given the alternative of another condominium, this is a good solution. >Looks similar to a project on Cabrillo where a house with lots of character was being replaced with a cookie-cutter house with just a tiny nod to the previous house. The bar has been set rather low. Design could have more of a nod to the design of the previous house. >Page & Turnbull report mentions most of the character was lost because the houses in the vicinity have been demolished. >Design is very plain, area is losing character. >Compelled with the idea of replacing a single family home with another single family home in the downtown area. If it is done well and as the landscape develops it will fit in nicely. >There would be more parking impacts with an apartment or medical building. >Architectural design, mass, bulk and detached garage work well. Likes that the landscaping incorporates existing elements. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Nay:DeMartini1 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.2664 Martinez Dr- Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit and Conditional Use Permit for a new, detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(e). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Designer; John Doran, property owner) (46 Noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner John Doran. Commission questions: >Will there be light maintenance work done on vehicles? (Doran: Light maintenance, keeping them clean and covered, out of the elements.) >Will it interfere with the drainage of the property? (Doran: No.) >Is the intention to park cars on the driveway in front of the fence? (Doran: Intent is to park the cars in the garage, not in front of the house or in front of the gate.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >There will not be any obstruction of views given it is tucked away in the back. There is a lot of foliage, and quite a rise to the left back side of property. >Roofline is minimized and it is only 8 feet to the ceiling. Effort has gone into keeping it a minimal addition. >In favor of keeping cars off the street. >Every application is taken on its individual merits with potential impact on the neighborhood. There are cars already parked there, they just need to be parked under cover. The placement of the garage will not have a negative impact or be detrimental to the neighborhood. >Can become a shop space in the future. >Getting cars off the street is not always a good objective. Parked cars can slow down cars and make streets safer. >Has added trees to help with screening. >This is a unique situation and will make the neighborhood look better. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.2117 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(1). (Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design, applicant and designer; Lin and Sharon Li, property owners) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor at 2115 Carmelita Avenue, to the left of the property. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Javier Medina represented the applicant, with property owner Sharon Li. Commission questions: >Any response from the neighbors to the revised plans? (Li: Neighbors like the design. Generally positive.) >What is the thought behind the entry piece with the vertical wood siding? (Medina: Started with kitchen remaining and not being touched. Existing walls would remain, and project beyond setbacks . Design approach is to leave shape in place, and make it a point of interest that leads into the house . Provides entry and cleanly provides a roof at the door. House is very flat currently, but rafter tails will add articulation; wanted to carry the detail to the pedestrian level. Changes as shadow is cast throughout the day, more than horizontal or vertical side boards. The rainscreen was chosen for aesthetics, texture and light. The long elongated window fits in with the cabinets in the kitchen.) >Previous meeting had concerns with how the pieces come together. Had suggested stucco to tie things together. (Medina: Has tied the pieces together with similar roof pitches, and not stacking on top . The garage has been reclad to be coherent with the rest of the house. The rainscreen piece has been lifted so it meets with the roof at a proper height. Subtle changes, rather than a radical change in the original concept.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Impressed with the minimization of the variances. Still has issues with the remaining variances. Lot shape and size is not sufficient for variance. Small lot may be constrained to only allow a small house. >Neighbor to left and behind has a driveway adjacent, but has the right to develop a living space in the future without concern of the house adjacent will be encroaching into their space. >Should push back the second bedroom. Given that the first floor is already encroaching, to allow the second floor to encroach would exacerbate an already bad situation. >Sees perfect logic for the variance. Regulations are written for standard lots 50 feet wide x 100 feet deep. The request is not to have a large house; not sure how to make the house much smaller. There is no way to build a second floor within reason within the wedge shape of buildable area on the second floor without the building becoming more potentially out of context. >Elimination of other variances and special permit has created a more handsome design that is more fitting with the neighborhood. >Can accept the slightly contemporary look since it is a very eclectic block. >Tying the garage in with the siding will work. >Could revisit the landing on the back so it does not project into the back yard as much. >Is unique but can fit into the neighborhood and is a well-crafted design. >From the rear it looks like it is jammed onto the back of the lot. However as long as the landscaping is developed and shields the two properties, can mitigate the proximity, it can be supported. >Lot shape and size is truly unique. >Doesn't like the front element. >Landscaping is for a modern home. >Property has limited expansion potential based on shape and size of the lot, and location of existing house. >Project fits into the neighborhood, but does not hold together well. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Does not believe the project hangs together well. Massing holds together well and fits into the neighborhood. >Rainscreen wood siding seems out of context with the rest of the house. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul Nay: 3 - Loftis, DeMartini, and Gum Absent: 1 - Sargent Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. Commission discussion: >Making the perfect the enemy of the good. It has come down to one element on the house. It seems this is the element the homeowner really wants. It adds some life to the project. >It is not fair to hold up an item over a matter of taste. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Nay:DeMartini, and Gum2 - Absent:Sargent1 - d.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 Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones exchanged greetings with the designer while he was waiting in the lobby. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Did the commission only receive revised elevations but not revised plans? (Keylon: Plans are date stamped May 19th, and revised elevations are date stamped June 29th. Some of the packets included plans from the first submittal.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owner Ben Shapiro. Commission questions: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have the revised plans been presented to the other neighbors besides those to each side? (Shapiro: First letters were anonymous so did not know who to contact besides adjacent neighbors. The letters included contact information. Did not want to send another letter and have it be considered junk mail . Reached out to neighbors who thought would be effected.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >Revisions have gone a step further in reducing impacts, and there has been communication with the adjacent neighbor. >Likes what has happened with the proportions of the first and second floor. It is a well composed project. >Issue has been with the chimneys. Appreciates that they have been reduced and brick has been pulled back. They will be a low enough impact and will not be visible from the street. The applicant really wants them. >The apparent massing of the second floor has been reduced. >The revised elevation will fit into the neighborhood. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - e.1016 Carolan Avenue, zoned C-2 - Application for Conditional Use Permit to operate a van rental business. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301. (Escape Campervans, Inc., applicant; Harvey Hacker Architects, architect; Thomas Stucker, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 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: >How to prevent parking on surrounding streets? (Gardiner: It would be a code enforcement issue if it were to happen, since the conditions of approval do not allow storage of the vans on public streets. The vans would be conspicuous so it would be easier to enforce than a regular parked car .)(Kane: The CUP itself could be revoked which would require the business to close, so it would be in the interest of the business to comply.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Harvey Hacker represented the applicant, with business manager Shawn Donaldson. Commission questions: >Is the fence going away? (Hacker: Fence existed to segregate particular activities of the previous Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes tenant, but it would not be needed now so will go away.) >Will there continue to be an access point to the shared driveway to the south? (Donaldson: It will be closed and locked.) >Do the vans fit in a standard parking space? (Donaldson: The vans are stock standard Ford E -150 8 -passenger vans that has been converted. They fit in regular parking spaces.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >Great use in the interim, given that the tenant is going to vacate and it would otherwise sit empty. >Approvable based on the findings in the staff report. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1132 Cambridge Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Julie Davenport, property owner) (66 noticed) (Staff Contact: Erika Lewit) All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met spoke with the neighbor at 1128 Cambridge Avenue, and Commissioners Bandraplli and DeMartini met the property owner. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission questions: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Wehmeyer: Yes, many have come over and commented. Overall view is they are happy it is staying small.) >The lampost in front is in an interesting place. Is there some story to it? (Wehmeyer: No idea. Can keep it if wanted.) >Was there consideration of modifying the scale of the entry gable to be in scale with the larger elevation and dormers? (Wehmeyer: The only way to make it taller would be to make it wider so it stays in proportion. It is more pronounced in perspective than elevation because of the steep pitch of the roof.) >Was there thought in putting a tree in the front? (Wehmeyer: The two trees that are required have been put in the back. Have not put much thought into the front landscaping, there are timing issues . Expect there may be more in the future.) >Existing vent dormers are centered on the outside windows and creates balance, but the new dormers are not quite centered. >The pediment trim on the entry gable is not shown accurately on elevations, needs to be checked. >Is there a logic to having shutters on the front and back but not the sides of the house? (Wehmeyer: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes View from the back seemed to need something more than just window trim. There isn't much to see on the sides given how narrow they are.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: >Has taken an older house and found a way for the addition to fit into the character of the neighborhood. It is very well done. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. Commission comments: >Comments have been minimal, it could be put on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bandrapalli amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS No Commissioner's reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS The Planning Commission will hold a special study session for the General Plan Update on Wednesday, July 13th at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The public is encouraged to attend, and will have the opportunity to ask questions as well as provide comments. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:55 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 July 11, 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 21, 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 8/9/2016