HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.10.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 24, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Staff present included Community Development Director William Meeker, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin
and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to be approved.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the applicants for Agenda Items 8a (1301
Burlingame Avenue) and 9b (2721 Easton Drive) have requested a continuance of their respective
items. Both items will be placed on future agendas and will be re -noticed in advance of their next
Commission date.
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
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
facade changes to an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301: Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Apple Inc .,
applicant; Callison RTKL Inc ., architect; Avtar Johal, property owner) (37 notices) Staff
Contact: Catherine Keylon
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2016 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016
October 24, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Item continued to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant. Item will be re-noticed.
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.117 Occidental 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 (E.L. Shimp Builders Inc., applicant and
designer; Keith and Beth Taylor TR, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
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 Loftis opened the public hearing.
Elaine Lee represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Has the homeowner shared the plans with the neighbors? (Lee: yes, back in June.)
>With respect to the landscaping, is the hedge on the right side being removed? What type of
screening will be provided, or will the light well be visible? (Lee: there will be a fence and a narrow
landscape strip to provide privacy for the homeowner and neighbor. Are at a schematic level for the
landscape design.)
>Is there a reason for the six trees being grouped together on the right side of the landscape plan;
any reason why there aren't trees elsewhere in the rear yard and the front yard? (Lee: there is a large
Redwood tree in the rear yard. Are not placing trees on the left side to provide maximum the western
exposure to the yard. Didn't believe that trees would complement the front of the house, but are open to
the idea.)
>Is there any concern about installing the six trees that limited the neighbor's exposure on the right?
(Lee: will not be very tall species.)
>Has the applicant looked closely at the Planning "questions" on the application materials? (Lee: the
existing hardscape and softscape are shown on the survey. The grading and drainage plan will be
prepared by a licensed civil engineer.)
>For the construction of the basement, please provide information regarding groundwater levels .
(Lee: have a soils report that provides this information.)
>Requested an explanation of the rationale for requesting the Special Permits for the basement and
the attached garage. (Lee: the basement has living space in it and requires a height in excess of 6 feet,
6 inches - opted to go with a 9 foot height; doesn't affect the overall height of the project. With respect to
the garage, are attempting to maximize the utility of the rear yard; there are four other homes with
attached garage in the neighborhood, and those homes date from the early teens to the '30s.
>Was there any consideration for having a detached garage? (Lee: considered it, but preferred the
attached garage due to ease of use.)
>On the lower floor plan an equipment room is shown, is that a location for mechanical equipment
and the ejector pump? An ejector pump may be required. Will there be an air conditioning unit? (Lee:
haven't gotten that far in the discussions. Haven't determined if water will need to be pumped, but if so,
there will be water retention basins that will use gravity to function.)
>With respect to the plate heights, why is the greater height requested on the second floor? (Lee: the
Tudor style has slightly exaggerated roof forms, was a complicated height to get to the roof heights .
Took into account the way in which the roof would be supported, etc. This all lead to the plate heights
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016
October 24, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
proposed.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>In favor of the general design of the project; the appearance of the project fits with the
neighborhood. Has a concern regarding the attached garage; the neighborhood includes a
predominance of detached garages located in the rear of the properties, few have attached garage .
There have been few, if any, projects approved recently with attached garages in the neighborhood. The
"pattern" in the neighborhood is for detached garages, though there are a couple of corner lots with
attached garages.
>Would be nicer to have a bit more space on the left side of the house to preserve the neighbor's
light, rather than a blank wall for the garage.
>Well crafted house, but has a broad face -print. The lot is deeper than normal. The plate heights are
mitigated by the approach to the second floor ceiling heights. Have a fairly simple stoop rather than a
traditional porch which further emphasizes that the front of the property is not the emphasis for outdoor
living.
>No issues with the historic evaluation of the existing home.
>The applicant's argument for the attached garage doesn't hold water.
>With respect to the design; likes what is beginning to happen on the front elevation - some of the
elements aren't cohesive. These elements haven't been carried along the sides and rear, and should be.
>The fireplaces on the side of the house look like bumps on the side of the house, not unlike a water
heater shed. Would prefer a chimney feature that incorporates well into the Tudor style.
>Look closely at the lot slope to determine if an ejector pump will be necessary.
>The home fills too much of the width of the lot. The breathing room between the homes is what sets
the pattern of the area.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
application on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration by the Commission.
Discussion of motion:
>Encouraged the applicant to look closely at the pattern of detached garages in the
neighborhood.
Chair Loftis asked for a vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 -
b.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
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2016 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Item continued at the request of the applicant. Item will be re-noticed.
c.1140 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016
October 24, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
single family dwelling with a detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and
applicant; Richard Sargent, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from discussion of this matter as he is the
applicant. He left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor to the right of the
site.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Are the two trees in the rear of the property to be removed? (Hurin: will need to take a closer look at
this matter.)
>Noted that the 29-inch Cypress tree has been removed.
>The tree to the right on the neighbor's property has roots that extend upon the subject property, has
Bob Disco been consulted regarding protection of this tree? (Hurin: unknown.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Ferdinand Devera represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>The property is at the apex of a hill; is there any intention to lower the grade of the property, or will it
remain the same? (Devera: will need to research.)
>Asked about the status of the existing trees? (Devera: doesn't know.)
>Has the homeowner shown the plans to the neighbors? (Devera: yes.)
>Feels that the design of the home is refreshing. Was there any thought given to the height of the
porch; any study to determine if the plate height of the porch could be lowered? (Devera: doesn't know.)
The front porch looks a bit tall.
Public comments:
Peter and Natalie Klestoff, 1136 Balboa: how is the height measured? (Hurin: from the top of curb to the
highest roof ridge.) Is it normal for the chimney to extend so far into the driveway? (Hurin: yes.) Could
the Arborist review the tree on their property to determine that it will not be compromised by the
construction? (Hurin: a licensed arborist can review this and there can be a condition of approval to
ensure that the tree is protected.)
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Is a well-crafted design, will fit in well. Agrees with the comments regarding the front porch height;
could be brought down in height.
>Seems like the shoulder is a bit low on the chimney; may wish to raise it somewhat to make the
overall chimney less prominent.
>Since the applicant's representative doesn't appear to have answers to questions, could the
applicant come into the chambers to answer questions? (Kane: no, as he is a sitting Commissioner. He
may provide answers before the matter appears back on the agenda.)
>Noted a prior discussion regarding tree removal permits that prohibited removal of trees until the
design review approval was granted.
>Was clarified that when the removal of a tree is necessary as it lies within the footprint of a building,
then the permit shall be withheld until the final design review approval is granted in the event the the
design changes and allows preservation of a tree.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016
October 24, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action by the Commission.
Discussion of motion:
>Consider a condition that an arborist be present during the removal of the garage structure.
>Consider a condition that requires preservation measures relative to the neighbor's tree.
>Likes the design; feels like a farm house, but doesn't seem very much like Burlingame.
>The window well above the porch roof appears odd; perhaps lowering the porch roof will
address this issue.
>Feels that a stucco finish on the chimney is not the correct choice; a stone covering would
be more appropriate.
Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Terrones noted that Planning Manager Gardiner had sent out a request for scheduling a
meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee in the near future.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that a General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 26th at the Recreation Center.
a.82 Loma Vista Drive - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review application.
Accepted.
b.1252 Bernal Avenue - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review application.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Loftis adjourned the meeting at 7:48 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 October 24, 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 November 3, 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 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016