Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.11.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 28, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance included: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon and City Attorney Kathleen Kane 2. ROLL CALL The following staff members were present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Catherine Keylon and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. The Commission attendance was as follows: DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - TerronesAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft November 14, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes were not yet complete. They will be placed on the December 12, 2016 agenda for consideration. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Loftis noted that Commission DeMartini would recuse from the discussion regarding 1301 Burlingame Avenue, and that he would be recused from the discussions regarding the projects located at 2209 Ray Drive and 1556 Columbus Avenue as he resides within 500-feet of these properties. 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 A motion was made by Chair Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Terrones1 - a.1241 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Greg and Alison Powell, property owners). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b.1333 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and designer; David Armanino, property owner). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c.1326 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a new food establishment. 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. (Tian Hong Tan, applicant and property owner; Kevin E. Stong Architects, Inc ., architect) (81 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.912 Park Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for accessory living space, a full bathroom and windows within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) for accessory structures. (Erik Chan, applicant and property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners DeMartini and Gum each met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The building is pre-existing; Is this case the result of a code enforcement action? (Keylon: No.) >Condition 4 states that the building cannot be used for any other use; may it be used for Airbnb? (Keylon: such use is not regulated under the City's zoning, so it could be used for Airbnb. If a kitchen were added, then it would require approval for conversion to a secondary dwelling unit.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Erik Chan represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Will structure be used only by the applicant, or for rental? (Chan: friends and family only.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: None. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >No expansion of the existing structure is proposed. >The use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. >Window in the back faces a 6-foot back fence with plenty of foliage. Does not effect the neighbor to the right. >Appreciates the applicant coming in and legalizing the structure. >Intensification of adding a full bathroom is something that has been approved before. >Should show exterior lighting on the plan. (Kane: the Building Division will check lighting to ensure it does not shine on adjacent neighbors property.) Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - Aye:Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Nay:DeMartini1 - Absent:Terrones1 - c.2209 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension and Design Review Amendment for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review and Side Setback Variance application 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. (Briggs McDonald, bmod Office of Design, applicant and architect; Ann Stephens and Keith Bol, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Chair Loftis was recused from the discussion of this item as he lives within 500-feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Keith Bol represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Why was the kitchen window removed? (Bol: to create a demarcation between an eating area and the rest of the kitchen.) >Won't the side wall be blank due to the removal of the window? (Bol: removed for the privacy of the Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighbor.) Public comments: None. Vice-Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Removal of the window enhances the project. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:Loftis1 - d.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 Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item as he owns stock in the applicant's company. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Matthew Green, Apple and Atilio Leveratto, CallisonRTKL Architects, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Are there also changes to the adjacent building? (Leveratto: there will be new windows.) >Is the canopy on the front only going over the doorway? (Green: twice as wide as the door.) >Complimented the streetscape by adding diversity to the block. It is very lively. >Will the new material end between the two buildings? (Green: yes, refinishing the adjacent building but not replacing the material.) Public comments: Ron Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue: fully supports the remodel of the store. Fortunate to have an Apple retail store as well as the genius bar and classes. Apple is upgrading the side street and rear alley. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Appreciates the changes that have been made. Has listened to the community. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1556 Columbus Avenue, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition that will increase the plate height greater than 9 feet (Karen Eastwood, applicant; Emily Brown, Horologii Design, designer; Damien and Karen Eastwood, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Chair Loftis was recused as he lives within 500-feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli spoke to the neighbor two doors down (1552 Columbus Avenue). Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1549 Columbus Avenue and the neighbor at 1552 Columbus Avenue. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Emily Brown represented the applicant, with property owner Karen Eastwood. Commission comments/questions: >Will it be possible to match the existing tiles? (Eastwood/Brown: yes, will have a darker Spanish tile . Wants tiles with variation. Existing tiles are heavy and causing the roof to sag.) >Would it be possible to get a sample of the roof tile? (Brown: yes) >Will there be screening between the home and the adjacent house? (Eastwood/Brown: yes, a full landscape design will be prepared.) >Was there a design option that did not add the entry element. (Eastwood/Brown: yes. If it is lower it loses the arch detail, and it loses the proportion and looks squat. It ends up looking like two separate houses. Dislikes the big sloping roof.) >Was anything else looked at in keeping the proportion lower? (Eastwood/Brown: looked at having the same type of entry but lower, but it wasn't working.) Is concerned with human scale . (Eastwood/Brown: front porch now is eight-feet tall and feels small and squat, whereas interior has high ceilings and tall doorways.) Public comments: Lynn Israelit, 1560 Columbus Avenue: 12-foot entrance way will be blocky and large. Can't see windows on second floor from street. The tower would be nicer if it were lower and more narrow. House is already 25% larger than what would be allowed to be built on the lot and is a big white box - this would extend the house out five feet. Would prefer the porch be no deeper than the current porch. Also concerned about the lack of vegetation on the property.) Vice-Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >Likes the concept and it would improve the house. Maybe it's not the height that is the problem, it is the columns. Perhaps lighten it up and tie it into the porch better. >Concern with quality of tile on the roof. The Spanish tiles on the existing roof are one of the key design elements. >Existing house doesn't quite work, but concern with scale of tower entry element. >Is there anything to be said about the FAR already being over? (Keylon: as long as the applicant doesn't exceed the existing FAR, then modifications can be made. The new porch exemption permits the front porch to be excluded from the FAR calculations. Kane: it is allowed by the code but design review criteria still needs to be satisfied.) Sympathetic with the neighbor's concerns - feels uncomfortable with adding to the size of the home. >Looks like two separate buildings. Doesn't understand the mass or how it ties into the rest of the house. Doesn't come together. >Could be improved with less of the stucco. Does not believe the changes makes the house better. >Would like to see more landscaping, screening. >Would suggest something taller to screen from the neighbor on the left. >The lot is narrow so there may not be a lot of room for landscape screening. >Could benefit from a consultation with a design review consultant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of motion: >Not certain that the design issues rise to the point of requiring referral to a design review consultant. >The only major change being made is the thing that doesn't work. >Appreciates the applicant's comments about making the exterior of the residence blend better with the interior, but the Commission must be concerned with neighborhood compatibility. >The applicant will be better served by meeting with a design reviewer, rather than "designing by committee". The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, and Sargent3 - Nay:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:Loftis1 - b.1125 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage and a Conditional Use Permit for a half bathroom in an accessory structure (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Jeff Diana and Rachel Handsman, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1129 and 1126 Bernal Avenue. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >Is the ridge height measured from the average top of curb? Seems ridge would be higher than 30 -feet. (Gardiner: correct. Will look into the proposed height.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >There is a large Redwood tree on the right side on the property line; is concerned regarding root impacts on the driveway? (Raduenz: normally create a planter to protect the tree and consult with an arborist.) >Verify that the trees are on the neighbor's property and will be protected. (Raduenz: can have them verified and shown on plans) >With respect to the window in the second bathroom; the window should be obscured in some way . (Raduenz: will be having a roman shade.) >The chimney has no extension. (Raduenz: cost is a concern, and want to add a window to the dormer to balance it. It is in the back of the property and will not be seen. It will be a real veneer limestone. Will emphasize the chimney in the front.) >The front elevation shows the roof running at the same height from left to height, but doesn't look the same from the rear. (Raduenz: either the dimension is wrong or the height needs to be reduced. Will correct this. Keylon: the house is not over the height limit.) >Would like to see heights of adjacent houses for comparison. Appears a bit taller than other homes . (Raduenz: can provide this information.) >Short chimney is on the driveway side will be visible; could it be made taller? (Raduenz: would prefer to add a window in this area, but can add a chimney if needed. Will be using a real veneer of Limestone which is costly.) >Concern with the tree next to the driveway lacking an arborist report. What will happen if installation of the driveway will cause the destruction of the tree. (Raduenz: the existing driveway is there; doesn't believe it will be a concern. Will look into this prior to the next meeting.) >Concern with lighting on driveway side being so close to the neighbor's house. (Raduenz: it can be removed.) >Appreciates having the second floor tucked into roof, but it does not look like it is 1 1/2 stories, it looks very vertical. Can there be a rendering showing this area? (Raduenz: yes.) >Noted the front vs rear ridge discrepancy. >Why standing-seam metal roof just in the front? Struggling with the differing sidings and roof materials. (Raduenz: the metal roof is intended to disconnect the top floor from the lower floor. Will make sense with the colors. Likes the two-tone effect. It was something the owners wanted.) >Prefers to have a chimney, rather than the current design for the rearward fireplace. Public comments: Charles Eigenbrot, 1129 Bernal Avenue: Thinks it will be a great house. Concerned with Redwood tree but does not want to flip the house to accommodate it. Rear garage structure provides a fence to the adjacent yard, and wants trees to be preserved. Concerned with having nothing come out of the chimney. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Likes the house; it has a modern edge to it. >Clapboard siding goes up high on the walls - has a "high pockets" look. Is interesting but should be looked again to be sure that it will look appropriate when built. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Need to specify the view(s) for which rendering(s) are being requested. >Initially concerned it would be large compared to the adjacent houses. However from the roof plan the second floor is pushed back far. Wants to make sure it will not be too large compared to the rest of the block. >Concerned with the height and how it will fit in with the smaller one -story houses in the neighborhood. An oblique rendering seen from the front will be sufficient to determine this. >High plate heights may be contributing to the sense of height. Should look at reducing plate heights. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to bring the application back on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - c.2120 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling (Dulon Designs, applicant and designer; Maojia Bai and Chun Huang, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 2116 Carmelita Avenue. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. John LeDoux and Phillip Dang represented the applicant with property owner Maojia Bai. Commission comments/questions: >Have the plans been shared the plans with neighbors? (Dang: spoke to the neighbor at 2116 Carmelita Avenue, had concern with windows looking into her property.) >Is the wood separate planks? (Dang: separate, individual planks.) >Any thoughts given to a different type of upstairs windows in front, upper right corner. (Dang: that is a bedroom area; the egress window is on the east elevation - can look at this.) >Likes how the massing was broken up on the west elevation. Could the same be done on the east elevation? Creates a boxiness that would be nice to avoid, if possible - would also improve the neighbor's view of the house. (Dang: hard to fit everything in given width of lot. Had to choose a side.) >Any other way to articulate massing with the three small windows on the rear view? (Dang: will explore.) >What style is the design? Is the style typical of the neighborhood? (Dang: traditional shapes, contemporary finishes and styles.) >Does tinting of windows as shown on the plan signify anything? (Dang: no - rendering error.) >Are the trees shown in front street trees? (Dang: yes.) >Is the front wall (stucco planter) something that he has seen in the neighborhood? (Dang: newly approved neighboring house has planters of this type.) >Is wood plank siding real wood, Hardy plank? (Dang: real wood.) >Is the designer familiar with the design guidelines? Breaking up massing, de -emphasizing the second stories is encouraged in the guidelines. (Dang: yes, familiar with the design guidelines. Can look at it. It is at the top of slope. Other houses on block are mostly smaller 1 1/2 stories except for house across the street.) Public comments: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nick Galli, 2132 Carmelita Avenue: the new house will be an improvement. Concerned with privacy, whether it was considered in design. Could there be trees instead of shrubs? Would have liked to have spoken with the applicant regarding the project. What emissions would be coming out of fireplace? Is it a new chimney? (Dang: is an existing chimney.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is this project considered a new home or a remodel? (Keylon: considered new, although some existing walls will remain.) >The style of the house is confusing; is it Modern or Contemporary? Perhaps it is the low sloped roofs contribute to this. >There is a lack of order on the facades, particularly relative to the organization of the windows. >There needs to be a defined style - a candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of motion: >Utilitarian building, looks like an apartment or office. Does not look residential. Would be okay if Modern, but is not clearly of that design. >Concerned the design reference is the house across the street that is under construction. Not sure that house was the right approach, when ignoring the rest of the street. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner reminded the Planning Commission of the December 6, 2016 City Council Study Session to discuss population projections in the setting of the General Plan Update. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the City Council Chambers. He also noted the upcoming General Plan Update CAC meeting on December 7, 2016. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 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 November 28, 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 December 8, 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. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 November 28, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 1/11/2017