HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.02.25
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, February 25, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gaul called the February 25, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Cauchi
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City
Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Sargent to approve the minutes of the
February 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:
Page 3, Additional Commission comments; first bullet; change “believe” to “understand” in the third
line.
Motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). This item concluded at 7:05 p.m.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Ave, Burlingame and Samantha McPhail, 1516 Balboa Ave, Burlingame;
spoke from the floor:
Asked the Commissioners to deliberate questions posed by the public regarding the status of
the project at 1509 El Camino Real. Is the project on hold, will additional opportunity for
comments be provided? (Meeker – noted that all comments have been received and he will
consult with the City Attorney to determine the status of the project.)
Supports comments made by Pat Giorni regarding the project at 1509 El Camino Real. Wants to
know the status of the application. Seems that there are many problems with the project that
require further attention. This is a more complex proposal than others considered by the
Commission.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 25, 2013
2
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 355 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A BATHROOM, A W INDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY
LINE, AND TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES (DANIEL CRAY, APPLICANT AND
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 25, 2013
Questions of staff:
Could this be a second unit? (Strohmeier – would need to review, particularly the parking
situation.)
Why was the complaint received? (Strohmeier – doesn’t know, but will research.)
Looks like the plans for a remodel; or was it an addition?
Noted that the application is for a conditional use permit to use the space as bedrooms, or is it
for a second unit? (Strohmeier – will review.)
Commission comments:
Could this legally be a secondary dwelling unit? Could be helpful for the neighbors to be
informed that the applicant is asking may be asking for less than they could legally ask for.
Appears that the overhang on the rear of the property may be within two feet of the property line;
this may need to be addressed.
Provide clarification regarding the availability of heat at the location.
Requested clarification regarding the parking standards that apply to secondary dwelling units
versus a fourth bedroom. (Strohmeier – provided a description of the differences. Would be in
compliance with the requirements for a fourth bedroom.)
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
There were no Regular Action Items for discussion.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 25, 2013
3
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
2. 1312 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,
INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK BARRALOZA, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Gaul opened the public comment period.
Jesse Geurse, Burlingame; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Likes the design overall, but has some concerns about the front. Would prefer the porch to
extend to allow the French doors to enter the living room to exist from the living room onto the
front porch.
Noted that at a recent subcommittee meeting, the idea of extending porches was discussed and
supported; additional FAR may be allowed for an uncovered porch in the future.
The front elevation is well composed. Even if the porch is extended and may not be covered.
(Geurse – described the purpose of the porch to the living space above. Moving the porch
would create an elongated porch; would prefer not to have such a large porch.
In lieu of the French doors, consider windows if the porch is not extended.
On the right-hand elevation, extend the veneer to the pop-out so that there is some logic to
where the finish terminates.
Noted the same concern regarding the finishing on the garage on the left side.
On the second-story interior; appreciated the additional closet space in the master bedroom.
Noted that the double sink in the master bath is too close together.
Revisit looking at the stairwell; look at the number of risers and the relationship to the windows in
the landing area; could affect the configuration of the window at this area.
The design with the porch presents a single-story at the street front; a good solution that fits in
with the neighborhood.
Not sure if the home is the correct scale for the neighborhood, but does like the design.
Enlarging the front porch could bring the scale down.
Look at potentially eliminating one of the upstairs bathrooms to reduce floor area and provide
options elsewhere on the building additional square footage for the porch if not covered.
Could extend the porch outwards without impacting the square footage.
Likes the design; the scale will work with the neighborhood.
With respect to the porch; will the guardrail dying into the column meet the requirement of the
code? (Geurse – will review.)
Agrees with comments regarding termination of the stone veneer.
Public comments:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 25, 2013
4
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
3. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 25-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (BEJHAN RAZI, CAMELLO INC., APPLICANT; CHATEAU
TROUSDALE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
Will the mitigated negative declaration for the prior project need to be revised in light of the
aesthetic changes to the project? (Meeker – good point, will need to review to determine if
necessary; could require an addendum to the document.)
Chair Gaul opened the public comment period.
Toby Levy, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Likes the design; is more appropriate for the neighborhood than the prior design.
Appreciates that the developer is reducing scale and the size of the units.
How is guest parking controlled? (Levy – they would need to be buzzed in, but there is a
secondary gate.)
Service vehicle will gain access in this manner as well? (Levy – yes.)
Believes that the scale of the project and the busy street could handle a taller wall at the outdoor
seating area for the community room to provide more privacy and protection from the traffic.
(Levy – the patio is in the setback line, so nothing greater than 30-inches can be proposed in the
setback area. The planters are 42-inches above the grade. There is already a depressed area.)
The cap element on the front could perhaps be a sun screen, or something less substantial.
Perhaps could use another stone material that has more texture to it rather than the Bluestone
Either provide something with more texture than tile and grout, or provide a block that has
spacing between it to provide a positive and negative texture to break up the massing of this
element of the building. (Levy – noted that pastel palette that is consistent with the
neighborhood. Can create some relief/elevation change.)
Appreciates the direction of the color palette and materials.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 25, 2013
5
Asked if there is parking along Trousdale? (Levy – yes.)
Do they wish to have their handicapped space in front of the building rather than inside? (Levy –
have room for it inside; never even considered another arrangement.)
Has done a great job with the scale, materials, colors, etc.
Feels the wall on the right side of the front elevation at the blue stone is a bit stark; could a long,
horizontal window be provided? (Levy – likes the idea of adding texture with the stone, but could
look at either option. Believes the stone texture would alleviate concerns regarding the scale.)
Is a great redesign.
Asked if the mechanical equipment on the roof is to be screened? (Levy – noted the location of
the parapets and the recess for the mechanical units in the roof – they will not be visible.)
Noted that there doesn’t appear to be any equipment provided in the community room (e.g.
kitchen equipment) that would make it desirable to use.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:01 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 19, 2013:
None.
FYI: 9 KENMAR WAY – review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review
project:
Accepted.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 25, 2013
6
FYI: 1505 SHERMAN WAY – review of requested changes to a previously approved
Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to operate a preschool:
Staff was directed to schedule the matter for a public hearing, given the discussions that
occurred before the Commission at the time of the approval regarding the play area. Also seek
information regarding the nature of the complaint.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rich Sargent, Secretary