Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.09.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 24, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Keylon, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments: A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Community Center - Design Presentation Staff Report Community Center Rendering Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Karen Hager, represented the applicant, with project architects Jonathan Hartman and Carolyn Carlbert. Commission Questions/Comments: •Do you have an outside bathroom near the playground? (Carlbert: The outside bathroom is located adjacent to the community center.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Would the outside bathroom be open at all times? Currently there is a bathroom facility by the basketball court. (Hager: The bathroom facility recently replaced by the basketball court will remain . This will be an additional bathroom which will be available to the public even when the community center will not be open, however it will not be open all of the time due to safety concerns. It will be locked automatically by a timer when the park is considered to be closed at sunset.) •In working through the project with the advisory committee, it has been rewarding to see the pavilion aspects to the design and organization come through. •The three identifying masses and features of the building are really coming through both with the organization and functions within the building. •Indoor/outdoor quality of pavilions, the materials and systems the architects are employing emphasize the delightful aspect of the flow of the building. •Richness of materials and the palette will be outstanding. •It’s starting to feel like a featured building for the community that has the potential to be beloved, relative to the existing tired community center. •Heading in the right direction as a people’s place. Public Comments: There were no public comments. There was no action taken by the Planning Commission as this was an informational presentation only. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Young & Borlik Architects, applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1408 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1408 Bernal Ave - Attachments.pdf 1408 Bernal Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Item 7a on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (137 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2515 Poppy Dr - Staff Report 2515 Poppy Dr - Attachments 2515 Poppy Dr - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7b on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (367 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Sta1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - MND Addendum 1433 Floribunda Ave - IS/MND 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum - Tentative Condominium Map 1433 Floribunda Ave - Tentative Condominium Map Attachments: Chair Gaul was recused from this item as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Casey Feeser of Levy Design Partners, architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Trying to understand new entry form. Like the change that has been made to the turret. •There is a single door on lower level of wood box element. Door has no glazing, correct? (Feeser: It would be a perforated metal panel door or a wooded slat door.) •Do the two windows above the front entry area look into the lobby area? (Feeser: Two punched openings would be into the double height space with the stairway in it.) •Regarding entry way form, talked about identifying the entry and providing a shelter from the elements . Did you consider adding some type of overhang? (Feeser: Entire stair is covered by the third floor deck . Also added canopy above front entry door; believe it was added after the revised plans were submitted.) •What does the canopy look like and what material will be used? (Feeser: Canopy will be a metal frame with glass or perforated metal, something solid.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Like changes on west elevation façade, regularizing that façade makes a lot of sense. •Still concerned with the front entry, it ’s not very inviting and seems closed. Canopy helps, but feels very solid and not very inviting. •Stairway in modernist apartment building at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real has exposed stairway, is inviting and see pedestrian activity. Entry is threshold between public and private spaces . This project feels extremely private and shut off from Floribunda Avenue. Should reconsider design of front entry element. •Primary entrance is not very inviting and secondary entrance on west side is not identifiable. There is something wrong with the engagement of the building with the public realm; needs to be looked at again and opened up somehow. •Project is greatly improved and has come a long way. •Entry is uninviting; perhaps reducing the planter adjacent to the entry, to allow for double glazed doors, or a glazed door with a sidelight. Needs something to make lobby an inviting space, especially because it’s right on the street. Perhaps these changes can return as an FYI. •Generally program is supportable, reviewed it from a CEQA standpoint and project needs to move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: •that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of a redesigned front entry, with the direction to make the entry and lobby more open and inviting, which could include elements such as an entrance canopy, a wider entry landing and double glazed entry doors. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Gaul1 - b.212 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two -story 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. (Steve Lesley, applicant and architect; Jason and Anya Sole, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 212 Howard Ave - Staff Report 212 Howard Ave - Attachments 212 Howard Ave - Plans -09.24.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •On new front elevation, will the existing living room window be kept? (Lesley: Will not be changing this window, but all of the existing white vinyl windows, including the living room window, will be painted to match darker trim. New windows will be a dark fiber glass clad wood window to match trim.) •Plans need to be corrected to indicate that all new windows will be fiberglass clad wood. •Based on fenestration patterns and proportion of windows throughout the house, window assembly in master bedroom facing backyard seems fairly large. Feel that collectively they should be narrower. Can you consider making them narrower to match other window collections in the house? (Lesley: Client prefers a larger window opening because they wanted to bring more natural light and visibility into the room.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Project is improved. •Reduced plate heights, simplified roofs, unified eave details and added minor details and character make it a better project; is approvable at this point. •Still concerned with size of master bedroom and front living room windows, could still be improved. •Like changes, project has come a long way, is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Comaroto1 - c.2108 Clarice Lane, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing one -story duplex dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group applicant and architect; Janice and Richard Samuelson, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2108 Clarice Ln - Staff Report 2108 Clarice Ln - Attachments 2108 Clarice Ln - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jaime Rapadas, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Plans show that vinyl windows will be used. However, applicant's letter indicates another window type will be considered. Please explain. (Rapadas: It’s the same vinyl frame, but will be using the same grid patterns to match existing windows on first floor.) •Will the windows contain simulated true divided lites or grids between the glass? (Rapadas: Windows will be simulated true divided lites.) •Plans should then be corrected to indicate that windows will contain simulated true divided lites. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Like the revisions, particularly on left side elevation. Articulation along that fa çade, with the bump outs in bathrooms helps with the massing and gives logical location for terminating the vertical siding. •Add specific condition to project in regards to the simulated true divided lites for clarity. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: •that the simulated true divided lites for the new windows shall consist of dimensional muntins on both the interior and exterior surface of the dual glazing with a dividing bar in between the glazing not muntins in between the glass or on the interior only. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Parcel Map for a new four -story, 26-Unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the ground floor. (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (239 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 619-625 California Dr - Staff Report 619-625 California Dr - Attachments 619-625 California Dr - Final ISMND 619-625 California Dr - Draft ISMND 619-625 California Dr - MMRP 619-625 California Dr - Renderings - Color Board - Siding Specifications 619-625 California Dr - Plans - 09.24.18 619-625 California Dr - Tentative Condominium and Tentative Parcel Map Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis met with the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. •Page 4 of staff report indicates that the maximum building height allowed is 75 feet, is that correct? (Hurin: No, the maximum height allowed is 55 feet, will correct the staff report.) •We don’t have a breakdown of the public impact fees, but is the fee stated in the staff report correct? (Hurin: Yes, it is correctly stated in the staff report.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •What is the average unit size for the residential units? (Schoichet: Unit sizes vary between 900 and 1,100 square feet; average is approximately 1,000 square feet.) •Point out CERACLAD "Cannonball" siding on proposed building elevations and materials board . (Schoichet: CERACLAD "Cannonball" is noted with a different keynote on plans. It is proposed to be used on panels with a horizontal reveal.) •Rendering is deceiving because it makes the building very grey and monotone. •Concerned that the color disappeared and looks monochromatic. (Schoichet: There will be several stucco colors and a palette of textures, from very smooth to slightly textured. Idea of using CERACLAD fiber cement panels on fourth floor is to have it be fog like. Horizontal CERACLAD is intended to be in more highly visible locations at the base and shaft of the building. Porcelain panels in a gray, stone texture are proposed in and around storefronts on ground floor. Provided examples of similar palette of materials on building in San Francisco.) •What is happening with the glazing? (Schoichet: Want to have maximum glazing for light into the units and also for the aesthetic of the building, but at same time don ’t want people on street looking up into the units. So a spandrel panel, consisting of fritted glazing, would be used across the bottom of the windows . Fritted glazing would also be used on some of the storefronts.) •How deep are fourth floor private terraces? Specifically concerned with the terraces at the rear of the building. At 12 feet wide by 47 and 49 feet long, they seem large. (Schoichet: Yes, they are large. With all that roof space, it’s what we’ve decided to do.) •There is an 8.5 foot wide curb cut on California Drive. Is it just for trash removal? (Schoichet: Yes, it’s just for the dumpsters.) •Is curb cut on California Drive reason for removal of the Magnolia street tree? (Schoichet: This is a 13-inch diameter tree and is not in very good shape. Curb cut would require removal of the tree.) •Have you considered replacing it with another tree? (Schoichet: Believe there is another existing tree next to it, so did not consider adding a new street tree.) •Understand traffic study and traffic flow and am familiar with that intersection. Given that westbound Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Oak Grove Avenue is one lane, am concerned about impacts from someone wanting to turn left into site off Oak Grove Avenue. Has consideration been given to something like painting “keep clear” in the street, like you would see at an approach to a left hand turn? (Schoichet: Would like to leave it to the experts, but my understanding is that the Public Works Department doesn ’t want to make a permanent sign/marker in street.) •Corner plaza area could turn into natural high school meeting spot before and after school for student drop off and pick up; could increase amount of traffic at intersection. (Schoichet: Curb will be painted red at corner to prevent vehicles from stopping there.) •Red zone will be from project driveway to corner along Oak Grove Avenue? (Schoichet: Currently, red zone starts at middle of proposed driveway and extends to the corner and will remain. Mitigation measure from traffic report calls for a red zone from project driveway to west end of property to maximize visibility from driveway and enhance safety of vehicles exiting the site.) •Find balance by brown color shown in commercial space on rendering; compliments and offsets cool, light colors on rest of building. Seems like there should be some counter balance to colors, consider adding warmth to finishes. (Schoichet: Point is well taken.) •Design has moved along nicely. Public Comments: •Danelle Renks: Longtime resident and live around the corner. What buildings are being demolished and are they currently occupied? (Schoichet: Two houses on corner and existing auto shop will be demolished. Corner building is being used as an office, there is a short term tenant in building behind it and an automobile shop in the commercial building). Concerned that current occupants are being moved out. Think this is a beautiful building, should use green building materials and greywater system to irrigate landscaping. Concerned with traffic, Oak Grove Avenue is major thoroughfare to freeway, Carolan Avenue, California Drive and high school. Would like to see construction vehicle parking moved to Caltrain parking lot to alleviate traffic jams. •Sam Jones, Coffee Family Trust: Own apartment building across street. Trying to reconcile results of the traffic study, see backups of 10-15 cars all the time and area of proposed driveway constantly blocked with cars. Perhaps studies were done when school was not in session, there is a lot of traffic generated from parents dropping off and picking up kids. Intersection is a mess, traffic impacts are not just during peak hours. •Elma Kim: Lives in neighborhood, in support of project, important that there are live /work opportunities provided, needed for entrepreneurs coming to this area. Trusting the Commission and community to find the right solution for the traffic. In morning, experience traffic along Oak Grove Avenue wanting to make a left or right turn onto California Drive. Question veracity and honesty of traffic study. Vehicles will not be able to turn left into the project site off Oak Grove Avenue due to vehicles driving towards California Drive . There is a potential for traffic accidents because cars whip around onto Oak Grove Avenue assuming there will be no hindrances. Would like to see ingress on California Drive. Don't think there should be a left hand turn from project driveway. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Concerned with traffic impacts in area, should be looked at a bit closer. Didn’t see in traffic study where ingress and egress to the site was addressed. See vehicle backup on Oak Grove Avenue approaching California Drive all the time. •Green zone along California Drive for pick -up and delivery may or may not work, needs to be discussed with Public Works Department. •With 26 live/work units and two commercial spaces, believe there will be deliveries made every day and am concerned there is no area provided for deliveries. A space for delivery vehicles is critical. •Uber and Lyft may also have an impact on traffic. •Is the transportation consultant selected by the applicant or City? (Hurin: After reviewing proposals Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from environmental consultants, the City selects an environmental consultant who has a subconsultant prepare the traffic analysis; the City, not the applicant, manages the environmental consultant.) •Traffic studies often don't match a gut feeling one has about traffic will be impacted by a project . When analyzing projects, need to use best analytical tools available. •Like the direction the architecture has gone, this is a good looking building. The zoning is appropriate for this kind of project in this area. •Like idea of having retail here. Will tie in really nicely to retail node north of this site. •Having a hard time with the corner location and how the architecture is treated. Most visible part of this project is going to be what’s visible from the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. •Downtown Specific Plan talks about corner locations as being important and having special architectural requirements. Corner is least architecturally inviting part of the building. •Like direction of architecture, it has an elegant, timeless quality. However, project still needs warmth, needs to be studied further. •Regarding traffic, we shouldn't ever rely on gut feel. We have to rely on engineering and calculations, as required by CEQA. Need to analyze whether or not something rises to the level of impact that causes any further mitigation relative to CEQA. •Should look at traffic controls in an out of the driveway, because of its specific location. Many of the issues of the specific location are relative somewhat to peak periods. •There is a real intensity in mornings because of the elementary school and high school in the area. •Could ask Public Works to comment on whether or not there should be traffic controls at project driveway. •Overall good project and adds housing units in great location. We have an opportunity to create housing in an area where we need it. •Have better potential to serve our downtown area with housing in locations such as this. •Have questions for traffic consultant if he is available. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, was present to answer questions. •Can you explain how trips are analyzed for live /work developments? Are the morning trips eliminated because residents are working from their units? (Black: Typically treat live /work units as saying that those two factors offset each other, so in the traffic study they are treated as typical apartment units in terms of trip generation.) •That doesn’t mean that you’ve eliminated people leaving to go to work. (Black: No, we haven’t.) •Just because this is a live /work building, there is no guarantee that someone won ’t have a job elsewhere. (Black: There may also be units that have more than one employed person living there . Traffic study reflects people going to work in the morning.) •So this trip generation has been accommodated in the traffic study and in the level of service analysis that’s done for the intersections nearby? (Black: Yes.) •Has any consideration been given to left hand turns into site and blocking Oak Grove Avenue? (Black: Yes, it was addressed in the traffic study on page 14. It discusses the average and maximum queue length at the signal and whether that would extend back to the driveway to create the situation where a vehicle wants to turn left into the site and the driveway is blocked. Traffic study concludes that it would happen rarely and project doesn't generate that much traffic. The busiest time on Oak Grove Avenue heading towards California Drive is in the morning when people are going to school. Generally, residents from this project would be leaving the site in the morning, not coming in; they tend to come into the site in the afternoon. There is not as much traffic on Oak Grove Avenue in the afternoon based on our traffic counts. So the situation you ’re envisioning will be infrequent. The average queue length, even in the morning, based on our observations and calculations, does not go back as far as the driveway . Sometimes, when the maximum queue is reached, it does go back to the driveway and past the driveway . We also have to consider that if we ’re going to have a project, there needs to be a driveway somewhere, and in our opinion the driveway is in the best location that you could put a driveway. It’s as far away from California Drive as you can get it; would not recommend a driveway on California Drive. Driveway controls Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are not necessary, don’t see that there would be left turn conflicts on a regular basis.) •When preparing a traffic study, you ’re not just using a book and applying the data to the real world, you’re actually taking counts, correct? (Black: Yes, we counted traffic on Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. The am and pm peak hour counts are provided in the traffic study; also make observations on how traffic operates during these times. The counts were done while school was in session.) •Traffic study as part of General Plan updated noted areas of concern. Was this intersection one of those areas? (Hurin: Believe areas of concern included the intersection at Broadway and the Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue intersection.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Continued Discussion: •Project has come a long way, no longer feels like a cartoon, feels like a real building now. Don’t think the colors are right yet. However, the materials are much more substantial. Renderings are not helping because they’re so stark. •Materials can be fine-tuned, but that shouldn’t stop the project from moving forward. •Concerned about the large private terraces at rear of building facing the residential neighborhood . Suggest that roof planters be added to reduce size of usable area; should be substantially reduced . Could come back for review as an FYI if we move forward with project. •Like where project is going, appreciate adding more trees in rear yard. Agree that terraces are too large, concerned with noise from activity on terraces traveling to neighbors, size of terraces need to be reduced. •Like design of building, the stepped back fourth floor and dip in roof, takes away from hard edges around building. •No matter what is built, traffic will be a problem for people living in area. City has changed over the years, can’t expect small projects to be built any longer at these locations. •Unfortunate that at some points during the day traffic will be a problem, will be felt by people living in area, but reality is that someone living in a house at that corner is gone. •Live/work in Burlingame is still an experiment, but this building in its high traffic location is proper place to try live/work to see if it will be successful. Think project will be successful. •Concerned with stairwell design at corner, is tallest part of building and is stark and blank. Would like design of stairwell to be looked at again. •Should look at Section 5.2.5.7 of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding fa çade treatments on corner parcels. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: •that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review to address the following items: 1) refine the exterior color palette by working in some warmth and depth; 2) revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of the building facing the adjacent neighbor; and 3) revisit the articulation of the stairwell at the corner of the building, including adding glazing to soften the stairwell. Commission discussion: •Broad to say study articulation on the corner, can we say anything more specific? Perhaps introducing glazing to soften the stairwell, reduce its apparent size and be more interesting. Would not be as solid and would see more life in that corner. •Proposed ground level treatment at corner is significant, this is what most people will see. Pedestrians will experience seating, trees and vegetation. Treatment of stairwell at corner with the vegetation could be very nice. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Not in support of motion, feel that approval is premature given concerns with the design of the stairwell at the corner, merits more consideration by the applicant. •FYI can be brought back for further discussion. Have seen project several times and applicant has made significant improvements, need to move on and take action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Sargent1 - e.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a previously approved new five -story, 27-unit multi-family residential building with below -grade parking (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (391 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Staff Report 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Attachments 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Addendum to EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Final EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Draft EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - MMRP 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner Comaroto indicated that they will recuse themselves from the discussion as they have business relationships with the property owner; they left the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Terrones noted that he would not be returning for the remainder of the meeting. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Wayne Lin, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Is the whole building shifting over, or just the wing wall? (Lin: It’s a combination of both; based on the shared driveway easement along the right side of the property, preserving the existing trees at the front of the lot and widening the driveway width to the garage as required by code. Architecturally, feel wing wall should shift to match the driveway width.) •You’re saying that because of requirement to maintain the shared driveway, a larger setback is required along the right side of the property than is required by code, correct? (Lin: Yes.) •By setting back fifth floor further, are balconies getting larger? (Lin: Yes, balconies on fifth floor are larger, but massing of building is being reduced.) •Is the building in a different location than it was when it was originally approved? (Lin: No.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Variance is for wing wall only, correct? (Lin: Correct.) Public Comments: •Alex Mortazavi: Own property immediately adjacent to project site at 1124 Douglas Avenue. Supports project, as a whole project is improved, is much better project for the residents. Helps us by not having additional cars using shared driveway, 8-foot wide driveway is narrow. Most impacts have been eliminated . Was concerned about drainage, but recreation area at rear of site will take a lot of the surface water away . Will have view of solid wall at the kitchen, two metal doors and one roll -up door, will feel like a commercial property. Also concerned that recess in building along driveway will invite vehicle parking for furniture deliveries and catering, any vehicles parked there would disturb ingress and egress to our property . Would like to see a condition of approval to not allow vehicle access to that side of the building or add planters between two metal doors to have view of some greenery. •John Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue: Representing home owner ’s association at 1133 Douglas Avenue. Generally, changes that have been made are positive. Do want to point out a few things that need to be emphasized that have already approved in the mitigation monitoring program. They include development of a plan for providing worker parking off -site and generally off neighborhood streets, designating a community liaison person, active monitoring and enforcement of tree protection program, and acknowledging working hours. Suggest that we be given periodic updates of project construction and inclusion on the advanced notice list for construction noise and vibration. •Danelle Renks, next door neighbor: Concerned that bedroom wall is on property line, how that will be addressed during construction. Also concerned about dumpster behind property, not sure if it ’s on subject property. Agree with concerns raised by previous speakers. Would like existing oak and maple trees to be protected and retained for privacy along right side property line. Would also like arborist to be on-site during construction. Concerned about noise from a /c units and lighting and how that will affect us . Also concerned about the shadow effect of a five story building. Don't want to see any vehicles from this project using the shared driveway. •Neighbor (no name provided): Live next door to proposed building, don't want to see delivery vehicles using the shared driveway and area at rear, is too narrow for large vehicles. Wayne Lin provide the following responses to public comments: Roll-up gate is for electrical room, prevents people or vehicles entering that area. Can consider adding more landscaping in recess area to soften edge and provide something better for neighbors to look at. Off-site parking for workers has been addressed in the construction documents; everyone will be parked off -site unless there are deliveries being made, which will be coned off and noticed in advance of the scheduled delivery. A certified arborist will be on-site during construction of underground garage; monthly reports will be provided regarding the health and condition of the tree. Will be actively involved in notifying neighbors regarding noise, heavy machinery or any planned power outages. Noise in building will be controlled according to industry standards, windows will be double -paned and a/c units will be on rooftop, so there will be minimum noise coming from units. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •These are all positive changes, building is more articulated, and appears lower than it was. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lofits, to approve the application. Commission discussion: •Think neighbors request for periodic updates and inclusion on advanced notice list is reasonable. Should this be a condition of approval? (Hurin: Will be included in pre-construction meeting with the applicant, don’t need to include as specific condition of approval.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •In this case there is a unique requirement to maintain the existing shared driveway and provide a new driveway to the underground garage, therefore can make findings for side setback variance. •Previous project concerns have been addressed and eliminated, like that parking has been brought down underneath the building. •See neighbor’s concerns about the right side of building being stark, may want to look at screening this area with landscaping. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.229 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second-story addition to a single -family dwelling. (Dale Meyer Associates, Dale Meyer, applicant and designer; Rob and Kristin Flenniken, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 229 Bloomfiled Rd - Staff Report 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 9.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Appears that there is an error on the Front Elevation, existing upper roof should extend to the edge of existing second floor window. (Meyer: Will review and correct plans.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Nice, straight forward project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 - Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Terrones1 - b.1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling and a new detached garage (RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1422 Capucino Ave - Staff Report 1422 Capucino Ave - Attachments 1422 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Overall this is a nice design. •There appears to be a lot of stone veneer, will it actually get built? (Wehmeyer: Yes, owner intends to build it as shown. Combination of stone veneer and cedar shingles will look really nice and add character to the neighborhood.) •Wrought iron rail not typically seen on craftsman style house. Have you given any thought to using a different material? (Wehmeyer: Wrought iron railing allows more natural light in, looks lighter, is not as heavy and bulky as a wall would be if wood pickets were used. Client would rather see the stonework and not a picket railing.) •Don't typically review color because it can be changed. However, on a metal roof the color will remain for a long time. What color were you think of using on the metal roof? (Wehmeyer: Have discussed using a darker roof color, don't want a reflective quality off roof). •When project returns, provide something that is more definitive on metal roof color, want to avoid bright color. •Why are there two different roof types (Wehmeyer: Looked at different layouts and designs, client prefers metal roof on lower roof and shingles on upper roof, in line with other two story houses in neighborhood.) •Chimney cap on East Elevation looks small for size of chimney, make more proportional and bigger. •Consider using cable rail system instead of wrought iron, would work better with the metal roof. •Add note on plans to place pipe inside wall and recess electrical panel; location could be problematic on driveway side and aesthetically it would look better. (Wehmeyer: Preference is to keep it hidden, but there were a lot of PG&E issues encountered on that block. Preference is to bring main service into garage, then underground from garage to house.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Would like to see the general range of the intended roof color, including a sample or picture of the proposed metal roof. •Wrought iron railing doesn't seem appropriate for this house, not sure about the cable rail system because this is not a contemporary design. The right material for this craftsman style house would be wood. •Cable rail would match the metal roof better. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Commission Discussion: As previously noted, we typically don't specify roof color, but this is one area where we have asked for specifications before. I think in this case the plans should specify the roof color. Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS At their meeting on September 17, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the City ’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and adopted an ordinance regulating cannabis on a permanent basis. The Council also introduced an ordinance amending the hotel /motel parking requirement to allow a reduction in required parking to be requested through a Conditional Use Permit; the Council is scheduled to adopt the ordinance at its next meeting on October 1st. a.815 Maple Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 815 Maple Ave - Memo 815 Maple Ave - Attachments Attachments: Accepted. b.823 Edgehill Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Memo 823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Attachments Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 24, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 4, 2018, 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 $551, which includes noticing costs. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning 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 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018