Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.10.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 22, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: >Clarification to the 1433 Floribunda Avenue minutes: Reference to entry doors should just read "double glazed entry doors." 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: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report.pdf 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments.pdf 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans - 10.22.18.pdf Attachments: 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. Eric Nyhus, project architect, represented the applicant, with the property owners. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is a sample of the Hardie siding available? (Nyhus: Has submitted a sample. Will specify white.) >Would you consider using smooth siding rather than a wood grain? (Nyhus: Prefers the grain showing.) >Joints don't hold up well with Hardie siding over long expanses. (Nyhus: Applicants will agree to wood if necessary, and have the siding go around the corners without trim pieces.) >OK with the corner boards since they fit this particular architecture. >Did you consider one dormer instead of two dormers on the garage (Nyhus: It would be centered between the two garage doors, and it is a wider wing. Had considered it but it looked unbalanced.) >The 3D modeling helps to understand the massing, but reveals that the garage has a very flat face and feels blocky. (Nyhus: Could consider a single, larger dormer similar to the wing on the right.) >It would help to break up the massing of the garage by adding a roof form between the first and second floors, similar to the house across the street. >There appears to be an inconsistency in the application of the shutters. There are shutters on some of the windows on the left elevation but not on others, whereas on the right elevation there are shutters throughout. (Nyhus: Can look at it.) >Did you consider pushing garage back even further than two feet? The lot is much larger than a typical Burlingame lot. (Nyhus: Wanted to maintain room for a deck in the back. Also wants to maintain the balance with the wing on the right.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Doesn't make sense to compare massing of new house to the existing house because the existing house would not be approvable under the current ordinances. >It is handsome architecture and would look great on 60 acres, but at this location the garage overwhelms the street. >The dormers on the garage do not function like dormers in the traditional sense. Here they are extensions of the facade extending up through the roof to create a second story. The roof springs from a plate height that is above a second floor. The facade has two stories. >The garage on the house across the street springs up from the top of the first floor, with attic space Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes above. >Still has issues with the garage, being asked to approve a two-story garage. >OK with Hardie siding and corner boards. >Appreciates the outreach to the neighbors, but that in itself can't strictly drive the outcome. It can't drive how the commission interprets the design guidelines as they apply to the application. >Balance does not need to be literal. There can also be balance through asymmetry. >Faceprint is very broad across the front, particularly given that the garage is attached. > Beautiful house and it will contribute to neighborhood, except for the design of the garage. >The house is at the maximum allowed floor area, but the way the garage is configured the second floor would not count towards floor area. However, it reads from the street like a second floor regardless, and makes the house look bigger than it is. The house and right -hand wing are approvable, but the garage needs to be looked at further. > Needs to consider a one -story garage to be consistent with the zoning regulations if the size of the house and wing are to be maintained as they are. > Likes the massing of house, but has a problem with second story on the garage. It would be overwhelming from the street. > It is not okay to fill the entire frontage of the lot. It is effectively a 20 foot tall, 60 foot long wall over a 100-foot frontage. The entire frontage is filled with building, and there is not the relief that a rear detached garage would otherwise provide. It is inconsistent with the neighborhood design guidelines. > Shouldn't be patterning off the house across the street, it does not fit in the neighborhood. There is nothing else in the neighborhood that is similar to the house across the street. >There are numerous attached garages in the neighborhood, but they are not two stories. > Would like to see the garage pushed further back. Understands there is a creek, but this is a 12,000 square foot lot. Not convinced the garage could not be pushed further back. >These points were expressed before, but the the resubmittal has not been responsive to the previous concerns. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.Adoption of the Update to the Burlingame General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Staff Report Final EIR (FEIR) Exhibit A: Responses and suggested actions to Draft General Plan public comments Exhibit B: Draft General Plan public comments – original correspondence Exhibit C: Implementation Programs errata/edits Exhibit D: 75 CNEL Noise Contour errata/edits Resolution - General Plan Resolution - EIR Meeting Minutes and Public Notice Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the consultant team: Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden of MIG. There were no questions of staff. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden made a presentation to the commission. Commission Questions/Comments: >Response to comments, on page 1 and 2, there is a comment from Justin Moresco regarding a soft story construction evaluation deadline of 2020. There is a recommendation to delete the 2020 reference in the first place it is mentioned, but then it is mentioned a second time. Should the second mention also be deleted? (Stetson: Recommendation is to not have the deadline stated, to provide flexibility.) >The description of "sheer" walls in the Moresco letter should use the spelling "shear." > Item #2 on Response to Comments, Chapter XIII should be Chapter VIII. Item #11 on Response to Comments, should be Chapter VII, not Chapter XII. > Is there a number that represents the likely build -out, as opposed to maximum buildout? (Stetson: The EIR does not assume maximum buildout. It is more like 80%. Maximum generally cannot be achieved on every property, given variations in shapes of properties and other factors that would prevent building out to the maximum. There is some allowance in the calculation that does not assume maximum buildout.) >The slide presentation would be helpful to have posted for members of the public. It provides a good summary of where the numbers are at. > In the north end of Rollins Road there are high voltage power lines. Did the EIR take that into consideration? Would they impact what could be developed in the area? (Stetson: There are not regulations that would prevent situating housing near high -voltage power lines. However it is something each individual developer would take into consideration through the process. From the EIR perspective there is not evidence that would suggest homes could not be placed in proximity to power lines, but it is a decision the developer would want to consider with respect to perceived concerns .)(Gardiner: The power lines in the Rollins Road area align with a drainage easement, and buildings would not be allowed within the easement both because of the drainage and because of the power lines. It is a "no-build" zone and can only be used for parking or open space. Buildings would need to maintain clearances to each side.) > Concern with the significant burden on the community to require a historic resource study for each discretionary project. Believes most properties will not be found eligible for historic status. (Amsden: There are other options such as a resource survey, or perhaps a tiered approach .)(Gardiner: The intent is to identify potential resources, both for community character and to meet the requirements of CEQA . We've done further research and there could be other approaches. A "historic context statement" is an option that would provide a measure of pre -screening; there are other possibilities. The policy language could be adjusted to allow the matter to be studied further as an implementation action.) >Is the approach to historic resources in the plan the approach recommended by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC)? (Gardiner: Yes. The committee weighed the merits of a comprehensive survey compared to individual evaluations that would be tied to applications for significant development projects, and the CAC thought this approach was more equitable. In this approach, a property owner would not be included in an evaluation unless they were proposing a project.) > 144 homes have sold in Burlingame since January 1, 2018. 128 of the homes sold were over 50 years old. Need to carefully consider how these properties are evaluated. Public Comments: > Kamran Ehsanipour: Owns property at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. At last meeting expressed benefits of building a mixed use building. Given its frontage and proximity to North Burlingame, believes the North Burlingame Mixed Use would be a better fit for the property rather than Broadway Mixed Use. The Broadway Mixed Use designation would reduce the number of units that could be accommodated on the property, and requests that the North Burlingame Mixed Use zoning be applied instead. Mixed use is beneficial for traffic and the look of the neighborhood. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Justin Moresco: Called for an inventory of soft -story multifamily residential buildings. These buildings are highly dangerous in earthquakes. Intent is to have an inventory of soft -story buildings in Burlingame and make recommendation to the City Council, and identify incentives that can offered. Both the inventory and recommendation should be accomplished by 2020 and should not be too difficult a timeline for the deliverable. Requests that the date in the letter and recommendation remain as proposed, otherwise it may not be carried out. There are probably between 50 and 200 such buildings in Burlingame. > Vince Muzzi: Had unpleasant experience in Millbrae with historical review. If something is historic, people will know; a consultant could go out and do it once. Burlingame is a stable community, there are not a lot of teardowns. If people have a property that is generating income, the delta between maintaining current use or putting the property to another use needs to be significant. Can change the zoning, but nothing might happen. Should look at what was projected in other plans, and whether changes that were anticipated occurred. Concerned unrealistic growth projections could undermine support for the plan. > Mike Dunham: Lives in Burlingame. There is a severe shortage of housing in California. Consensus is rents and home prices are so high because the State has severely underbuilt in the last few decades . Burlingame has also underbuilt in the last few decades. The General Plan is very thoughtful on where it makes sense to build the units. There is a severe shortage of workforce housing for people who work in Burlingame; San Mateo County already creates 19 jobs for every new home built. Worries that the problem is only going to get worse, needs to fight the forces of NIMBYism that think everything is fine as it is . Current generation can't buy homes in the community, they move to the East Bay instead. Kids in Burlingame now will not be able to stay in Burlingame when they grow up, will move away. Encourages accelerating the process of building housing. > Bryan Miranda, Public Storage: Owns properties at 1761, 1801 and 1811 Adrian Road. There is a tremendous demand for storage: 88% occupied after being open for two years. Would like to allow FAR to be increased to 1.15 to be able to expand to the building currently occupied by Goodwill. Goodwill has given notice it will be vacating to get more space. The Goodwill building is accessed through the Public Storage property so it makes sense to convert it into storage rather than another use. Would convert it by adding a second floor within the existing building, but with the 1.0 FAR could only extend the second floor across half of the building. Would need 1.15 FAR to extend the second floor across the entire building. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > A lot of work has been done over the last couple of years, likes the direction it is going. It provides the City with a direction to go. > The historical review process needs more study. There needs to be a balance, some properties are worth protecting. Policy needs to be crafted to leave flexibility for determining what the process for evaluation will be. >The 50 year threshold for historical review was proposed to be consistent with CEQA. > Accessory dwelling units have become very popular, can they be added as a category to the housing count? Expects interest to grow. > Doesn't think North Burlingame Mixed Use land use should be applied to the 1501 El Camino Real property. North Burlingame has a wide frontage, but this part of El Camino Real is more narrow and tight . It looks, acts, and behaves more like neighborhood commercial in the Broadway mixed use area, so a higher density would not be appropriate in this case. > Okay with the suggestion for an FAR increase for storage uses in the Live /Work area given the suggestion that the increase is justified by the reduced impacts of the storage use. > The process has been impressive. The vision presented of what areas are staying the same and what areas are changing in Burlingame is helpful. The character will stay the same except in the few areas where change is desired. There is a need for more housing, and where it is being proposed is the right area. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Still concerned about language for historical review, still needs further review and discussion. Wants a sieve that catches what wants to be kept, but let everything else through easily. Requires more study . (Stetson: Can craft something to put forward to the City Council that reflects what has been expressed, with policy direction to have the issue studied at some point in time.) > Values the resources and the fabric of many of the the neighborhoods, but doesn ’t want such a bright line that it will bring out opposition to the plan. Needs to find something more palatable and achievable. >The Final EIR addresses the comments that were received on the Draft EIR, citing additional study or mitigation was not necessary. It is ready to move forward. >The General Plan is ready to move forward with the suggested staff edits, with the reworking of the historic resources policy. The revised historical language can come back to the Planning Commission as a Director's Report or FYI. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend adoption of the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Camoroto reported that she attended the recent State Lands Commission meeting in Sacramento for the parcel on the Bayfront. The Commission will be issuing an RFP to interested parties for use of the land. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that there have been two meetings of the Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommittee to review interim standards for the North Burlingame Mixed Use District and North Rollins Road Mixed Use District. The draft regulations are likely to be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. a.1411 De Soto Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling. 1411 De Soto Ave - Memo 1411 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1411 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further review. The drawings are confusing. Difficult to tell where siding starts, where the stucco stops, and what is coplanar. Would like more consideration of the detailing that disappeared from the plan. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018 October 22, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 22, 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 November 1, 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. 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018