HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.06.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 22, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent4 -
DeMartini, Loftis, and SargentAbsent3 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.June 8, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue
approval of the June 8, 2015 minutes until the next regular meeting on July 13, 2015. Acting
Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1100 Broadway, zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area - Application for Conditional
Use Permit to convert existing automobile service bays to retail sales (expanded
convenience store) in an existing gasoline station (Eric Keng, applicant and architect;
Lawrence G. Zaro Tr, property owner) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the store operator.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Requested confirmation that the project plans were sent to the County Environmental Health
Department re: potential groundwater contamination. (Hurin - noted that the project was sent to the
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
department and confirmed that the site had been cleaned up. Will do additional research to confirm that
no other contamination exists.)
>Is alcohol sales proposed? (Hurin - not proposed at this time.)
>What size trucks will be used for delivery; eighteen wheelers? (Hurin - will need to ask the
applicant.)
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Abdul Khamosh represented the applicant.
>Provided explanation of delivery times. Will be the same as has occurred in the past. Fuel delivery
will be completed by 5 a.m.
>Small trucks will provide delivery of sundry items.
Commission questions/comments:
>What is the plan with the pit that contains oil? (Khamosh - hazardous material specialists will
remove the materials from the property. Nothing will be allowed to remain and will be disposed of
properly.)
>How is it known if the underground tanks have leaked? (Khamosh - the tanks are new and are
monitored every three or four months by the EPA.)
>When will trucks be delivering? (Khamosh - vehicles will park in front of the store and will be there
only briefly.)
>Will there be alcohol sales in the near future? (Khamosh - not anticipated. Would come back to the
City if desired.)
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Seems like the use is consistent with the use of the property. Can support the conditional use
permit.
>Will be no substantive changes.
>Okay with the early start time of 5:00 a.m.
No action was required regarding this item as it was only a study item.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Front and Rear
Setback Variance, and Fence Exception for a second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling with detached garage (Waldemar Stachnuik, KWS United
Technology, Inc., applicant and designer; Bryan and LIndsay Morris, property owners )
(47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Waldemar Stachnuik and Brian Morris represented the applicant.
Commission questons/comments:
>Wanted to be certain that the divided light windows will be simulated true divided light windows .
(Stachnuik - will be adding grids on the addition areas.)
>Much improved from the original design. Given the condition of the site, feels that the variances are
warranted.
>Important for the design to fit in well with the neighborhood.
>What is the rationale for the fence exception? (Stachnuik - Given the proximity to the adjacent park,
the traffic in the area and the fact that the area fenced is the only private yard area available on the
property.)
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Well crafted design.
>Support for the variance requests due to the configuration of the lot and the past portions of the lot
that have been lost due to widening of Carolan Avenue.
>The fence design matches the height of the hedge along the adjacent park. There is support for the
greater fence height since it is protecting the only private yard area that exists on the property.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application with the conditions contained in the staff report. Acting Chair Gum asked for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
b.1349 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved design review project (Sonia Wadhawan
and Deepak Chugh, applicants and property owners; Daryl Buckingham, designer) (64
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Deepak Chugh and Sonia Wadhawan represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Primary issue is with the removal of the master bedroom window. Has seen many homes that have
windows flanking the bed over the night stands rather than over the bed. Understands the feng shui
principles that discourage the window over the bed. Doesn't feel that the deletion of the window on the
bedroom wall would have been accepted in the original design.
>High windows flanking either side of the bed could help solve the issue.
>Noted that the plans show deletion of plaster detailing around the porch entry. Noted that wood trim
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
was being placed around the feature today. Wants to be certain that what is being built is what is being
considered. (Wadhawan - will be wood trim that was seen in the field.) Liked the original ogee detail on
the original design. Plan should reflect that there will be a wood detail. Meeker - noted that the project
plans need to be revised to specifically match what is being requested.)
>Would like to see the window in the master bedroom revisted. (Wadhawan - the headers are not in
place to install windows flanking the bed. Cannot see this area except from the neighbor's house.) Not
that much more difficult to place the required headers on either side of the bed space.)
>The window on the second story right side appears not to match what is shown on the plans .
(Wadhawan - will be tempered glass.)
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the
item with direction to the applicant to revise the plans to match what is being requested and to
address the Commission's concern regarding the bedroom window, as reflected in the
discussion. Acting Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
c.1523 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
declining height envelope and Variances for side setback and parking for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Peter Suen, applicant and
designer; Kevin Lange and Betty Chen, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Peter Suen represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Requested clarification regarding the window design; will they be aluminum or aluminum -clad or
vinyl-clad? (Suen - will trim all windows with the same material, aluminum or aluminum -clad, and paint
them so they have the same look.) Encouraged matching the window styles and construction.
>Will extruded aluminum windows be provided in some areas? (Suen - potentially some of the door
sliders will be aluminum. Aluminum-clad is fine.)
>On the south elevation, the notch out of the second floor appears like a blank wall; encouraged a
window in this area. (Suen - was concerned about the fullness of the tree at that location. Can look at
this element.) The sill on the adjacent stairwell window could be lower to add more light to the area and
better articulate the elevation. (Suen - were trying to be more consistent in window placement based
upon the prior Commission comments.)
>Could keep the header height the same on the stair window, but drop the sill.
>Need to provide clarity regarding whether the windows will be extruded aluminum or aluminum -clad.
(Suen - will be aluminum extruded windows in some areas.)
>Likes the revisions to the designs and concurs with others' comments.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no comments from the public.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Can support the requests, including the variances and the declining height envelope request.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application with the following additional condition that revisions to the windows shall return to
the Commission as an FYI. Acting Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
d.1460 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a major
renovation including a first and second floor addition to an existing single family
dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Raymond Han, property owner) (58
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Requested clarification regarding the lack of a water conservation plan. (Hurin - noted that the City
Arborist didn't feel that it tripped the threshold for requiring such a plan.)
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Requested clarification regarding the revisions to the front elevation. (Grange - pushed back the
entire front of the house.)
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the conditions in the staff report. Acting Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and
the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1149 Cambridge Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Andrea Van Voorhis,
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
applicant and architect; Raul and Paula Sachdev Tr ., property owners) (65 noticed)
Staff Contact : Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbors to the rear and
Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the applicant.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Andrea Van Voorhis represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Van Voorhis - will reach out to the neighbors.)
>The detailing is done nicely.
>Feels the circular vent on the right side gable is out of character; why not square? (Van Voorhis -
will change to rectangular.)
>Noted that the Andersen vinyl windows specified have been accepted, but other vinyl windows are
not necessarily accepted.
>With respect to the landscape plan, it appears that the neighbor behind has huge screening trees .
What is being done to mitigate the impact upon the neighbor where the screening trees do not exist?
(Van Voorhis - the Ivy will not grow to a height that will provide screening. There is not a lot of light in
this area. Will look at this issue.)
>Likes the design, but sad to see the Orange trees removed.
>Is there a reason why so much paving is being provided in front of the garage? (Van Voorhis - want
to have room for two cars in front of the garage.) Could look at narrowing the driveway at the leading
edge and still provide parking for two vehicles side-by-side.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
application on the Consent Calendar. Acting Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
b.1491-1493 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R -3 - Environmental Scoping and Design
Review for an application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Condominium
Permit, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five
story, 11-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (Mark Haesloop, CHS
Development Group, applicant; Chi -Hwa Shao, Sheil Patel c/o CHS Development
Group, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>What is the height limit in the R -2 zone? (Hurin - two and one-half stories and 30-feet.) Is there a
opportunity for a special permit for height? (Hurin - doesn't believe so.)
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Haesloop, CHS Development Group represented the applicant re: the environmental analysis .
Toby Levy represented the the applicant re: the project design.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is there a means of making the rear -yard area a bit more inviting to use by the residents? (Levy -
the two driveways and the setbacks create a challenge, but will look at this again. Provided meaningful
decks off of each of the units.)
>Could the planters in the rear be placed closer to the building, with turf placed to the rear of the
planters in that instance. (Levy - can look at creating a better path to the rear.)
>What will the lobby area be used for? (Levy - can be used as a community -type room as it is
separate from the stairs - a flex space. The building isn't large enough to have an exercise room or
other feature like that.) Encouraged making the space something more useable. Could access be
provided to the front-yard from this area to better encourage use of the space?
>Have the neighbors been contacted yet? (Haesloop - haven't begun the community outreach phase
yet.)
>Concerned about the potential for residents in the building not using the compact parking spaces
and using the street; could conflict with traffic circulation around the school (McKinley). Encouraged
doing anything possible to mitigate that concern.
>Feels that there will be overflow parking on the street and that this needs to be addressed in the
environmental review.
>Understands the parking standards are 1.5 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit but concerned with overflow
parking. School is across the street with its own parking issues, and there is no parking on El Camino
Real around the corner.
Public comments:
Frank Bartaldo, owns the apartment building adjacent to the project site:
>Submitted letter regarding the project.
>Not opposed and would like to see the property improved.
>Concerned about mitigating impacts during construction.
Jim Chapaloni, 1470 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Concerned that the building is out of scale with the neighborhood. Nothing in the neighborhood is
five-stories tall.
>Shorten the building.
>Expressed traffic and parking conflicts with the nearby school.
>Also referenced the parking impacts from the two churches in the area during the weekend.
>El Camino apartment residents also park in the neighborhood due to the lack of parking on the
properties.
>The architectural style is out of character with the neighborhood.
>The aesthetics on the developer's building on the corner of El Camino and Oak Grove are failing.
Steve Kaufman, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Referenced his letter submitted earlier in the week.
>The project's architecture is out of character with the area; needs a more classic design. The
proposed design is more appropriate for areas south of Market in San Francisco.
>The five-story height is too tall when compared with the nearby buildings.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concerned about the adjacency of driveways between the project and his property and the potential
for accidents.
>Concerned about the two trees at the rear of the lot adjacent to his property. Needs to be a
significant amount of root barriers, etc. to ensure that roots don't intrude into the drainage on the
adjacent property.
Betsy and Greg Valdez, 1490 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Shared concerns expressed by Chapaloni.
>The scale of the building will overpower the area.
>The architecture is not compatible with the area.
>Expressed concern regarding the "shaft" on the right side of the front elevation. What is it's
purpose? Takes a large piece of property without an identifiable function.
William Affonso, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Submitted a letter dated June 22, 2015 - read from the letter for his comments.
Mike Neubracht, resident on El Camino Real across from McKinley Elementary School:
>Building is out of scale and does not fit in with the street.
>Should be some scaling down of the building to make it fit better in the neighborhood.
>Should reflect some of the architectural character in the neighborhood.
Jim Tomisello, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Represents the homeowner's association for his property.
>The sixteen owners are opposed to the architectural design and the project height.
>Encouraged the developer to meet with the neighbors since it is a building that CHS Development
constructed.
>The project was the subject of a multiple construction defect suits.
>Are skeptical of the building construction quality.
Diana Affonso, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Thanked the Commission for having the public hearing and protecting the character of Burlingame.
>Burlingame has a very unique culture that should be preserved by the Commission's attention to
detail. Appreciates being part of the shared vision.
Larry Durrell, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue:
>Agrees with other comments from residents in 1499 Oak Grove Avenue.
>Needs a complete redesign.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>The execution of the architectural style appears to be boxy and maximizes the development of the
property. Is important that the building blend into the neighborhood better than it does.
>Feels the proposed height is a problem, particularly given its context adjacent to the school and an
R2 zone. The building should be brought down in scale.
>Would like more information to be provided relative to height. What are the heights of nearby
buildings in feet, not just the numbers of stories? Correct the cover sheet on the staff report. Need to
evaluate whether a particular height is appropriate for the area. Need to evaluate the height in context
with other buildings in the surrounding area, either by the environmental consultant or the project
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
applicant.
>The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of architecture. Need to provide features that add life and
pedestrian activity to the first floor of the project.
>Perhaps a more detailed rendering could be provided to elucidate the function of the tower element.
>Encouraged the applicant to conduct community meetings to learn of the neighborhood's concerns .
Unfortunate that this hasn't happened yet.
>Maintain human scale in the design.
>Feels the outcome would have been much different if the applicant had met with the neighbors .
Encouraged more community engagement.
>Agreed that the 55-foot height may be more appropriate deeper within the Downtown zone.
>Encouraged the use of car-stackers to enhance parking.
Community Development Director Meeker noted that since the project is subject to environmental
review, the project will automatically be presented to the Commission as an Action Item at the
appropriate time in the future.
c.1710 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for Commercial Design Review for an
addition and facade modifications to an existing office building (Mike Ma- March
Design, applicant and architect; Lisa McTaggart- California Society of Certified Public
Accountants, property owner) (12 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director William Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Michael Ma and Todd Wright represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Asked if the six street trees required by the City are shown on the plan? (Wright - pointed them out
on the plan and indicated that a local landscape architect is working with the project designer.)
>How tall will the trees grow? Would be nice if the trees grew large enough to provide some
screening for the building. (Wright - agrees. Will raise this with the landscape architect.)
>The rendering is very handsome and very simple. The key will be in the detailing. Likes the
representation of the window pattern as shown on the rendering. Hopes it can be executed in the same
manner. (Wright - will be focusing on these details in the final design.)
>Likes the canopy over the entry. Noted that the entry will need to be accessible.
>Expressed concern that the trash enclosure may not be adequate for the new tenant. (Wright - is
working with Recology to determine the size needed.)
>Ensure that the glass is not reflective. (Wright - no intention to include reflective glass.)
>Take landscape trees from the City's list.
>Impressed with the design.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Is a vast improvement to the building design.
>Place on the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the matter
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 22, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
on the Consent Calendar. Acting Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 1119 Eastmoor Road - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
b.FYI: 74 Loma Vista Drive - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
c.FYI: 1548 Los Montes Drive - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
d.FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 9:29 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 June 22, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2015, 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 $485, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015