Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.09.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 28, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and BandrapalliPresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker provided a tribute to former Planning Manager Maureen Brooks who passed away on September 25, 2015. Chair DeMartini called for a brief five -minute break following the tribute. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling and a Special Permit for an attached garage (Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp., applicant and owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit This item was continued to a future date and will be re-noticed. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.225 California Drive, zoned HMU - Design Review for an application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permit for building height for a new 4-story commercial building (DLC 225 California, applicant; The Jewell Partners, property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (172 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All Commissioners had visited the property and met with the project applicant. Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing provided an overview of the project, including details of project modifications that have been made since the Commission last viewed the project. Questions of staff: >Does the screen for the solar panels exceed 10% of the roof? (Ah Sing: the area is likely under 10%, but the way the definition is crafted it leaves it open to interpretation.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara and Rich Dewey of Dewey Land Development provided an overview of the revisions made to the project in response to comments received at a design review study session on July 13, 2015. Project Architect Andres Grechi was also available for questions. Commission questions/comments: >Thanked the applicant for being responsive to comments from the last public hearing. >Has the City's traffic engineer approved the location of the four trees along Highland Avenue? Wants to be certain that they can be installed as proposed. (Guibara: will confirm with the Engineer.) >Clarified that the roof deck is now gone. Note that there will still be a small outdoor area on the front portion of the third floor roof. >The parapet would not be required, though in this instance it is being provided as a means of screening for the solar panels? (Guibara: yes, this is proposed as an attractive screening feature . Grechi: want to be certain that the design is integrated.) >Will one be able to see the solar panels on the roof from the pedestrian level? (Guibara: yes, would be able to see them from more distant locations, but not from directly at pedestrian level adjacent to the building.) >Where do they see the retail space located? (Guibara: the lobby would be used in combination with, for example, a coffee shop. However, flexibility is built in to accommodate different tenancies.) >Requested clarification regarding the depth of the retail space. (Guibara: measured to the middle section of the space, it is roughly 40-feet deep.) >Have done a good job addressing the height issue and the parking issues. >The building will be pretty visible from other parts of Downtown, but stepping it back on the fronts and sides has been helpful. Was any thought been given to stepping it back from Hatch Lane? (Guibara: doing so would impact the floor area. There is a lot of articulation provided around the rest of the building.) >How will the gaps between the project and the adjacent buildings be designed? (Guibara: hasn't been resolved yet, but will be closed off in some manner to prevent access between buildings.) >Has thought been given to any other material than plaster at the ground level? (Grechi: the original thought is to install GFRC - glass fiber reinforced concrete.) >Comment on the car share program. (Guibara: have been reviewing options and will continue discussions with staff.) >Is there any feedback regarding how many spaces should be provided? (Guibara: will continue working with the staff to resolve whether one space or more should be required.) >Has any thought been given to providing a bike share program? (Guibara: will be discussed with the staff.) >Is the applicant open to having the parking available to the public after hours? (Guibara: are open to this type of arrangement, but need to determine the needs of prospective tenants. To the extent that Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the garage may be open to the public it is worth considering perhaps a valet service to keep the public out of the building. Must wait to identify a tenant.) >Likes the side elevations. With respect to the light wells, is there the square footage to provide a terrace on the third floor to look over the adjacent building? (Guibara: would adversely impact the second floor if this were done.) >With respect to the green color of the glass, noted comments from Jennifer Pfaff. (Guibara: will be clear, non-reflective glass. He further noted the flexibility to convert the Hatch Lane frontage to retail in the future if desired.) Public comments: >Joan Endo, Sakae Sushi: submitted her letter for the record that speaks to potential impacts to her business while this project is under construction. Concerned that she may be put out of business . Should only be a three-story building. During construction parking will be removed in front of her business and will impact her customers' ability to park and access her business. Tightly controlled conditions will avoid litigation. Her letter provides practical, considerate conditions that should be considered. Requested that the Commission consider the content of her letter. Noted that there is a no parking zone in front of her business. >Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue: referred to her letter and comments regarding the stucco finish - referenced the corner building at the Safeway property. Hopes that the finish is of a higher quality. Thanked the architect for doing something traditional. Feels real stucco on at least the front would be preferred. Real stucco should also be provided on the Hatch Lane facade as well. Still concerned regarding the green tint of the glass. Concerned about the reference to the project at "Burlingame Station" - would prefer not to have name as it would be confusing. >Linda Field: Thanked the applicant for responding to comments regarding the building design . Continues to find the overall size of the project objectionable. Feels that a four story is too tall. The scale of the building needs to fit with the scale of the adjacent buildings. At a minimum, the top floor should be stepped back further. Concerned regarding potential traffic impacts. Urged the Commission to closely consider the reduction in parking related to the car-sharing space. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission comments: >Asked if the comments regarding the adjacent business owner will be considered in the environmental document. >Feels the parapet is a part of the building design and not truly a screen. >Design is significantly improved from the prior design. >Feels that there are other projects of a similar height in the Downtown; this could also fit . Encouraged providing a fourth floor step back from Hatch Lane as well. >Concerned regarding traffic and other construction impacts. What can be done? >Likes the changes that have been made to the project. >Appreciates the design approach to minimize the apparent height of the building. >Feels that the retail will work substantially better with the current design. >The project does fit into the Downtown context better. Only concern is that the fourth floor looks a bit "static" - would like to see some liveliness and freshness introduced into the Downtown. Perhaps look at a more dynamic approach for the fourth floor. >The cornice detailing needs to be substantial and elegant. >Would be helpful to work with the parapet design to bring it into the permitted height. >Would be useful to see some renderings from other locations in three dimensions. >Disappointed because he really liked the original design - thought that there may have been some design in the middle between the two extremes. The design will not offend anyone - unfortunate, would have liked to have seen the first significant office building in Burlingame to be a bit fresher. >The parapet is not necessary as a guard rail since the roof top is not used as outdoor space . Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Believes that another approach to screening of the solar panels is a benefit. Do need to take into the view of rooftop equipment from various vantage points. Looks at the parapet as a roof screen. >The Hatch Lane elevation is the back of the building - stepping the fourth floor back will not provide much of an improvement. Would it be a token effort? Can work the way it is designed. >The applicant can attempt to resolve the glass color. >Believes there is an opportunity to provide more substantial finishes at the street level - perhaps add something around the entry area to give a more substantial feel. >Likes the front of the building and agrees pulling back the fourth floor from Hatch Lane. >Would be great to see another rendering to show the sides of the building - what you would see from a distance? >The parapet makes sense and are not offensive. Concerned about if technology changes. >Likes the approach for the lobby/retail space. >Has heard the comments regarding the potential impact of construction upon the businesses, but could come out as a vast improvement. Code enforcement can be used to ensure compliance with construction restrictions. Feels having the office next to a restaurant is a good fit. Something will be built on this site. >Not certain if the public would be interested in paying for parking at night. Could the City share some of the expense? (Kane: this matter is part of a larger policy discussion that must occur outside of the discussion of this project.) >Majority of the Commission views the parapet as a screen. >Some members believe that there is a design approach that could provide better articulation on the fourth floor on Hatch Lane that stops short of stepping it back. At this time, no action is required regarding this item. b.721 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Brett Newman, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Gum was recused from this item as he has an interest in a property located within 500-feet of the site. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the applicant but did not discuss the merits of the project. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Did the applicant consider something other than the existing wrought -iron support at the entry? (Geurse: for cost reasons, the property owner decided to retain the existing feature.) >Is there access from the family room to the garage? (Geurse: required removal due to current building codes.) >Will the new windows be vinyl? (Geurse: are planning to match the existing windows, but with simulated, true divided lights.) >Was any thought given to replacing all windows for consistency. (Geurse: will look at this in the future, but it is a cost issue currently.) >Need to see a sample of the window. >Was thought given to extending the existing chimney? (Geurse: can be challenging to extend the Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes existing masonry, so chose to extend with the metal chase.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >On the left elevation, noted that the existing window is not placed properly. Should also look at the current railing. >Is a very tight street with small houses on small lots. Have created a handsome addition. The design is nicely detailed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the matter on the consent calendar when ready for action. Discussion of motion: >Pay attention to the detail of the stretcher of tile extended across the entry and consider including such a feature on the left elevation. >Need to see a sample of the windows. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - c.601 Concord Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (Robert Stiles, applicant and architect; Eric and Vyl Chiang, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the applicant's parents. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Robert Stiles represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Stiles: the owners have.) >Will trees be removed? (Stiles: no.) >Will the clear finish on the garage door be carried over to the gable detail? (Stiles: yes.) >Will the same finish be provided on the Cedar gate? (Stiles: yes.) >Be certain that the design of the gate does not swing over the public sidewalk. (Stiles: will review this.) >Requested clarification regarding the rough opening for the second -story slider - it is shown at 10 -feet where the actual sill height is only seven feet. (Stiles: is an error, the door is 10-feet wide.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Has any thought been given to shielding the rooftop deck? (Stiles: no.) >What is the design of the railing? (Stiles: still to be determined.) >Has a wood top been considered as a finishing element to the top of the rail? (Stiles: Yes, will consider.) >Thought that the Building Code prohibited railings that could be used as a ladder, should review . (Stile: will review.) >Not too concerned regarding the rear deck. (Stiles: has been discussed with the neighbors.) >Has any thought been given to breaking up the mass of the wall on the Clarendon elevation? (Stiles: likes the simplicity of the stucco. But will consider another treatment.) >Most of the windows are wider than they are vertical. Consider reviewing the windows on the dormer as they appear to be more square. (Stiles: the proportion was driven to maximize the amount of light allowed into the interior, while maintaining a well proportioned dormer.) >How does the metal roof fit into the neighborhood? (Stiles: recognizes that it will stand out and is different from others in the neighborhood. Feels it works well with the architecture of the house. It is also a lifetime roof.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The metal roof works well with the existing structure. >There could be two potential impacts from the second floor deck; will not impact the neighbor on Clarendon due to the landscaping, but could impact the neighbor on Concord. The space is off of a family room. Has a hard time with it for this reason, as it may be more actively used. >The deck could have impacts upon other neighbors as well. Doesn't think the deck fits well in this neighborhood. >The design is confusing due to the lack of a color rendering - unsure what the house may look like . A rendering and material samples could be helpful. >Agrees with the concerns regarding potential impacts from the second floor deck. The neighbors may not be fully aware of the true impact due to the change in activity at that location. Could reduce the deck size. >The architecture is not substantially different from the neighborhood. A rendering could help. >Believes the metal roof will substantially change how the home relates to its neighboring homes. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for action. The carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - d.119 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Brian and Jennifer Buhl, applicants and property owners; Ruff + Associates, architect;) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini and Bandrapalli met with the applicant at the site. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes None. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Martin from Ruff and Associates represented the applicant. Commissioner questions/comments: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors. (Martin: yes, the neighbors are supportive.) >Seems that the gables that are remaining on the first floor are not accurately represented on the plans; feels that the existing gables are not as steep. (Martin: will double check this detail.) >Will the slate veneer at the base on the front elevation be removed? What will be removed as noted on the plan? (Martin: the slate will be retained, but a wall near the entry will be removed.) >What will be the three-inch wood trim? (Martin: painted wood.) >Any thoughts about providing a porch to blend into the neighborhood? (Martin: there is a small porch provided; around 20 square feet.) >Will both the street number over the garage and the entry remain? (Martin: the one on the garage will remain.) >On page A1.07, seems like the 17' 10" measurement is not correct. Double check this. (Martin: will review.) >Will grass exist on all sides of the house? Is there any thought to providing another permeable surface? This is a lot of lawn. (Martin: is supposed to remain. Will speak to the owners regarding this issue.) >Why not use vinyl windows to match the existing windows? (Martin: doesn't like vinyl windows . Doesn't think anyone will notice the difference. Provide a higher quality inside.) >What is the siding material? (Martin: a slightly better quality cement board that is of a higher quality than Hardy board.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: None. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the consent calendar when ready for action. The motion passed on the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS None. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Noted the City Council's affirmation of the Planning Commission's approval of the project at 2753 Burlingview Avenue. a.FYI: 1547 Vancouver Avenue - Clarification of as -built changes to the Front Elevation of a previously approved Design Review project. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015 September 28, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Accepted. b.FYI: 1901 Hillside Drive - Review of proposed changes to exterior materials (product type) of a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. c.FYI: 2313 Poppy Drive - Review of a proposed change to the roofing material of a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Chair DeMartini called for a moment of silence in remembrance of Maureen Brooks. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 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 September 28, 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 October 8, 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 $533, 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 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015