Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.09.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 22, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER The September 22, 2014 Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Bandrapalli. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and GumPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.September 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the minutes of September 8, 2014 with the following changes: >Page 3; Agenda Item 8(b) - 2829 Rivera Drive; Commission comments/questions: change "supports" to "support". >Page 3; Agenda Item 8(b) - 2829 Rivera Drive; Commission comments/questions; response by Roberts, add: "Also, the new structure will be below the height of the existing roofline of the existing house." >Page 7; immediately prior to Director Reports, add: Commissioner Yie left the meeting at 8:51 p.m. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as amended; it passed by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke regarding 1600 Trousdale Drive: >Indicated that she was not advocating below -market housing. Wants everything but the memory care units to be counted towards inclusionary units in Burlingame. >Is supportive of the project. 6. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Study Items to consider. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items to consider. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of Residential Density Bonus Ordinance Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. He also suggested that following the public hearing and discussion, the matter should be continued to the October 14, 2013 regular meeting to permit completion of the CEQA documentation and preparation of responses to any questions raised during the public hearing. Commission comments/questions: >With respect to mandated parking incentive; does this mean at any level of affordability the standards automatically are applied? (Gardiner - City is not obligated to approve unless specifically requested by the applicant.) >Requested explanation of the opportunity to apply for a waiver of development standards. (Gardiner - not clarified in State law, but does require the applicant to demonstrate that the incentive is needed to make the project viable.) >Does the ordinance apply to both rental and ownership units? (Gardiner - yes.) >May wish to consider providing relief from upper floor setbacks as an additional incentive; this can be challenging in designing a building. (Kane - can't use the local process to work around the density bonus provisions.) >Perhaps consider driveway width deviation as an incentive. >With respect to consistent standards of construction materials, could consider different, less costly materials? (Gardiner - will review.) >Are there any incentives to entice applicants to go past 30-years of affordability? (Gardiner - nothing in the State law that he is aware of. Depending upon the financing mechanism, there could be specific requirements for greater terms of affordability. The City could impose something greater than required by State law.) >How will the new provisions affect projects currently in the pipeline of review? (Gardiner - projects that are in the pipeline are subject to the standards in place at the time of application. A project could be withdrawn and resubmitted under the new provisions.) >Not a huge fan of the increase in height as an incentive. Is there an ability in R -4 zones to permit an increased density, rather than an increased height? (Gardiner - possibly, but is likely more of an item that should be explored as part of the General Plan update. The lack of an upper density limit for R -4 has created challenges in complying with the State density bonus law.) >Is the program set up to allow a developer to come in with a 35-foot height limit and no affordable units, but could still apply for a conditional use permit for greater height? (Gardiner - there are specific conditional use permit findings that would be required for granting the greater height. With additional height for providing affordable units, the applicant is provided one less item of uncertainty by providing the additional height as an incentive; not as discretionary.) >What kinds of relief from development standards could be requested in order to make a project feasible? (Gardiner - would be something that is "off the menu" that the applicant can demonstrate is necessary to make the project feasible. Kane - likely intentionally open -ended in State law. Can allow flexibility in instances where the standards may unduly restrict the ability to provide multi -family housing. Must make the case that the request is necessary to allow development.) >Would it be possible to provide an overlay for parking that permits consideration of proximity to transit as a point to consider in reducing required parking? (Gardiner - can look at other parking options that could be considered as a part of the menu of choices.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item until the October 14, 2014 regular meeting. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.463 Cumberland Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Una Kinsella, architect and applicant; Brian and Barbara Kott, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin There were no ex-parte communications. All Commissioners had visited the site. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Commission questions/comments: >Is there any way for the item to be considered as an FYI? (Hurin - because there was an increase in square footage had to come back as an amendment.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Brian and Barbara Kott represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application with conditions. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW – Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendments to the TW Zoning Regulations for construction of a new 132-unit assisted living and memory care facility (Joel I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Co ., applicant; Gabriel Fonseca, SmithGroupJJR, architect; Peninsula Healthcare District, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissoner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8(c) - 1600 Trousdale Drive, as he is a former employee of the architectural firm that Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes prepared the project plans. He left the City Council Chambers. Commissioners Yie, DeMartini and Bandrapalli noted that they had met with the project applicant and /or corresponded via e-mail. All Commissioners had visited the property. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Commission questions/comments: >Is the parking requirement for a residential facility similar to that for purely residential projects, or are they different for projects that include bundled services? (Hurin - described the different methods of parking for pure residential projects versus assisted living facilities. Meeker - noted that in the past, parking for assisted living facilities has been determined based upon parking analyses since the Zoning Ordinance doesn't specifically address the use.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Lawrence Cappel, Peninsula Health Care District; Werner Maassen, Smith Group JJR; Joel Roos, Project Manager; and Todd Murch, Eskaton; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments/questions: >Why was the stone base changed? The current proposal is a bit dated; the prior material was a bit more modern. (Maassen - were attempting to find something with a richer finish.) >With respect to the "Gettysburg" grey color on the lower portion of the building; asked if that color carries throughout the base of the building? Be certain that the texture follows through in construction . (Maassen - yes, it will.) >Is the parking in the garage intended to accomodate the entire project? (Maassen - yes.) There is a gate at the bottom of the ramp; how will visitors access the parking? (Maassen - there will be a card reader and intercom to permit access.) >The parking study concluded that the parking supply is sufficient for the project? (Roos - yes. Looked at other Eskaton projects and past experience to determine the appropriate parking standard . Memory care patients are not included in the parking equation. There are twenty -five works, not all drive. Fehr and Peers felt that the spaces were adequate.) >Does Eskaton have a local hiring program? (Murch - encourage hiring locals.) >Will there be an effort to apply for the loading zone along Trousdale? (Roos - will be seeking a loading zone.) >Has there been any outreach to the American Red Cross and the Monks to discuss impacts? (Roos - have been several outreach efforts over the past year.) >In looking at the incremental impact from the existing building to the new building, considered the maximum potential of the existing building? (Paul ?, Fehr and Peers - noted that the increment is small enough that there will not be a significant impact.) >What is the reasoning for having the courtyard on the north side of the building? (Maassen - a lot of seniors don't like to be in the sun, but may like natural daylight. Materials will provide a lot of reflective light. Roos - also considered prevailing winds and protection of patients. Maassen - many of the common areas and activity rooms face to the exterior of the project, not to the north.) >What happened to the green roof opportunity? (Roos - could be considered in the future for an SFO outlook, though not in the current budget. May be built out over time.) >With respect to water harvesting, is this being done with the exception of the foundation? Is the plan to harvest all water on the site? (Roos - when the geotech studies were completed, found that there was no groundwater on the northwest. Not seeing much of a need to pump water out of the area. Some of the water that is harvested will be used for purposes in the building.) >Have described the EFAS as stucco; has there been any study of using true stucco? (Maassen - waterproofing issues with EFAS have been resolved. Provides insulation benefits. Is a fundamental part of the efforts to make the wall assemblies meet Title 24. The appearance is a matter of craftsmanship.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Noted the chain link fence to be placed on two sides of the property to serve as a space for vegetation to grow. Is hoping that another material could be used other than a chain link fence. (Roos - have evaluated alternatives. Wood will not last over time. Once the vegetation grows on the fence, it will work well. Has been used in other projects with fast-growing materials.) >Is construction planned on Sundays? (Roos - typically not done due to union requirements. May be done periodically, but not with a full work force.) >Likes what has been done to the design on the street faces. His issues have related to the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Believes the design has been developed in a manner that it does appear like a mixed -use project, but doesn't imagine anything doing well as a retail use on the ground floor. >Still has a concern regarding floors three through six, comparing the last design to the current design; not certain that there is much of a difference. if the building is painted another color in the future, could affect the residential appearance of the building. What specific changes have been made? (Maassen - are subtle changes, have modified where the wood is installed and introduced a different window type - the windows have a heavier vertical bar. The balconies are more transparent than before - this is a nicer effect. The biggest change is the color.) >Placing the wood on the balcony is a noticeable change - this will not likely be painted. >Agrees that the proposed new stone material does appear somewhat dated. Believes that the prior material that was proposed would work. (Maassen - were trying for a warmer, more tactile finish. Will look at reverting to the prior material.) >On the west elevation, the glazing of the windows; why were the windows designed so narrow? (Maassen - limited openings because the walls are sheer walls. The sheer walls are inboard on the east elevation.) >Feels that the composition of solid materials and voids (windows) works well on the west elevation. >What happens with the entry statement when the street trees on Trousdale Drive are fully grown? (Roos - the move to a deciduous tree in planters will limit the height to a maximu of 40-feet. The trees will grow to the roughly the mid -height of the building.) Could the trees flanking the entry be of a smaller scale? (Meeker - could request that the City Arborist consider smaller scale trees at the location.) >Will artificial plant materials be plced on the third floor above the entry? (Maassen - yes.) >Ensure that any large trucks delivering to the facility does not occur during high school traffic times . (Roos - Magnolia is the primary truck entrance.) >Likes the design; the cornice feature enhanced the design. Public comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Could there be an issue with having smaller trees at the entry with an odd number of trees? (Hurin - suspects that as the trees grow, the difference will not be noticed.) Terrones, Yie to consider a smaller species tree flanking the entry (5-0-1-1) Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recommend to the City Council the trees flanking the Trousdale Drive entry to the building be of a smaller scale. Chair Bandapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Nayes: Recused: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to recomend approval Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of the project to the City Council. Chsir Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Terrones, and Gum5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Loftis1 - d.835 Airport Bl (DoubleTree), 1755 Bayshore Hwy (Hampton Inn), 765 Airport Bl (Hilton Garden Inn), 600 Airport Bl (Hilton), 1333 Bayshore Hwy (Hyatt Regency), 777 Airport Bl (Red Roof Inn), 1800 Bayshore Hwy (Marriott Waterfront), various zoning classifications - Amendments of the conditional use permits for various hotels on the City's Bayfront to eliminate conditions requiring City approval of parking charges for patrons (various property owners) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: William Meeker Commissioner Loftis returned to the dais. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had not visited the properties; all other Commissioners had done so. Community Development Director presented the staff report, noting that the request was City-initiated. Planning Commission comments/questions: >Why not just make a blanket change so that no hotel would need to have this type of condition? (Meeker - noted that only seven of the twelve conditions have such a condition. Some of the remaining hotels do charge, but are not required to have their rates approved by the Commission. Feels that the Zoning Ordinance is not necessarily internally consistent.) >Future hotel applicants will not have this condition imposed in the future? (Meeker - correct. The conditions may have originally been imposed due to conerns about on -street parking; though the hotels have more than adequate parking.) >Is there a reason why the code provision prohibiting charging for parking cannot be eliminated? (Meeker - can't be done at this hearing, but likely warrants an amendment to the code. The provision was likely created to ensure that parking for smaller scale commercial uses is not subject to charges . Kane - need to take a global look at parking charges since the City can collect revenue under certain circumstances. There may be a couple of ordinance changes needed to correct the matter. Meeker - would likely link an amendment to a particular proposal; is hesitant to begin making amendments to the current Zoning Ordinance given that following the General Plan update, it will be replaced with a new ordinance.) >Noted that some of the signs near the Marriott Waterfront Hotel indicated that approval from the front desk is required for parking in that parking lot next to the waterfront access. (Meeker - that is a condition unique to that hotel. It will not be affected by the proposed amendments.) >Would the City have the ability to reconsider the matter if people start using the street for parking rather than the parking lots? (Meeker - is always open to reconsideration by the Planning Commission if this is observed.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public comments: Doug Masuda, Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport and Harry Anginen , Director of Finance at the Hilton, spoke: >Support the changes to the conditional use permits as suggested. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >None. to approve Action Item . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications There were no Commission communications. b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014 There were no actions to report from the September 15, 2014 City Council meeting. c.FYI: 1510 La Mesa Lane – Review of revised plans for a previously approved Design Review Project. Accepted. d.FYI: 1517 Chapin Avenue – Review of clarifications to landscaping for a previously approved Design Review Project. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on this matter due to an existing business relationship with the applicant. Accepted (with Commissioner Terrones recused) 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at Meeting adjourned at 9:16 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 22, 2014. 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 2, 2014, 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. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015 September 22, 2014Planning 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 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015