Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.02.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 11, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakuafisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and TsePresent5 - Comaroto, and TerronesAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the January 14, 2019 minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The December 10, 2018 minutes were not completed in time and will be reviewed at a later date. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - a.Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8a - Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Code, to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. This item has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting (date not determined). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar, Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property owners) (165 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1328 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1328 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1328 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused for non-statutory reasons. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakuafisi provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The staff report mentions a special permit for reduction of parking spaces for an attached garage . Should that instead indicate a detached garage? (Kolokihakuafisi: Yes, that is a typo.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does not see any issues. Conforms to the regulations. Only a net increase of 8 square feet. >There is a long driveway, with plenty of space for parking. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on -site parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The special permit findings include how the project blends with the neighborhood. Does that provide latitude to evaluate the design? (Gardiner: In this instance the special permit is related just to the reduction of parking. Special permits can cover a range of items, with some of them being more architectural than others, such as declining height envelope.) >Since the special permit in this application is regarding the parking, would the design of the garage be part of the consideration, particularly since it would still look like a two -car garage even after the reduction in parking? (Gardiner: Direction can be provided to the applicant on how to integrate a single -car garage into the design of the house, given that it is related to the reduction in parking.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why two garage doors even though one will be living space? (Neubert: Thought it helped divide the rooms, and look like garage door entries. Thought it had appeal as a two-car garage from the street.) >Will the driveway space in front of the den be maintained? (Neubert: Will remain untouched.) >Since it is not a garage, would it make sense to remove the pavers? (Neubert: Could do other landscape if asked.) Public Comments: Vince Emory, 1115 Eastmoor Road: Looks nice from the outside. It is a four -bedroom house, however there was an illegal family room, and it has since been referred to as a fifth bedroom. Worried about a four bedroom house becoming a five bedroom house. (Neubert: The room is intended to be a den/study for the children, not a bedroom.) Highway Road resident: How is increasing the living space resulting in the garage being reduced? (Kolokihakaufisi: It was originally a two-car garage, then it was converted into living area. This proposal would convert half of the unauthorized conversion back into garage space, and the other half would remain as a den. Also, a rear porch area would be enclosed to add to the rear bedroom as living space.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concern the site plan allows parking in front of the den, which breaks the code. >Double-car garage does not fit the pattern of the neighborhood. >Eliminate some of the driveway and add landscaping to inhibit parking. >Should be treated as habitable space and made distinct from the garage, to look like habitable space. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.400 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use Permits and Special Permit for a new detached garage and a new detached guest and pool house . This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit. 400 Chapin Ln - Staff Report 400 Chapin Ln - Attachments 400 Chapin Ln - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent pulled the item for consideration. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Jones, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There was a condition of approval requiring replacing or repairing of the fence. Wanted to confirm that it is still being repaired. (Jones: Either repaired or replaced.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >No problem extending the application. Others have been extended under similar circumstances. >Commissioner Gaul notes for the record that he did not support the original application, but will support the permit extension. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Code, to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Staff Report Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Attachments Proposed Amendments to Title 25 Zoning PC Resolution Attachments: >Item 8a - Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Code, to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. This item has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting (date not determined). b.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development Staff Report Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Exhibit A Seifel Consulting Report Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages Public Notice Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >In Figure 1-1 in the Seifel financial analysis, why is the maximum justifiable fee per square foot $85.00 when the unit fee is much lower? (Gardiner: The analysis indicates a maximum fee based on the demand for additional workforce housing, however that maximum fee may be higher than what the market can support.)(Kane: It is a dilution factor, in that the higher occupancy housing has a greater impact on the jobs balance than lower occupancy housing such as single family homes. It can be counterintuitive.) >What is the difference between base impact fee and impact fee with prevailing /area wage? (Gardiner: A discount is applied to projects that utilize prevailing wage labor and enter into a prevailing wage agreement. It is meant to encourage the use of prevailing wage labor, but also recognize that prevailing wages has a benefit on the workforce. Therefore there is a tie-in in justifying the discount.) >The fees would only apply to projects with applications deemed complete upon the effective date of the ordinance. What establishes the effective date of the ordinance? (Kane: The ordinance will go forward to the City Council with two readings. Since it is a development impact fee, it would become effective 60 days after final adoption by the City Council.) >How was the threshold of 11 units for the rental multifamily and 7 for the condominiums determined? (Gardiner: There was discussion among the Council to determine a threshold for small projects for each development type. In particular, they would be smaller projects that would have a harder time absorbing the impact fees.)(Kane: The thinking was also that smaller projects would have less impact on neighborhoods, so the Council did not want to risk disincentivizing small projects. The fees would apply where there were greater economies of scale that could absorb the fees more easily.) >Is the 55 year affordability period a common timeframe? (Kane: It reflects structure in State Law, as well as tax credit financing. There are a lot of things that hinge off of a 55-year covenant.) >Can the Planning Commission provide additional input on items to include in the ordinance? (Gardiner: Yes, the overall structure of the fees has been set by the City Council, but the Planning Commission is welcome to make suggestions that will be forwarded to the Council.) Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >On the last page of the Seifel report, likes the list of Policy Considerations to Encourage Onsite Affordable Housing. In particular likes the suggestion of developing a more predictable and streamlined process for land use approval and design review in order to reduce the time and risk associated with infill development. This seems like it would be beneficial to provide to developers, a means to outline more of what to anticipate from the dais. In advance of a presentation to the Planning Commission a lot of time goes into developing plans, and even something as simple as materials could be clarified. Perhaps a "pre-presentation " before coming to design review. There could be a list of acceptable materials, window specifications, landscaping, sizes of decks, etc. There could be a collection of general findings made in recently approved projects. It could also be done at the staff level. >Report references a preference for providing on -site units. From the report, it appears the only densities where that is economical is at the highest densities of 120 units per acre or more. Where would that be? Would that be the Rollins Road Mixed Use area? (Gardiner: The highest densities under the new General Plan are in the North El Camino Real area, near the Millbrae Caltrain /BART station. Downtown also allows high densities. The Rollins Road area has a slightly lower density, but an additional variable is when projects utilize State Density provisions, which can change the economics and make the lower densities more viable as well. There is currently a proposal in the Rollins Road area at around 90 units per acre, and it has affordable units consistent with the specifications in the ordinance so presumably pencils out. The economics of each project will vary, but generally the higher -density projects are more able to absorb the cost and spread them ) >Shares the desire to encourage below -market units rather than the fees. It will take a while to build up the fees, and when considering the cost of land and construction it will not go very far. Whatever the City can do to encourage building the units rather than collect the fees would be worthwhile. >Has been a proponent of getting the fees program in place. It is a place to start, and is necessary for addressing housing issues. Supports the ordinance as proposed. >The ordinance is responsibly written, with the intent of maintaining a healthy mix of socioeconomic households in the population. >The ordinance also has an option for appeal; if someone wants to build a project and the requirements would hinder that, they can make their case. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - c.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was previously denied without prejudice 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 (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner ) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Eric Nyhus, Nyhus Design Group, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What are the plate heights on the wing on the right side? (Nyhus: 7'-6" to the daylight plane. 6'-3" with the dormers extending above that. >Why was the second floor plate height raised? (Nyhus: Originally had a 7'-6" height for the windows . The owner wanted to get it as high as possible, to get a lot of visibility. Started talking to contractors, and received input that the slope of the roof was odd, with a slope of 4.25:12. Changed it to 4:12, which provided the roof height and allowed the window height to be raised a bit.) >What color will the standing seam metal roof be on the bays? (Nyhus: Dark bronze) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Previously the garage had been the issue. If the garage had been the only change, would make a motion to approve right now. But increasing the plate height on the second floor throws off the proportions, particularly on the right side with the smaller element there. It feels too tall now, and the right side looks out of proportion. (Nyhus: The wing did not change; it was the main body roof form that changed. The pitch changed, but the ridge was lowered on the wing so the eave would not be lost.) >New position of the windows does not provide relief between the roofline and the tops of the windows . It looked more natural in the last iteration. >Proportion of the upper and lower windows looks OK with the higher plate height. It is the type of house, with a big front face. It does not have the undulation seen on other styles of houses. Not opposed to the plate height and taller windows. >Project looks good and the changes to the garage are a big improvement. Hesitates to play double jeopardy; if there were concerns with the 10-foot plate height on the ground floor, it should have been discussed in the first round. >Previously the second floor was not 9 feet. >If the reason for raising of the second floor is to better match the 10-foot plate height on the first floor, it seems the wrong approach. If it came back with 10 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second as originally proposed, it would be a different discussion. Since the second floor plate height has been raised, it has opened up the discussion. >Cannot use the first-floor plate height as justification for a 9-foot plate on the second floor. >Neighborhood has a lot of older housing stock with lower plate heights and second stories nestled into roof structures. The intent of the design guidelines is to minimize the impact of the two -story face from the Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes street. >It is a boxy style but is well articulated. It is a style of house that typically comes out square. With the lower roof pitch, can live with the 9-foot plate height upstairs. It increases the window heights, which makes it seem more in proportion. >10 feet is an enormously high ceiling. 9 feet is still a very high ceiling for a ground floor. However this was not discussed previously. >It is a stately house. This type of a house warrants a higher ceiling height. >Can still be a stately house at 9 feet first floor and 8 feet second floor. Can have more volume inside on the second floor by doing things with the ceiling joists and cathedral ceilings. Concern not with the inside, it's on the outside in terms of how it looks in the neighborhood. A stately house with these plate heights will look really big compared to what is around it in the neighborhood. >Supports the changes to the garage. The continuation is regarding the plate heights. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, and Tse3 - Nay:Loftis, and Gaul2 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - d.800 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a new garage to an existing single family 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. (Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant and designer; Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 800 Winchester Dr - Staff Report 800 Winchester Dr - Attachments 800 Winchester Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, represented the applicant. There were no questions of the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. They have addressed the concerns that were raised. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The neighborhood predominantly consists of attached garages, which justifies the special permit. >The changes have improved the project but it is still quite clumsy. However the addition is far enough back, and the front of the house has been maintained. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - e.1613 Coronado Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing 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. (Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Gregory Button, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1613 Coronado Way - Staff Report 1613 Coronado Way - Attachments 1613 Coronado Way - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Tse recused, as one of the neighbors is her client. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video and visited the project site. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, Jerry Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Gregory Button. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made to the project. It is improved. >Well integrated with the existing architecture. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - f.1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1350 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1350 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1350 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Well-designed addition. Not highly impactful. >Variance supportable due to the slope of the lot. >Well-crafted project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - g.251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the exterior facade of a commercial storefront. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Marco Fung, applicant and architect; Ken White, property owner ) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. >The previous staff report mentioned that the entire space needed to be treated as one unit. Is that still the case? (Kolokihakaufisi: There had been two tenants previously, but only one is proposed now. It can only be one tenant since access needs to be from the street frontage, and cannot be from the alley.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gerardo Fuentes, Archit Studio, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The demolition drawing indicates existing header to be removed, or is it being replaced? If it is being replaced, what is the material? (Fuentes: The header will be refinished, not replaced. The windows above will be replaced.) Should be indicated as such on the plan, makes sense to leave it in place. >What will be the new finish of the header? (Fuentes: Just being repainted.) >Is it being marketed as a single tenant space? (Fuentes: Yes, not two tenants.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Like the changes that were made. More in line with the existing character of the building. >Huge improvement. >The header matter needs to be clarified on the plans. It can come back as an FYI. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: >Clarification that the header will be refinished rather than replaced shall be made to the plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.329 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Joe and Julia McVeigh, property owners; Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes TRG Architects-Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect) (99 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 329 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 329 Occidental Ave - Attachments 329 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Most of the elevations have horizontal siding, except on the left elevation? (Grange: It seemed cramped on the two big gables with the wide fin.) >Is there meant to be a gate on the front porch? (Grange: It is for a small dog, probably not a permanent gate. Could move it around to the back side of the columns so it would be less visible.) >Where did 9'-7" and 8-'7" plate heights come from? (Grange: Once sheetrock and flooring are added it would come out to 9'-6" and 8-'6". The scale of the surrounding houses is large.) >Is the native grass in the back lawn? (Grange: It is a "no-mow" variety that does not grow tall, and has low water use.) >There is a lot of hardscape. (Grange: Owner wants to be able to turn around and come out forward from the driveway, and not have to back out. Could look at a different type of paver.) It's not visible from the street, it just feels like a lot of pavers. >Plans should note the size of knee braces, want them to have some substance. >What color will the standing-seam metal roof be? (Grange: Dark bronze.) >Wood brackets don't show up in some of the elevations in profile. (Should be corrected.) >Site plan shows adjacent house up to the property line. Does not show the driveway. Needs to be pulled over. >Some of the wood brackets show up in elevation but not in profile. >The rear elevation appears to have two pairs of doors, but the plan shows a pair of doors and a pair of windows. (Grange: One pair is a door but not meant to be used, it can be opened for ventilation. The flow is out the side.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nicely articulated, well-scaled project. >The house looks compact from the front. This has to do with the roof articulation. >Appreciates the restraint on the standing-seam metal roof, that it is not used across the entire house. >Can come back on the Consent Calendar with the clarifications mentioned. >Context of neighborhood is big houses. The higher plate heights are appropriate in this location. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - b.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Variance for Front Setback Landscaping for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building . (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour, architect) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1457 El Camino Real - Attachments 1457 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Troy Kashanipour, architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How is the deck at rear screened from the neighborhood behind? (Kashanipour: There would be a fence, probably 6 feet tall. There is also an easement providing separation from the adjacent property.) >Plans should note the fencing and screening. It is an important detail, as it effects neighboring properties. >Are there no windows on the front elevation? (Kashanipour: It is intentional. Tried some options with windows, but thought it looks cleaner and more contemporary with a solid backdrop. Wanted a canvas for the trees to live in front of.) The lack of windows combined with the small entry space makes it look like it is presenting a blank wall, looks uninviting from the street. >Percentage of landscaping cited in the variance application is not correct. 18 percentage points cited, but it is actually almost 40 percent less. >38-foot height does not include the penthouse? (Kashanipour: Correct.) >Spoken with Caltrans about the double driveway? (Kashanipour: Spoke with a Caltrans engineer who said it would likely not be an issue given the pattern on El Camino Real.) >Has the ceramic tile cladding been replaced with stone? (Kashanipour: Yes, wants something more textured such as limestone. Will still be a veneer, but with dimensional quality.) >Is the full metal screen on the front also on the side? (Kashanipour: It will wrap the full upper stories . It is intended to be a rainscreen detail.) >Concern the roof decks could be noisy if everyone is up there at the same time. The terraces are large, which would invite a lot of people. >Could the parking be configured to be double -loaded rather than having two driveways? (Kashanipour: Car parking space dimension is 20 feet, but the lot width is 50 feet. Would not have enough room for two bays plus an aisle.) >Is the area on the first floor indicated as stamped concrete walkway a useable space? (Kashanipour: It's primarily a service area. Needs to have a concrete slab since there is parking structure below.) Looks Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes like there could be an opportunity to use the area for functional outdoor space. >How would garbage be picked up? (Kashanipour: Recology does not drive onto the property. The building association will need to designate someone to bring the bins up to the curb. Can likely work with one pickup per week.) Seems far back in the building. Maybe there is a location closer to the front. Also it is facing the only remaining community space on the site. >Is there an overhang over the front door to protect people from the weather? (Kashanipour: There is a two-foot overhang. Would like it to be more, but it would be counted as building area if it extends beyond two feet, and there is not enough buildable area remaining. Would have preferred four feet.) >How many square feet is the landscaping under what is required? If it were not for the sidewalk would it comply? (Kashanipour: No, it is the driveway. If the second driveway was not there, it would just barely comply.) >Has there been consideration of a smaller building, and not filling the entire site from setback to setback? (Kashanipour: No, based on what owner paid for the property, it would be hard to have a smaller building work. Did not do a serious study of a smaller building with less parking.) Public Comments: Walter: Lives across the street on Highway Road. Supports condo development. Appreciates 1:1 parking. Two guest spots are not enough. Appreciates underground parking, and that it is not stacked. Did not realize the front has no windows, is reminiscent of the correctional facility in Redwood City. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Too big for the footprint. Front variance. This location needs the setback and landscaping to feel supportive of pedestrians. Likes the current condition with greenery, serves as a respite. Understands the current condition will change, but not in support of the landscape variance. >OK with material palette. However would like a more inviting treatment of the front. >The number of units drives the parking, which then creates the need for the variance. If the building were smaller it would not need to have a variance. >Wants to see residential units, but not at any cost. Cannot agree with the variance request. >Much of El Camino Real is defined by curb cuts, so two may be OK here. However it shows the need for landscaping. >Should consider evaluating if it could be smaller so it could fit within the development standards. >Likes the building, including the folding metal plate. Would be a nice addition to the eclecticism of El Camino Real. However the front is not inviting, needs some windows. >Renderings help, but the elevations are confusing to read. >Could consider a studio unit in lieu of one of the one -bedrooms, and reducing one of the multi -story units, so that it could fit within the development standards but still pencil out. >Front without windows is uninviting, would like a more inviting face. >Understands the double driveway but should address the needs for landscaping. >Make better use of some of the available space to create more useable open space. >Side setbacks look larger than required. Perhaps reconfigure some of the building to push things back and get more landscaping in front of the structure. >Does there need to be these type of bumpouts to get access to the roof terraces? Perhaps they could be tied in better with the architecture of the building, rather than just looking like the top of a stairwell. >Would parking stackers require a variance? (Gardiner: Yes.) >Two driveways is driven by desire to max out everything. Can't make findings for the variance. Getting the maximum number of units is not justification for a variance. >Program on the first floors is so maxed out, in order to meet the open space requirements it leads them to needing to have roof decks. The decks are so large they read as a fifth floor. It will overwhelm the neighbors. >Wants to study how the decks would impact neighbors on Balboa Avenue behind. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Would encourage alternate parking methods. Hard to justify the variance. >Architectural style is interesting, but the front elevation needs to be revisited. Too stark. >Needs a serious revision of the program. Cannot support it in its current form. >Building reads as a large box and is very plain. >Penthouses make it appear too tall. Roof decks should be brought down in size. >Intent of open space is not just to have usable space, but to provide buffers between neighbors. That is being lost by the size of the building. >Lacks human scale in the front. Entrance should be more appealing to pedestrians. >Sidewalk can be offset to match up with the sidewalk on each side. >Not supportive of two curb cuts. While El Camino Real has a lot of curb cuts, it also has a lot of paved front yards. The street would benefit from more landscaping, and projects should conform to the requirements. >Eucalyptus tree should be shown in correct location. Another tree appears to be proposed to be removed, but not sure it can be removed. Could influence whether a second driveway is possible. >Would prefer one wider driveway rather than two that take up the full frontage. >Concern with drainage issues on El Camino Real, and potential drainage into the garage. >Caltrans will not allow drainage onto El Camino Real. Water in garage cannot be pumped onto the street. As a Design Review Study/Environmental Scoping item, there is no action from the Planning Commission . The application will return as an Action Item with the environmental review at a later date. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There will be a Community Center committee meeting this week. The project is looking good. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1245 Cabrillo Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Memorandum & Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:32 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 February 11, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2019, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/26/2019