Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.03.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tse arrived at 7:02 p.m. Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tse arrived after the vote was taken on approval of the minutes. A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul4 - Absent:Tse1 - Recused:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - a.Draft February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA > Item 9a - 2305 Poppy Drive has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.434 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Parshadi and Kaushal Shah, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 434 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 434 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 434 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On East Elevation, is there any reason why the wood siding above the three windows on the second floor pops up? Why wouldn't it continue straight across? (Deal: It could, but was trying to match the siding design on the existing house.) >Like the existing gable end vent on the side of the house. Have you decided not to use them on the project? (Deal: Would be difficult to build and are really odd, so decided not to emulate them.) >Will the siding on the gable ends be rough cut wood? (Deal: Yes, will have a corrugated look along the edges.) >Not a fan of the direct vent fireplaces with no chimney stack, but not a deal breaker since it's located at the rear of the property. However, if you did decide to have a stack, would hope it would be designed to match the style of the existing chimney stack. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Agree with comments made regarding the design of the siding above the windows on the East Elevation; no reason to continue with a bad decision. >Changes are a great improvement over the last design. >Addition fits in with the existing house and is massed well. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion of Motion: >Would like to see horizontal siding above the three windows on the second floor on the East Elevation revised so that it continues along the same datum line. Commissioner Gaul amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >that the wood siding on the second floor of the East Elevation shall be installed at the same continuous horizontal line across the entire face of this elevation, including across the plane in between the three windows. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.1369 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Metropolis Architecture, Lawrence Kahle, applicant and architect; Nick and Sara Adler, property owners) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1369 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1369 Drake Ave - Attachments 1369 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Sara Adler, represented the applicant and property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you determined what type of siding will be used? (Adler: Still debating between the NuCedar product and painted cedar. Trying to get a better understanding of the cost of NuCedar.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have done a nice job with the revision. >Revised design eliminates the Special Permit for building height. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Project responds well to the design review guidelines. >Once applicant has determined what type of siding will be used, would like to review as an FYI . (Keylon: Suggest adding a condition of approval that FYI will be required only if a material other than NuCedar or cedar is proposed.) Concern is that the siding be real wood rather than a cementitious product. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >that the exterior shingle materials shall be specified on the building permit set of plans as either painted wood (cedar) shingles or NuCedar shingles; any change to the siding material other than stated shall require review by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. Discussion of Motion: >Is the access door in the garage allowed to swing into the garage? (Keylon: Yes, this door is allowed to swing into the garage; still allows vehicle to park in garage.) >Thanked applicant for changes, very responsive, project looks good. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Sargent1 - c.1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road, zoned C -2 with R-4 Overlay - Application for a Sign Variance for height of placement of a sign on a multfamily residential development. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Buddy Burch, applicant; SHAC Carolan Apartments LLC, property owner ) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Staff Report 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Attachments 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Burch, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Proposed sign is classy and elegant. >Would be concerned if proposed signage said "for lease" as a commercial enterprise or something promoting that business aspect as is being proposed in the variance application. >What is the zoning for the areas occupied by Northpark Apartments and other apartments down Rollins Road that is different than the location we have here? (Keylon: Those areas are zoned R -4, so the same standards provided in the staff report would apply.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Those properties are not zoned C -2 with an R-4 Overlay, they are specifically R -4, correct? (Keylon: That is correct.) That is something that is somewhat unique to this condition. If they were to come back and ask for a similar variance, is it fair to say that it is a different condition here in that we have this overlay in an area that is otherwise commercial? (Keylon: It is and with the General Plan Update that's been recently adopted, there are a few properties north of this site that also have an overlay.) >In looking at the examples that the applicant has provided, I think of a hotel when I look at the Lawrence Station Apartments and a tech company when I Iook at the Avalon Berkeley project, not apartments or condominiums. Signage on a building like this makes me think of commercial enterprises . I get the logic, the argument that's being made that this is a commercial enterprise and that's what were being asked to consider. My concern is that when we see signage like this on a building, I don't think of apartments but rather commercial enterprises, and that is what I'm struggling with. I don't want to see this as a hotel or tech building, I want to see it as apartments. (Burch: Trying to reach out to people that are navigating by phone to get to apartments in the area. A number of people who would be using the sign would likely be people who are coming to the property or who are curious about the Anson. Examples were included in the package to primarily show that anywhere that there is an opportunity to get these residential projects out to a broader audience; it's being done and it's not uncommon. Trying to fit these in as well executed signage to match the project.) >Are there illumination criteria for the halo lighting proposed behind the lettering? (Hurin: Code does not provide any criteria for light measurement, but does allow indirect and halo lighting.) (Kane: There are restrictions on the overall amount of light that can leave the property, but there is no minimum amount of light.) >How far back is the fifth floor wall located behind the sign? (Burch: Approximately 15 feet back from the parapet.) So from certain angles, that portion of the building would not be seen and those letters may stand out on the parapet as a sillouhet against the sky. (Burch: Correct.) >Have extra square footage available along Rollins Road. Curious why there is no signage proposed at the entrance at pedestrial level? (Burch: Along the Rollins Road frontage, the lobby and garage entrance is only for residents, so trying not to attract attention to those entrances along Rollins Road because all of the entry is along Carolan Avenue. Tried to design the signage to get all attention off Rollins Road entry . Have considered it, but didn't want someone parking on Rollins Road and having to walk all the way around to Carolan Avenue to get to the leasing office.) >Did you look at options to install a sign on the face of the building? (Burch: Did consider it, but there are few opportunities left to place signage on a wall given the articulation and fenestration on the building . Felt that the proposed location of the sign is elegant as it relates to the parapet as opposed to trying to fit it on a wall on the building.) >Don't understand how the sign works at nighttime. (Burch: Led lights mounted against Acrylic and frosted edge provides the halo lighting.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Sign starts to make it look like a hotel. Building presents itself as apartment living. Not seeing a particular need for the sign in this case. With the proposed sign, it presents itself as a commercial enterprise. >Want to see project be successful, but not convinced success of project hinges on having this sign. I think about the commercial aspect of looking for an apartment, the process of looking for a place to live, and I don't make the connection between driving down the freeway and trying to find a place to live, versus driving down the freeway and trying to find commercial business. >The proposed sign is classy and simple, however am concerned the precedent set with this type of sign. What if the next sign that comes before us is not as classy? Are there free speech issues with Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what we can restrict in terms of what can be said on a sign if they comply with sign regulations? >Signs A1, A2 and B1 are necessary for entry identification and wayfinding. With Sign A 3, understand that it is a commercial enterprise that is a year round operation that needs to keep the property marketed; but don't see it competing with the other commercial enterprises along Rollins Road. One logic I can see is because of this unique situation or exceptional situation, in that we have this R -4 as an overlay in this C-2 area, that to me is an exceptional circumstance that may allow for a variance, if we are then willing to accept the need for this signage. >Struggling with justification that it is a C -2 District with an R-4 overlay; the entire project conforms to the R-4 zoning regulations, except in this case where it's not convenient, struggling with that as a justification that it is a unique circumstance. >Not sure it meets the need stated, seems more like a navigational tool than it does seem like branding, which I would associate more with a chain like Avalon. This is not really a branding, because there won't be another Anson. Most people will use maps on their phones to find the property. Don't understand the need for it. >Need to make findings in order to justify the variance. Question about proposed sign doesn't seem to be about the findings, but rather if it meets the business needs proposed in the application. Doesn't compel me to support the variance, is irrelevant to our review of the application. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Discussion of Motion: >Can't make the findings based on the unique situation of the lot. >If application returns, ask that information be provided showing the extent of the R-4 overlay in the C-2 areas so that we can look at how unique this situation is relative to this area and areas potentially further north. Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.1660 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance for an addition and facade changes to an existing commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (David Mena, Mena Architects, applicant and architect; Symons Consulting International Ltd ., property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1660 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1660 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1660 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >Application includes a TDM program, is that monitored in any way? (Keylon: Currently it's not, but when the new zoning is adopted, there will be criteria for TDM reporting requirements.) Are those criteria available yet? (Keylon: They are not and this project would not be subject to the new zoning regulations . However, the business owner is currently offering it to his employees, so wanted to bring it to your attention, but it is not required for this project.) >The application includes proposals for TDM measures, but it appears that currently there would be no monitoring. (Keylon: Proposed TDM measures are provided as justification for the variance, can write in as conditions of approval.) (Kane: Commission has also previously granted some parking variances that were tied closely to the level of intensity of use for the applicant. Could craft a condition that voids the variance Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes if the business is replaced with a different or more intense use.) >In this case, could continuance of variance be dependent on continuing use of TDM measures? (Kane: Yes, just keep in mind that in this case there would be no monitoring, however one could file a complaint with the Code Enforcement Division, for example, if they see parking impacts from this business.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mike Symons and David Mena, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can you give us examples of the common look and feel amongst your various office around the world? Is it the vertical elements? Is it a specific color or material? (Symons: Our common look is based on color, a blue and grey motif; provides a modern look and feel since we're a high-tech company.) >Is there any proposed signage for the building? (Symons: Signage would be located internally, seen when you walk into the office. In buildings where a lot of valuable equipment is stored, we tend not to install large signs on the building for security purposes; signage is generally minimal if installed at all.) >See that there are LED lights tucked in behind pillars, which appear to be T -shaped. LED lights are vertical and run the entire length of the pillar. Am I reading that right? Will I be able to see the bulb image in the glass behind it? (Mena: You will only see the glass cover which will diffuse the lighting.) >What color is the glass? Is it mirrored, smoked, or clear? (Mena: It is a blue/green tint; it will be clear glass with low-e coating.) >It's important to know what the glass color will be as it relates to the architecture being a grid and that most of the front facade will be glass. Will there be hidden mullions with butt joint glass, providing a sheer surface between the grids? (Mena: Correct.) >Does the company own the property? (Symons: I own the property and company and lease the building back to the company. Our intention is to continue to invest in this property and in our company; intention is to stay in Burlingame indefinitely.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Like they way they've simplified the facade, it's still very elegant. >Would like to see glass detail brought back as an FYI item. >Argument for variance is supportable due to the fact that the timing of the submittal is a critical issue; if submitted later project could have been approved under the new zoning regulations with provision of TDM program. >Reason asked if property is owned is because this isn't a tenant that could potentially leave, their intention is to stay. >Based on type of use and TDM plan that they are providing, the variance is supportable. >Design is supportable based on the revisions made. >May want to add condition that says if use or operation changes to the point where it's different than currently proposed with the parking load and TDM measures, then variance becomes void. Kane: If the Commission is going in the direction of granting the variance conditioned on the TDM measures, would suggest that the motion include "equivalent or better TDM measures than proposed " because we don't know what other transportation modes may be coming in the next 20 years. Similarly in terms of the use, condition should include "the same or better intensity of use" so that it doesn't Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes negatively impact the variance. This would help the applicant and staff address future events. >Mitigating circumstance is that the zoning is changing, should be explicit in application. (Hurin: It is enough to state in motion.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition, noting that the findings for the parking variance are based on the applicant's written submittals and that this is a unique situation in that the zoning regulations will be changing, that the applicant would be able to comply with the new zoning requirements, and to ask the applicant to wait until the new zoning regulations are codified would be an unnecessary hardship. >that any change in or intensification of the existing use shall operate under the same general terms as the proposed use, with a TDM plan that is equivalent or better than proposed under this application; proposed uses that operate substantially different or are an intensification of the proposed use with no TDM plan or TDM measures that are less than the proposed use shall require an amendment to the parking variance with review by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Note: This item has been continued at the request of the applicant. > Item 9a - 2305 Poppy Drive has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin reported that on March 18, 2019, the City Council reviewed an Ordinance establishing residential impact fees on new residential development. The Ordinance will be returning to the City Council for adoption at its next meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:09 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 March 25, 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 April 4, 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. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019 March 25, 2019Planning 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2019