HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.06.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 10, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent6 -
ComarotoAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve in this meeting.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a previously approved
first and second story to an existing single family dwelling (previous approval expired - no
changes proposed to project). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners )
(83 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report
1548 Balboa Way - Attachments
1548 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.12 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit 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.
(Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Douglas Solomon & Lauri Pasch, property owners )
(54 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
12 Valdivia Ct - Staff Report
12 Valdivia Ct - Attachments
12 Valdivia Ct - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Recused:Tse1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1316 Capuchino 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
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316
Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (item
continued from May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting)
1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Does not believe Spanish style fits into the neighborhood. OK with two-story, but not Spanish.
>Should fit in OK, it is a well-design house.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The design guidelines allow for some variety in architectural style.
>Nicely crafted, well-scaled.
>Even though there are not others like it in the neighborhood, it will still fit in.
>Style, articulation and massing are well done. Will not look out of place.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.853 Paloma 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 the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect;
William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal
Aggarwal
853 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
853 Paloma Ave - Attachments
853 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Andrea Van Voorhis, Van Voorhis Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Changes are really good. Appreciates the changes to the north facade.
>Solution for the kitchen is clever.
>Drawings do not reflect the corner boards. The corner boards would detract from the design.
>Looks tall compared to the other houses nearby.
>Flood zone is a unique circumstance for the height. It is not asking for special considerations for
height.
>Natural siding is more typical of what is seen in town. This material does not give the same detailing
and warmth that is seen in older houses.
>Would not like there to be corner boards.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Window in kitchen under the hood seems forced.
>Effort to get a window on the kitchen wall is clever. With the muntins it will help with shadowing from
translucent glass.
>Gables break down the massing.
>Drawings do not have corner boards.
>The high-quality design demands high-quality materials.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>The exterior finish material shall be natural wood shingles with mitered corners; any change
to this finish shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or
amendment to be determined by Planning staff).
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
c.2617 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variance for a second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(1).
(Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Tricia and Darren
Tayama, property owners) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2617 Easton Dr - Staff Report
2617 Easton Dr - Attachments
2617 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Comments:
>Variance application does not make a good case for the exception. Would be better supported by the
factoring the existing location of the porch. (Ader: Wants to rebuild the porch as is, and is also
constrained by retaining the tree in the back.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>The variance application can be supported by the reasoning provided in the public testimony, and in
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the findings provided in the staff report. Special circumstances are the location of the existing porch, and
retaining the tree behind the house.
>The addition meets the setback requirements.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.123 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and
Side Setback Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling that
attaches to existing detached garage. (Malin P. and Namita Kansal, applicants and
property owners; Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, designer) (66 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
123 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report
123 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments
123 Loma Vista Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the property
owner when he visited the property and accessed the rear yard.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Thomas Saviano, Saviano Builders, represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions:
>Why is the front porch being removed? (Saviano: Removing the cover because it counts towards lot
coverage, but the porch itself will remain.)
>Why is there a shed roof in the middle of the new addition? (Saviano: It is not visible anywhere, and
will allow an elevated roof in the kitchen. It will allow clerestory windows inside.)
>Should show clerestory windows.
>What is the window material? (Saviano: White fiberglass combination, in both the addition and the
windows being replaced.)
>Window schedule shows double -hung, but elevations show casement. (Saviano: Schedule is
incorrect, it is intended to be casement.)
>Are there corner boards on the garage? (Saviano: Not making any changes to the garage.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Roof ridge over garage does not line up with the addition.
>The existing house is a simple bungalow with nice charm, and by removing the front porch the charm
goes away. It also removes the weather protection.
>The roof plan needs to be looked at. It is not cohesive.
>The roof can be raised higher.
>The fenestration patterns need to be assessed; they are inconsistent between the various windows.
>The windows can be anywhere on the facade; they do not have anything to do with the experience in or
outside the building.
>Needs to have a north arrow. Hard to get oriented otherwise.
>Glass rail is not consistent with the neighborhood.
>Variance application is supportable since it is existing and will be made nonconforming. Should be
revisited to address exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, would help with the variance application.
>Garage is already attached for all intents and purposes, and is consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
b.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review
and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential
condominium building. (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour,
architect) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1457 El Camino Real - Attachments
1457 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
Terrones was not in attendance in first meeting, but watched the video.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Rabih Balout spoke as property owner, with architect Troy Kashanipour.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Has the feasibility of digging the basement been considered? (Kashanipour: Has met with a general
contractor with a preliminary cost estimate, and it is expensive .)(Balout: Understands the cost, but does
not want stackers.)
>Why are there not balconies? (Kashanipour: Negative impact on privacy of neighboring properties, and
between units. The roof decks are unlikely to be used at the same time. There are not direct sightlines to
adjacent buildings, and the generous setbacks would mitigate noise.)
>How much of the roof deck is required to meet the open space requirement? (Kashanipour: The
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
requirement is 75 sq ft per unit, so just a part of the terrace.)
>Were smaller terraces considered? (Kashanipour: The size and dimensions of the terraces was
defined by stair location and wedge for A/C unit.)
>Site is being filled property line to property line. Would the foundation use sheet piles? (Kashanipour:
Sheet pile or drilled pier set in concrete.)
>If the garage dimensions had to be reduced to make room for the structural elements, would the
parking still work? (Kashanipour: Has allocated 14 inches for the concrete. May need to have a pier or
pillaster coming out of the wall. Should not impact parking spaces.)
>Height to top of penthouse? (Kashanipour: Building is 38 feet to top of roof, then 9'-8" to top of
penthouse.) Total is less than the 55 feet allowed by the zoning with a CUP.
>Soils report yet? Water table? (Kashanipour: Will not be in the water table. Will be evaluated in
environmental review.)
>Are railings on the west elevation the same on second and third floors? (Kashanipour: Yes.)
>How was the fenestration pattern determined? (Kashanipour: Intentional to keep proportions vertical .
Sizes based on program of interior rooms.)
>Large balcony doors on the second story but smaller on the third story? (Kashanipour: Second floor
units do not have roof decks so the balconies are larger.)
>Are metal panels on the renderings representative of the colors that will be anticipated? (Kashanipour:
Yes. Only color will be on the lower canopy next to the entry.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the folding panel aesthetic.
>Concern with the size of the roof decks for noise.
>Concern with viability of building the garage lot line to lot line. Needs to have due diligence with the
garage construction.
>Metal, plaster and glass have flatness that brings coldness; not inviting.
>Thinks balconies would be better than roof decks. Would be more usable to the units. Balconies are
not just for open space, but also to break up the facade of the building.
>All landscaping would need to be in planter boxes.
>In favor of project programmatically, likes the architecture. Believes there will be more texture than
what is shown in rendering, should provide a sample board.
>Roof terraces are a potentially good solution if they are made a bit smaller. Suggest adding planters to
separate the terraces, would bring down the usable space and make it a more inviting place to be.
>Would be a nice addition to El Camino Real.
>Appreciates attention to the entry. Likes the pop-up color.
>Roof decks feel like an afterthought, not integrated into the building. Would like them to be more
integral to design of the building.
>Encourage revisiting the entry again. Eyebrow is not quite enough, could be bolstered to break up
strong horizontal line.
>Likes rooftop decks compared to balconies, more functional.
>Likes the material palate. Is different but will be welcoming.
The application will return to the Planning Commission upon completion of the environmental
review.
c.509-511 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Environmental Scoping for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and Lot Merger for construction of a new 5-story, 24-unit live/work development. (Alex
Mortazavi, applicant; Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, architect; 509 California Drive
LLC and Denham LLC, property owners) (276 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
509-511 California Dr - Staff Report.pdf
509-511 California Dr - Attachments
509-511 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How far back are the top floor setbacks? (Levy: 7 feet on the top floor).
>Will the landscaping include grass? (Levy: Not turf, but look like grass.) Consider some specimens
for verticality and volume.
>Will there be seating area next to the gallery? (Levy: Could consider it.)
>Entry lobby feels squeezed. (Levy: Will have glass so it will not feel like a hallway.)
>Will there be room on the upper decks for seating? (Levy: There is room for seating, enveloped by
planters. There is 10-12 feet.)
>How to support the building height? (Levy: The width of the California Drive corridor width supports it,
and it appeals to a demographic that wants this lifestyle. Speaks to the future of the urban core, but
humanized with the ground floor set back with planting. The intent is to provide the additional housing that
is appropriate to the commercial zoning.)
>What is the thinking behind the exposed moment frames? (Levy: Wanted to set back the first floor,
but needed to deal with the sheer as a wood-frame building.)
>Is the intent of the bifold garage doors to be able to see through to the back? (Levy: Yes, to see the
landscaping in the back.) Have full-height gates been considered? (Levy: Will look at it.)
>Could consider reversing door swings on the balconies to provide full use of the balcony? (Levy: Can
look at that.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>There is a lot of corrugated metal. More industrial feeling, not sure it is the right thing on California
Drive.
>Likes the central space.
>Does not like the mansard roof. Maybe it would be better with a simple setback.
>Does not think the metal panels on the north elevation will soften the look as described.
>Good programmatically.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Suggests different articulation along top floor, would help the north elevation. Continuing the material
up into the mansard makes it look taller.
>Revisit the entry, it presents a harsh line over the first floor. Feels like one has to duck under the
moment frame; should celebrate the entries.
>South elevation works better than the north because of the windows into the stairwells. But both
elevations are very stark, needs more articulation to help with scale.
>Not a fan of the mansard roof form. The balcony railings take away from the roof form.
>Look at taller garage gates.
>Moment frame is so strong, but would like to see it carried though to upper floors in some manner.
>More human relation to the entries to the units and galleries.
>Likes the layout, gallery, setback and planting in the front. But concerned with the industrial feel .
Would look better on Rollins Road. Not sure this is compatible with the other structures in the area .
Maybe less metal, too much for this area.
>Likes the open space to the back, breaks up the mass.
>Concern with the impact on the neighboring properties with shadows and noise.
>Height is too much of a stark contrast with the neighbors. Likes the exposed beams, but not sure
with the color. Likes the break in the building on the north side.
The public hearing was re-opened to allow the applicant to ask a clarifying question.
Levy: Would pilotis be more acceptable than the ground floor recess? (Terrones: Does not mind the
recess, and likes that it provides some relief along the street. Concern that the doors get lost in the
facade when they are under such a strong, hard shadow line. OK with the moment frame and recess, it's
how to articulate and celebrate the entries. Maybe break the hard line at the bottom of the second floor.)
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
The application will return to the Planning Commission upon completion of the environmental
review.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.2120 Carmelita Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
2120 Carmelita Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
2120 Carmelita Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Pulled for further discussion. There is not a lot of detailing on the house, so concerned with the muntins
being removed.
b.300 Airport Boulevard – FYI report back regarding a previously approved Design Review
project.
300 Airport Boulevard - Memorandum and Attachments
300 Airport Boulevard - Exhibits
Attachments:
Pulled for further discussion. Concern with the location of the reserve space.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019
June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on June 10, 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 June 20, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/9/2019