Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2020.03.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 9, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and LoftisPresent5 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Absent:Gaul1 - a.Draft January 27, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 27, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8e has been continued to a future date. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.212 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, designer and applicant; Bob Gilson, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 212 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 212 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 212 Bloomfield Rd - Rendering 212 Bloomfield 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. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: David Harris, 600 Howard Avenue: Sent in the email earlier today. Appreciates that the applicant has reduced the size and the massing of the structure, but still feels it doesn't really fit in with the neighborhood. I've spoken with a number of my neighbors, both on Bloomfield and other surrounding streets, and of the people I spoke to it was near unanimous asking why not Spanish Revival or something keeping with the neighborhood. I keep looking at Ordinance 1591 compatibility of the architectural style of that of the existing character with that of the neighborhood, and I question how this can be seen to be fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood. I just feel like Lyon Hoag is suffering death by a thousand cuts . I ask that you reconsider the design. Mike: Lives across the street from this house. In another era, the unimproved older home on this lot would be thought of as a fixer-upper or starter home. A young family could manage with a loan and start improving it over time. Now the starter home or the fixer -upper has become a tear -down instead. Can't change the economics, but maybe can extract a few concessions and compromises on the plan. As the other speaker said, this doesn't fit the neighborhood. It looks like a country estate to me, rather than a part of our little neighborhood. I'm hoping you can find a way to scale this back, and enforce a plan that fits our neighborhood a little better. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Disappointed in what's been presented, from a planning standpoint and from an interpretation of the design guidelines standpoint. It was fairly clear with the comments in the last meeting in terms of the plate height. Massing has not been changed, except for additional massing. The massing issues haven't been addressed. >Front elevation is a two-story house trying to hide behind a nine -foot porch. Does it work with design review compatibility? Can't make the findings based on the criteria. >Does not necessarily need to be a Spanish -style house. It is a bit of an enclave but it is not a historic district. Spanish style was suggested because that style helps break down the massing so it can fit into neighborhood better. But still can't make the findings for the design review approval. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >House does not seem to address the fundamental issue of massing. There is not a directive to match styles, but there is a need to fit the neighborhood. Fit is not dependent on style, it is articulation and massing. Had expected more significant changes to address massiveness; it looks like a massive block. >Would have expected to see more changes to address the massiveness because it feels like a giant block. In the previous meeting there was the suggestion that breaking that continuous datum line at the second floor eave height would have significantly changed the apparent mass of the building. >House has a very broad face, and while it sits behind a porch it looks broad in elevation. >The ridge line of the second story is nearly at maximum height, and because it is horizontally oriented it takes up a really broad face on the street. >The gable style springing from the second floor rather than the first floor accentuates the height rather than reducing it. The dormers in the front seem to celebrate the height. The design guidelines give direction that when newer houses are situated alongside older houses, if not masking the height the design should at least take the eye away from it. >There is too much massing. The eye goes directly to the dormers, making the home look especially large. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.217 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to a previously approved 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). (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (141 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 217 Channing Rd - Staff Report 217 Channing Rd - Attachments 217 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. 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 Comaroto opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Corner boards were discussed in the study meeting and were an issue, but were changed in the approval to not include corner boards. Now corner boards have returned. (Wehmeyer: Client wanted to change to the Hardie product, and it requires corner boards. Would be painted to match. It's a request for the long-term upkeep and long-term quality of the house.) >Floor is framed all the way out to the exterior walls. Why? (Wehmeyer: Required by the structural engineer and building department.) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Are any of the window changes because of egress? (Wehmeyer: No, related to change of the roofline.) >Windows were separate before, but now one piece. Why? (Wehmeyer: Easier to install.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >First floor has a tall brow now because it has been framed all the way out, and the porch roof is high to match the floor height. If this was how it was presented originally, would not have approved the project . Would have asked that something be done for the porch roof to bring the height down and make it more in scale with the neighborhood. >In reviewing the plans we ask to consider the plate heights, and they've got 9-foot first floor and 8-foot second floor, but then the details for how it gets built still have to work. Understands that engineering requirements change and codes change, but the builder has to want to make the porch have a nice scale to it. Should frame the porch down. >It's a massive front porch and the massing doesn't come down. There must be a way to bring that roof height down over the porch to give it a better scale. >There must be a way to bring the height of the floor down so it does not look so tall. >Is not fair to put the Planning Commission in this position. Commission looks at how the project looks and assumes it can be built as shown. Does not understand how direction from the engineer was not incorporated earlier on. >Don't like to be put in this situation, asked to deal with something that has been built or force someone to change something that has been built. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make this happen, it is the responsibility of the commission to review plans and make sure it fits into the neighborhood, is massed properly, etc. >There is unused floor space that could have been framed differently. It's hard to imagine that there is not a technical solution that would have allowed that. >If the direction in the approval was to remove the corner boards, it is a problem that they have come back. Feels deceiving. >Originally approved design had nice charm, character, and sense of space and dimension . Unfortunately the revisions take away from a lot of that including the mulling of the windows together. It's a nice detail to see the windows individually installed as originally shown in the design. Would suggest reconsidering mulling the windows together, specifically on the front and back. On the sides there are some windows that are mulled together as approved. >The details are part of the charm and character. If we're going to allow for the floor areas that are allowed, needs to have charm and scale so fits into the neighborhood. >Front has lost its charm. There must be a way to get it back closer to the originally approved plans. >Perhaps adjust the windows to be taller to reduce the forehead. >Could reframe the porch and bring it down so it is not as high. Does not need to be the same height as the rest. Makes a more comfortable arrival, not a large portico. >Windows to the right of the front door seem to have a header height taller than the front door and other windows. Perhaps bring it down to align, and bring down the height of the porch. >Not inclined to switch from wood to Hardie board. >Would like to see it come back with some alternative solutions to the problems that are caused by these changes. Chair Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Sargent1 - c.1445 Balboa 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, applicant and designer; Angelo & Carrie Cosentino, property owners) (137 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1445 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1445 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1445 Balboa Ave - 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. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: Neighbor on the right: Window on the landing, has been responsive. Happy with change to have higher planting. Jay, 1441 Balboa: Wants to make sure the balcony was removed in the revised plans. Sees that the balcony has been removed. Also they've called for extending a 3-foot fence from the end of the fence that I have all the way to the sidewalk, which I think will be OK with a 3-foot fence. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Changes that were suggested in prior meeting has been made. >Good to hear neighbor is comfortable with planting. Stairwell windows were an issue but they will be OK with the tree. >Changes are good. >Approval will be of the plans submitted in the received -after communication. Staff to review the received-after and verify there are no other changes. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application as amended: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted as a received-after communication, date stamped March 9, 2020, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.2, L.1.0 and site survey. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Absent:Gaul1 - d.150 Park Road (Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4 – Application for Design Review Amendment for design changes to a previously approved 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; WHA Architects, architect) (372 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Staff Report 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Attachments 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - 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 Comaroto opened the public hearing. Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There are four unit types where the bedrooms have no windows. Isn't it a code requirement that bedrooms have windows? (Architect: They are called "shortgun" units, which allow rooms but the walls do not extend to the ceiling except in the kitchen. There's a ventilation requirement, so they're legal. Allows the separation of the rooms, rather than the units being studios. It's becoming more common because the densities are becoming higher. Was approved in the original plans as well.) >Any changes to the proposed materials? (Grant: No.) >On last bay towards the corner, not sure the recess is needed. Lintel above could be dropped. (Grant: Was in the original approval, but can be changed.) >Received after letter mentions diamond -shaped pattern at the entry, but would like to give the architect license to revisit the pattern so it does not look dated and will be more timeless. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Some of the parts and pieces work better with their proportions. >Appreciates losing the stairwells on the roof, makes it less tall. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Gaul1 - e.Proposed Amendments to Title 21 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Historic Resource Preservation). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (This item has been continued to a future date) This item has been continued to a future date. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.852 Fairfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer; Amy Everitt, property owner) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 852 Fairfield Rd - Staff Report 852 Fairfield Rd - Attachments 852 Fairfield Rd - 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 Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There is little relationship between the windows on the existing house. The window placement is driven purely by interior needs. Was consideration given to creating relationships in the new addition? Particularly on the left side. Feels a bit haphazard. (Geurse: Can try stacking them. Was predicated on the floorplan, but can look at the floorplan and align.) >Are the existing windows going to be replaced or remain? (Geurse: Keeping the windows on the front, both up and down, but changing the trim to match the rest of the house.) >The new deck is 241 square feet, but is the existing deck larger? (Geurse: Existing deck is 280 square feet. Has been pushed further back. Neighbor to left has indicated this is OK.) >Has right side neighbor indicated concern with the deck? (Geurse: Has not indicated a problem .) Design guidelines mention not creating viewing platforms into adjacent properties. >Is stair on the lowest level just to get out to the yard? (Geurse: Yes.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Likes the plans, they are straightforward. >Would like to revisit the deck. Should not be a platform for viewing into neighbors yards. Landscape Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes plan should show screening on both sides, or move rails in and provide more planting. Concern it will create a platform that will impact neighbors. >Appreciates that the house looks the same in the front; revisiting the scattershot windows on the side would be helpful. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Tse, 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, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.1870 - 1876 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Density Bonus for a new 7-story, 169-unit residential apartment development with two levels of parking below. (Bay Area Oil Supply Inc. / Prime Plaza LLC, applicants and property owners; Studio T -Square Inc., architect) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Attachments 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Plans 1870-1876 El Camino Real - TDM Plan Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Comaroto reported that they had met with applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Any proposals for the corner lot at California at Murchison? (Keylon: No proposals on file.) >If there is a 5% bonus for 10% affordable, wouldn't it be 8 additional units, not 9? (Keylon: Can check the math.) >Is the difference between a development standard concession and waiver, that the concession does not need to be justified? (Keylon: Yes, concessions are allowed by right.) >What is the moderate income formula for the BMRs? (Keylon: Limits are set by the state, and modified by the county. Moderate income is between 80% and 120% of the San Mateo County Area Median Income (AMI).) >TDM plan has annual survey and reporting to staff. Will an annual report need to be submitted to staff? (Keylon: Yes.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Chek Tang, Studio T-Square, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >TDM plan notes work areas and meeting rooms. Where are they in the plans? (Tang: The clubroom spaces.) Is it possible to provide a place for people working from home to have a place to meet clients, and not be a double -height volume? (Tang: Could fill in the second floor a bit.) Could have two stories of this space, with a moveable wall so it could be flexible. (Tang: There is an abundance of double -height space that could be used to accommodate this.) >Is it possible to highlight the entry better so it is more clear? (Tang: Could repeat the trellis element Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the top to add some scale.) >Wants to make sure the plaza is enlivened. Not sure how it works with the bike parking spaces. >Is there possibility to add more electric charging stations, or connections? (Tang: Could add outlets along the sides, and research reach codes.) >What is at the three -foot setback line? (Tang: Just the garage podium wall. It is between 7 and 9 feet, and the rest of the building is 10 feet back.) >How will the 17 affordable units be distributed? (Tang: Have not prepared a plan yet, but will be mixed proportionally, allocated in different parts of the project.) >How will the EV charging spaces be monitored so that people do not overstay? (Tang: Project is large enough to have a professional management staff on site to monitor.) >Appears to have a deep awning above the plaza. (Tang: Can bring down to a lower awning height to accentuate the entry and tie into the leasing office.) Can provide protection from the weather. >Is roof deck public? (Tang: Access for all residents of the project, but not the outside public.) >Could there be more dining spaces in the pool area? Consider breaking up into smaller tables. >Will the pool have sufficient sun? Could be quite shady. (Tang: Needs to work the pool configuration over the structure. Has put the lounge space in the sunniest area.) >Is the side pathway accessible to the public? (Tang: No, there will be a fence on each side and only accessible to the residents. Concern with safety. Also hopes the public will walk along Murchison Drive.) >Would be nice to have both clubroom and office spaces. >Where are the prevailing winds coming from? (Tang: From northwest.) Will fencing be able to protect the pool area from the wind? (Tang: Is considering taller fencing to screen view of adjacent lot, and provide protection.) >Would like front entry plaza to look more open and inviting. Bike racks will take more space. >Consider more foliage and trees. (Tang: Would like to consider allowing bulbouts into roadway right-of-way to increase size of plaza and reduce length of crosswalk.) >Where will electronic scooters go? Could there be outlets in the garage? (Tang: People like to keep these in their units.) >Central tower looks mostly glazed, but they are units. Would the units really have full walls of glazing? (Tang: The Living Room, Dining Room and Kitchen counter areas would be glazed. Has done a similar project and it looks great.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Really well-thought out project. Nice piece of urban design. >Eyes on the public space are really nice. >Articulated really well. Doesn't try to do too much, but does what it needs to do. Not too busy, has a nice calm presence to it. >Even the bike area on California Drive enlivens the street with the glassy bike space. >Great project, really likes the architecture. Perfect place in the city for this type of density. Proximity to BART and Caltrain is fantastic, and with commercial amenities across the street could realistically live without a car. >Would like to see a noise study. Previous projects have justified vinyl windows through noise. Parking and traffic would be helpful as well. >Would like to see an enlarged plaza /entry plan to better understand how plaza will be enlivened . Consider bulbouts and push out planting and plaza. >Would be helpful to see a detailed plan of the roof deck so we can see how that's going to be a nice lively space. >Could have a flexible clubroom that could be divided into smaller conference spaces. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >This is as close as Burlingame gets to the internodal station. Should make this a good transit-oriented development project. >Nicely designed and thoughtfully planned out. Central tower is a defining element and welcoming and draws people into the plaza. >Material choices and colors are really nice. >Worries about the shadowing on the pool. Pool might be too cold in that area with gusty winds. >Does not believe it will impact the view from homes in the hills. Suggests preparing something to show that. There was no motion. Because the application involves environmental review, it will return at a later date on the Regular Action Calendar. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There was a request to reconvene the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to revisit a couple of key issues. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council has appointed John Schmid to the Planning Commission. Also, staff will be setting up a 6 pm study session in a future meeting to discuss a couple of items with the Planning Commission. It will include the annual ethics training, as well as discussion of residential density bonus law. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) code amendments were discussed at the March 2nd City Council meeting. The Council provided some feedback on a few design -related items that are within the City's discretion. Meanwhile, we've learned that the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) can review ordinances in draft form, so staff will have the draft reviewed by HCD prior to being introduced to the Council. In the meantime, we are obligated to follow State Law to the best that we understand it, so we are accepting applications and reviewing them against our understanding on the guidelines provided by the State. The March 2nd City Council meeting also had a progress report presentation on the 220 Park Road (former post office) project. It's still in pre -application phase, and we expect community outreach either before the application is submitted, or shortly thereafter given it's a very prominent project in downtown. City Attorney Kane mentioned that at the next City Council meeting on March 16th, the City Council will be talking about the high -level plan on how to address telecom issues. No decisions will be made at the meeting, but it will outline an approach for putting together a plan. 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 March 9, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2020, 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 $1,045.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020 March 9, 2020Planning 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2020