Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.07.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 6:00 PM OnlineMonday, July 12, 2021 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online a.Zoning Code Update - Review of Permit Processing Procedures and Zoning Ordinance Administration Memo - Permit Processing Procedures and Zoning Ordinance Administration Draft - Article 6 - Permit Processing Procedures Draft - Article 7 - Zoning Ordinance Administration Attachments: 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner Michelle Markiewicz, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LariosPresent5 - Loftis, and SchmidAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8d, 1509 El Camino Real has been continued to a future meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA - There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner; Stepan Berlov, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2752 Summit Dr - Attachments 2752 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he was able to visit the house of the uphill neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive. Commissioner Terrones noted that he visited with the same neighbor to review the story poles from her property. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Michael Kuperman and Stepan Berlov, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Loretta Chuck, 2748 Summit Drive: I sent an email regarding this project. I'm the homeowner and resident at the house just down the hill and next door to this property. My main concern is that the views from my window are blocked very significantly because of the height of the building. That's how it impacts me. I think it's out of proportion in this neighborhood. I have a two -story ranch home with a steep driveway . This proposed house is just a humongous structure. I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns and I am strongly opposed to this structure as it is proposed. I hope that it can be redesigned to lower the height. If they built it the way it is, it would be three stories of full height ceilings and that just doesn't work for me. I included three photos from my bedroom window and it shows the structure next door. I'm wondering whether any of the Commissioners received the email with the attachments, I want to make sure they have been received and reviewed. The Commissioners who visited my neighbor at 2756 Summit Drive were going to come down to my property, but unfortunately no one ever came. I was wondering if someone came on to my property, walked down my long driveway and looked from my side yard to view the property? Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The design has come a long way from where it started. The Burlingame hills is a good location for a modern home because it typically incorporates a flat roof, which is going to help address the view issues Page 2City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that have been brought up and that may come up in the future. I viewed the story poles from the bottom of Ms. Chuck's driveway and from the side of the house. I do agree that the house is pretty overbearing on that side, especially because it is so much further up the hill and that's where I'm having a problem with the declining height envelope exception. On the other neighbor's side, there is a distant view blockage from the exterior deck. Views are usually considered from the living space, but this deck to me would count as living space because it's included in the floor area ratio and lot coverage. Having trouble with the mass, the view blockage and the declining height envelope. Suggests that the applicant bring the height of the building down by simply lowering the plate heights on all three floors. Understand the issue with the location of the power pole, but there's a possibility of doing a detached ADU that would not be part of the structure, so you might be able to propose a structure a little bit further down the hill. >Having difficulties with the findings for mass and bulk of the structure and interface of the proposed structures with structures on adjacent properties. I visited the adjacent house and looked at the uphill house and the views from an exterior viewing deck. It's the prime location where you have any views that look out to the bay which are the types of views that we typically consider when we've looked at projects in the hillside area. Many of the houses up in the hillside area have viewing decks on the backside of their house and that's prime living space. Having a hard time with the mass of the structure in terms of how drastically different it is from nearby structures. Suggest revisiting the plate heights and bringing the overall height of the house down substantially. In regards to Ms. Chuck's property on the lower side, any house that's another level above what it is now is going to have impact on that downhill property. Views of the sky, access to or preventing any sort of shading is typically a consideration we can't make. People have a right to add on to their house if they're not exceeding the height limitations, so we have to make some considerations. But the height of this structure could be reduced substantially by some methods and not have as much of an impact on the adjacent neighbors. >Going back to the comment about the ADU potentially being detached. There may be difficulty in crossing the public utility easement and adding an ADU at the back of the property. Not sure if that was explored or if that is feasible. The structure is tall, especially on the backside where it looks like it could be a multi-unit apartment building in the sense that it's very rectilinear, narrow in form and shoots straight up. That's where I'm having trouble with the declining height envelope. It's an open plan with generously sized spaces. On the main floor, it seems that there would be an opportunity to meet the declining height envelope and avoid requesting a declining height envelope variance. Each of the floors are very tall . Although I appreciate the entrance from the street level to go into the main floor, you would also have to acknowledge and recognize that this is a sloping lot and it's desirable, but this may be affecting other neighbors in the area. You could benefit from reducing the height of the structure overall and sinking it down a little bit lower. Many homes in that neighborhood are nestled into the downward slope of the hillside and this one is perched on top. In term of massing, it doesn't reflect the neighborhood. >The house is just too big for that site and does not fit the neighborhood in terms of mass and bulk . Architecturally, if we're going to do a modern house, this is the best place for it. >Can't make the findings for the massing. it is inconsistent with the surrounding structures. >In terms of the mass it's like an apartment building, but the architecture has come a long way. It's much more residential and the use of materials are much more in line with articulating the massing, and giving the house a more residential feel. With all of that said, the real issue is the massing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Acting Chair Larios, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - b.1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, applicant and architect; Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, property Page 3City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he met with the project architect to get a preview of what will be discussed this evening. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Sohan Talwalker and Ross Levy, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Benjamin Shapiro, 1217 Cabrillo Avenue: We live a few houses away from Sohan and Sandhya and want to voice our support for this project. They have made significant concessions to their original design in order fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. We feel like they have addressed concerns expressed by neighbors. I just wanted to put a name and face to some of the support from the neighborhood. Sohan and Sandhya have been reasonable and accommodating. We think they have built a beautiful home and we want to support them. We hope you allow them to move forward with the project as proposed. >Steven Pade and Jane Gomery, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: We're the neighbors on the left side, the small old Spanish revival house. We wanted to thank the architects and the Talwalker's for all their accommodations and changes they've made over the last months. They've been very accommodating and we thank them very much. We only had a few minor comments about the landscaping; we emailed you this morning regarding our tree in the backyard. I don't know if it's important, but we request that these be included as a part of the conditions of approval. Not that we don't trust the architect or the Talwalker's, but we're concerned that the contractor, a year from now, will not acknowledge all of this when it will be long gone and forgotten. That was our only worry. I know the Talwalker's want the same thing as far as the side fencing not having gaps, that's a simple thing to fix. The screening hedge is only in a portion of the yard and we were hoping it would be the whole yard, and the assurances on the shade tree in the backyard . Thank you very much for your consideration and if this can be included in the building permit, that would be appreciated. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project has come a very long way. Appreciate the applicant and the architect working with us and the community. Generally supported the project previously. They've made additional revisions to make it feel even more residential than it did before. They have addressed the concerns we had and the project should move forward. >Suggests that we add a condition of approval that any final revisions to the fencing and landscaping can be reviewed and approved by staff. It's a nice project. >I like this project and it has come a long way. Appreciate the effort that the architect and applicant put in. Would like to see an FYI for the sample of the roof material when it has been decided because I'm not familiar with it and don't know what it's going to look like. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added conditions: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted to include a sample of the roofing material. Page 4City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >that any final revisions to the fence and landscape hedge details, to address the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbor at 1205 Cabrillo Avenue in their correspondence dated July 12, 2021, shall be reviewed and accepted by Planning Division staff. Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - c.1365 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kieran Woods, applicant and property owner; Chu Design Associates, James Chu, designer) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1365 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1365 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1365 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the minor revision to the front porch detailing by adding the second column along the left elevation. It helps finish off the porch and makes it feel more like it might have been an original structure . It's a nice project. They've addressed the items that we asked them to look at. >Appreciate that the second floor balcony material has been changed to wood and eliminated the stucco that wasn't present anywhere else on the house. It's a good project and should move forward. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - d.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Amendment to Condominium Permit to add common open space on the roof of the building (condominium project is currently under construction). (Pat Fellowes, applicant; 1509 El Camino LLC, property owner ) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 5City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1509 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1509 El Camino Real - Attachments 1509 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Item 8d, 1509 El Camino Real, was continued to a future meeting. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Jeff Guinta, applicant and designer; Nitin Handa, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1304 Mills Ave - Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he spoke with the neighbor to the left of the property about the existing garage. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the neighbor to the right. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Jeff Guinta, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider mitering the wood siding at the corners as it provides a richer, more traditional look on a house like this; there is a precedent in the neighborhood. >Consider revisiting the roof plan; eliminate the layered fascia located on the left -hand side of the second floor roof and have one clean gable roof. >Make sure to use the simulated true divided lite windows as the specified manufacturer refers to these as full divided lite windows. >Need to fix some drafting errors. <Am concerned with the different materials above and below the water table. Consider changing the materials below the water table on the first floor to give the design a base. >The wainscoting separated by the water table trim can be highlighted with paint colors. Would not appreciate it changed to a material that will just end up on the front fa çade. Recommend that the siding be continued all around the house. >Provide materials board or cut sheets of the exterior material siding on corner boards and rendering to help articulate the overall finished product showing the water table above and below. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Page 6City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - b.1515 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Bryce Dille and Erica Jackson, property owners) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1515 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1515 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1515 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Anne Ravizza, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Comment via email from Rosemarie and John Troccoe, 1511 Columbus Avenue: We live at 1511 Columbus Avenue, a single story residence for over 42 years and have come to see the house next door become a lovely Cape Cod. We were able to review the plans on July 9th at City Hall for the addition at 1515 Columbus Avenue. We are very impressed of the new design. It will make the cutest house on the block more distinguished especially with the addition of the shingles. Our concerns are three windows directly overlooking our home causing a lack of our privacy. In reviewing the plans we have some concerns with the two L-shaped second story windows on the southwest corner of the house and the one study nook window on the left side of the house adjacent to our home. After the large elm tree is removed, the study nook window will have an unobstructed view of three of our windows and the southwest corner window will have an unobstructed view of three windows, including a family member ’s bedroom. Further, the L -shaped windows will have an unobstructed view of approximately 50% of our backyard and our yard provides us with a private leisure and an entertainment space for us, our family and friends. We request that the two upper windows facing along the left side be modified to be made opaque and provide privacy screening . Higher up clear story -type windows could also be considered. Additionally, landscaping would also need to be installed to filter the view of our home and provide privacy. The other corner window facing west perhaps can be moved away from the corner towards the middle of the room where you see our backyard. This window could remain translucent. Additional landscaping will need to be installed to further filter the view of our backyard and provide privacy. These actions will provide screening which will ensure our privacy and we welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss our concerns with the commission members or architect . We wish to continue the good neighbor policy we have with all of our neighbors and want to come to mutually satisfying solution to this issue. Thank you for your consideration and support. >Rosemarie and John Truccoe: Restated the concerns raised in their email. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a very lovely designed home. Appreciate that the existing front elevation is being maintained with the proposed project and am in support of the design. Encourage the property owner to work with neighbors to address their concerns. >This is a very charming design for the street. Should consider using opaque windows as it will create a nice buffer between neighbors. Page 7City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >It is a well-crafted house and the shingle siding is a nice change. Encourage the property owner to reach out to the neighbors to work out the issues regarding the windows and privacy. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - c.945 Chula Vista Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Pete and Judy Staples, property owners and applicant; Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 945 Chula Vista Ave - Staff Report 945 Chula Vista Ave - Attachments 945 Chula Vista Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Mark Pearcy, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please provide a sample of the Tesla solar roofing material and if it is not feasible, provide an address of a local application. >Provide clarification on the details. Clarify that the T&G siding noted on the elevation is in fact wood and not Hardie siding. Specify an actual stone material for the front porch. >Consider extending the porch platform on the right side so the stone is not abutting the wood siding. >Property is located in the flood zone; applicant should confirm compliance with flood zone requirements. >Planning Manager Hurin noted that there is a similar solar roof system installed on Dwight Road, which may be a Tesla solar roof; staff will follow up with the address. Also noted that through the California Solar Rights Act, local agencies cannot adopt any ordinance that are unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, this includes design review. Therefore, the Commission can use it for informational purposes only and cannot deny installation of this type of roofing material. >Project is well-organized and well-crafted design; it should move forward. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Page 8City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - d.833 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (David Lish, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (183 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 833 Maple Ave - Staff Report 833 Maple Ave - Attachments 833 Maple Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There is a lot of freeboard on the front gable; top gable portion is heavier than the brick portion below . Consider raising the belly band and brick up a bit to balance the proportion better. Could also consider using brick for the entire front gable. >Have similar concerns with the rear gable; should also consider raising the belly band and brick here. >The downspout on top of the front door visually conflicts with the belly band and needs a better transition to make the fascia look cleaner. >Like the use of brick on this project. Consider changing the chimney material from horizontal siding to brick. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis, and Schmid2 - e.123-135 Primrose Road, zoned HMU - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for height, and Lot Combination and Tentative Parcel Map for a new 14-unit multi-family residential apartment building. (Abha Nehru, Carrasco and Associates, applicant and architect; Albert and Theresa Wong, property owners) (252 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 123-135 Primrose Rd - Staff Report 123-135 Primrose Rd - Attachments 123-135 Primrose Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 9City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. Vierra Wong and Abha Neru, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Shannon Chircop, 119 Primrose Road, Unit 1: Am part of the Primrose Gardens Homeowners Association. When you look at the renderings, that's my living room and bedroom depicted to the left -hand side. The Planning Manager is going to read something out loud so I won't exhaust this by repeating everything. I wanted to emphasize that I don't think the renderings fairly portray how we access the front entrances to our homes. When you're looking at the development to the left, there's a four -foot wide flagstone walkway where we access our mailboxes. There's a cute brick archway where we go through, that's how we get to our front doors. Those are our living rooms and bedrooms and we'd be facing directly at the development. It's not to the side or skewed, we look directly at this development. I wanted to explain that because the sight lines are important to us. We certainly won't see any blue sky anymore when we look out of our windows because this building is very tall. We ask that you think about the cohesiveness, the massing, sight lines and the privacy. The shadow study is released and I wanted to express that we're alarmed that it's going to have a negative impact on our quality of living, also the value of our townhomes. >Public comment email received from the Primrose Gardens Homeowners Association, 119 Primrose Road: This comment is on behalf of the homeowners that make up the six families that make up the Primrose Gardens HOA, the six unit town home building next door to the proposed development. We publicly ask when the Planning Commission and the developer examines this application that they take into consideration our privacy, the height, and the massing of the building. We have written our concerns to the Planning Commission and want to use this opportunity to emphasize those concerns to the public . You can see from the renderings our little building to the left. Our townhomes are oriented so that our front doors are facing the new development. The walkway that leads to our front doors run the length of the property line between our homes and the adjacent property where the proposed development is. This is something that is not shown or obvious in the renderings. Regarding privacy, we'd like to have a better understanding of sight lines from those indoor /outdoor living spaces into our bedrooms and living rooms . Some of our units have skylights mounted on the pitched roof and it will give the neighboring development a bird eyes view of our bedrooms and bathrooms. Can those balconies be shifted to avoid infringing on our privacy? Maybe more creative screening on the balconies? We would like a high attractive good neighbor fence and lush planting to create some nice separation at the ground floor. We would like to see more detail in the landscape and fencing. Regarding height, is the 55-foot height necessary and cohesive with the rest of the block? Our parcels are already at its highest use and will not be redeveloped to be higher. Our quaint two-story homes will forever be dwarfed by this proposed building. The shadow study should be carefully considered as a part of the environmental study because we're concerned most of our daylight will be taken away with such extreme height. Certainly, there will be no more sunsets and more views of the church people or trees swaying along the street. Townhomes share sidewalls so we rely on this side of this building facing the development for sunlight through our windows. Regarding massing of the building, please consider the massing of the building toward our property other than this boxy mess . There's a better way to create the scales of the building. This is because our residences face directly at the new development, not to the side, not at an angle. Thank you for your careful consideration of our quality of life as next door neighbors. >Jennifer Pfaff: I just have a couple of observations. I had to do a recall on why we included those three parcels in the Howard Mixed Use District. I think it had to do with their current use, which in turn changed their setbacks and also changed the height of the first floor because it was assumed back then that they would be part of the retail experience, so therefore zero setback. So it's all moot now. The sidewalk is five feet wide. My concern is that it is in your face and it is not a retail space, so it's not necessarily engaging. I like the Commissioner's suggestion about making the corner transparent. I think it's what he was saying, kind of mimicking what's above it. Maybe it's possible since this is not a retail Page 10City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes space. It may never be a retail space. Maybe there would be a possibility because it's a residential use and we can't fiddle with the setbacks now because it has already been done. It would be nice to have a five or ten-foot setback there. Maybe we could lower the plate height on that first floor to 12 feet or whatever is reasonable rather than 15 feet. I know it's not a lot, but maybe that would help push it down at least some and make it less massive. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >In terms of the Special Permit request for height, the project generally is lower than the height that's allowed by right which is 55 feet. We have special permitting for heights beyond that to a certain extent . The Special Permit for height goes hand in hand with the environmental scoping which in this case is the roof deck. Would like to see some analysis of potential impacts of the roof deck and any noise elements . We've had a couple of instances where we have encouraged roof decks as a benefit to the occupants which add some features to the apartment living. We've seen some that are very successful because they're in areas of multi-family housing and other areas where we have projects that abut lower scale residential that make roof decks difficult. The stair and the elevator element, that break the 55-foot height, actually help enclose those roof deck areas and articulate them a little so we don't have large areas of roof deck on a large open roof. Those two things work together and actually help each other. >It's a well-designed building. Would like to see the owners, the architect and the developers address the issue of the first floor. If they're designing a first floor at 15 feet simply because that's what the requirements are for this area, it could help with the economics to bring down the height of those lobby spaces if they don't need to be 15 feet tall since it's not commercial space. Maybe staff could look into that and see what we could do in looking at some possibilities for a different height at that first floor. >Suggests that the lobby and corner windows be made more inviting. I like the way that the project steps away from the project to the left and offers some relief along that side in terms of the setback and the articulation. The architecture is nice and handsome. We just have to remind ourselves of what we can consider in terms of the objective standards that we apply to the project as this moves forward towards action or any revision. >The architect indicated there's a shadow study, would like to see that in the next go around on this project. That's something we need to consider especially with the property to the left. >Concerned with water consumption, as with other projects where we're increasing the housing density so much on one side. Going over the floor plans, it looks like the existing building has maybe two bathrooms and a kitchen. Now we're going to add 14 dishwashers, 14 clothes washers, 19 toilets and 19 showers, on a conservative estimate, we are adding about 30 people. We need to take a close look at how much water we're consuming on some of these projects because it is a limited resource. >Like the design, but am concerned about the scale with the buildings to the left and right. Would like to see a simple drawing to show the scale as it fits into the street elevation. >Like that all the active energy for this unit at the entrance is directed to the right side of the property and away from the closest residential neighbor, that's a great decision. It's oriented also toward the downtown area and that makes a lot of sense, which is a good choice. Wondering if the garage entrance could be offset to relieve the edge of that side of the property as the entrance gate of the neighbor to the left is located immediately after you pass the front face of this building. Consider a little less massing especially at this 15-foot height. If you continue to pursue that, it could be something that can be considered to soften the front edge of the building. Otherwise, the building is nicely composed. I like the material choices and the colors. I appreciate that the corners are being utilized as balconies and decks that provide a pass through in terms of space and not just a solid structure at the corner with glass or other built materials, which helps to soften a rather large mass of building. As mentioned, the elements that are up above the building height limit help to shade and articulate the space on the roof deck. That's creatively laid out to work well with those areas and are oriented towards the active side of the building to the right. >Would like to see a noise level study included in the environmental review. >For the applicant and architect to consider next time around, what could be used of that landscape Page 11City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes area on the ground level at the back of the property? Is that of any use other than landscaping? Could that be a dog walk? Could it be a meditation space or just a quiet space to get away? >One of my big concerns about the development is the busyness of Saint Catherine ’s on that street, the traffic of the school, dropping off and picking up. It backs up all the way down to Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. Strongly suggests looking at the entrances of the garages. You're not going to get out of those garages if they're on Primrose Road during busy school time, it gets pretty congested there . Please take into consideration where the garages are and the impact of the school hours. Unfortunately, you won't be able to see the traffic now because school is not in session, but when the project returns for our review, consider the traffic at Saint Catherine's because it will impact vehicles entering and exiting the garage. >Want to emphasize the suggestion about containing the upper deck. We have some great suggestions on how to contain that area using architectural elements. >Understand our concerns about the rooftop deck. We do have a lot of activity on the street, between the school and Call Primrose food bank. Don’t know if having a rooftop deck there would have a significant noise impact on the neighbors, but I agree that perhaps we should look at that. That area is constantly moving and there's a lot of activity going on that street. Not sure about the impact of noise, if it's setback and controlled a little bit back with some nice trees or foliage, that it might be just fine there. There was no motion from the Planning Commission, as this application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS >Planning Manager Hurin thanked Commissioner Larios for leading tonight's meeting as Acting Chair on short notice. >Planning Manager Hurin thanked the Commission for their work on the Zoning Code Update over the last few months and attending the study sessions. >There is no Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2021. The next Planning Commission meeting will be on Monday, August 9, 2021. >Assistant City Attorney Spansail noted that at their meeting on June 21, 2021, the City Council introduced an updated wireless ordinance, which updates Chapter 25.77 of the Zoning Code and removes the regulations for wireless facilities in the public right -of-way and creates a new Chapter 12.11 for the public right-of-way. We did this because of the short shot clocks that was an issue and the new Chapter 12.11 provides that permit process and the permit review procedures for small cell facilities. He noted that the small cell facilities in the public right -of-way will no longer be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but by staff. Wireless facilities that require conditional use permits will continued to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which include installations that are not considered small cell facilities. At their meeting on June 21st, the Council supported the ordinance, but also provided feedback on items they wanted to see changed in the Design and Locations Standards Resolution. Some of the things they asked for included adding language that all facilities had to be constructed or coated with graffiti resistant materials and that any graffiti had to be removed within five days unless the City gave the carrier an extension. We also added a preference order which included a higher preference for parks and open space, but also a lower preference for schools and licensed daycare facilities. The City Council adopted the ordinance and approved the resolution on July 6th; the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after adoption. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame July 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 12, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 22, 2021, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 13City of Burlingame