Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.01.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 24, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and PfaffPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft January 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Abstain:Pfaff1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1357 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Hector Estipona, JDeal Associates, applicant and designer; Archimedes O. Martinez, property owner) (124) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Page 1City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1357 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1357 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1357 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. The applicant was not available for comments or questions. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Based on the previous meeting, we didn ’t have a whole lot of concerns. We have some minor comments which were addressed. >Revisiting the front porch is relatively a minor change but important. It really helps that front fa çade, particularly because of how this property is raised so far above the sidewalk, it helps bring down the scale of the front porch. The project is approvable at this point. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.121 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Britt Miller, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 121 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 121 Occidental Ave - Attachments 121 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 121 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Jason and Kim Doren, 117 Occidental Avenue: First time seeing the plans, they look nice. One, we Page 2City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes would love to have the opportunity to talk to the designer and builder about landscaping on our side of the property. Two, we wanted to make sure that the height of the structure is not going to exceed the current height of the building that is there now. (Raduenz: The house will be taller than the existing. We’ll definitely work with you.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Confirm if the fence at the rear will stay or give up a 5-foot triangular planter towards the neighbor. >Correct drafting errors to be consistent. >Revisit the narrow attic window on the front elevation. Consider using the wider window shown in the rendering. >Impressed with the front porch and the columns, they are really substantial. It is important for the impact of the front porch for it to have enough gravity relative to the upper floors. Please make sure those details remain. >The upper floor looks heavier or taller than the lower floor. Consider adjusting the lower floor height to make it proportional to the second floor. >This has the potential to be a really gorgeous house. It’s a very symmetrical house but the front porch is not aligned with anything. Revisit and consider modifying. >Suggests to replace the trees along the driveway with an evergreen that can be shaped. >Was initially bothered by the symmetry but the 3D rendering changed my mind. It is a very nice project. >It appears that the light fixtures on the rear of the building are really large at about 2 feet tall. >The 3D images helped in reading this project a lot easier. Please include a copy in the packet when it comes back to action. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 - b.2201 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a single story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (James Chu, Chu Design, applicant and designer; Chuck and Shirley Paterson, property owners) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2201 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2201 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2201 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer and Chuck Paterson, property owner represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Page 3City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Revisit the strategy for the trees towards the northeast side near the ADU. It looks dense but the new construction seems like it will be on the trees. Propose a scheme on how to address those trees. >Provide a landscape plan to clearly show intent regarding the existing trees. Suggests putting landscaping on the remaining space. >Suggests reaching out with the uphill neighbors regarding potential view blockage on Hillside Drive. >It seems like you are asking for a setback variance to try to save what is existing. I appreciate that the applicant is preserving what is currently there. As far as having a setback because of the grade level, we just discussed a project earlier this evening that is similar, the designer of that project did not ask for a variance. You went up a little higher, but you are allowed to do that when the whole property is raised anyway. Personally, just those will be enough. >Having a hard time seeing what the exceptional extraordinary circumstance is that warrants a variance . While visiting the property, the house already looms over the sidewalk which is somewhat mitigated by the tiered planters. Imagining the fa çade with the 8-foot projection along the right side, it will loom even more on that sidewalk. >Houses on corners are particularly difficult because you have two fronts. Looking at the proposed front elevation, it looks like the side of the house, coming from the main street on Hillside Drive. Technically, it is because the front door has been moved over to the De Soto Avenue side. Something needs to be done to make it look a little bit welcoming and not like the side of the house. This isn ’t going to help the argument for the setback variance because you almost need to put in a porch or a railing or a door . Maybe the landscaping mitigation might help. >We need to see a little bit more development on the Hillside Drive side elevation. Troubled by the flat plane transition of materials, seems like a simple solution that can be improved upon. Also struggling with the variance request. Concerned that the area of the proposed addition is more on the corner side of the property versus the internal side. From a massing perspective, would almost want to see it in reverse. Not sure if this will have effects on the visual perspective of the drivers who are turning the corner. Suggests providing a rendering of the street view showing the neighbors beyond this property to get a better sense of how this proposed massing can or does affect the street. Having a little trouble with this as well. >I also commend the idea of preserving some existing conditions and trying to work with what is there . But I can’t get past the variance application to the point of looking further into the details of the design review. I also struggle with the idea of changing materials in plane to try to break down the longer portions of the façade and try to define something that has a contemporary look to it. I can ’t make the findings for the variance at this point. >I can appreciate how difficult it is to do a renovation and to preserve a lot of the architecture that is on the site already. I agree that this is a challenging site. I, too, struggle and not seeing the extraordinary part of it for this variance. I would like to see a better corner shot to see if we are going to have the variance work to be able to help the flow of this project. The corner needs to be further developed. A 3D view of that looking up the street will help us see because right now, it looks very flat and is not really selling for us. >Was having problems with the variance as well. It is laudable that we are trying to preserve a one -story house on a raised site. Many other house don ’t do that. It feels like if the ADU is not built, this does not need a variance because it can expand backwards onto the site. It is a task of balancing an additional bedroom and an ADU and the potential for going up. Something big has got to change to make it pass the variance request. >Property owners have the right to develop and improve their properties. The applicant is not asking just for design review, but also a special consideration. The question becomes, do they have a right to develop to the level of intensification that requires a variance? I am not seeing the protection of that right to the extent that a variance is approvable in this circumstance with the extraordinary conditions that are presented before us. If there is something that we are not seeing, the applicant can point that out and I ’ll be glad to consider it. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Page 4City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 - c.1315 Sanchez Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new two -story, single-unit dwelling. (Tim Peterson, applicant and architect; Claire and Joseph Benoit, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1315 Sanchez Ave - Staff Report 1315 Sanchez Ave - Attachments 1315 Sanchez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Peterson, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Front and rear elevations show a lot of different materials. If you are looking to have a vaulted or truss ceiling, a traditional detail like an attic vent up in the gable would allow the shingles to continue. Consider providing photos of other variations of exterior material pallet. >Make sure that the variety of trees used will be in scale to the built environment. >Revise rendering to be consistent with the elevations. >Consider using smaller windows on the second floor as they tend to be a little overbearing. >It feels a little top heavy, as mentioned, maybe the windows need to come down. It is a small site and the house will look big on that lot. Suggests to look into proportion. >The front elevation looks tall. Consider lowering the second floor plate height to help bring the scale of the house down a bit which is important on this site. >The windows on the rendering give a better scale compared to the elevation. If the 4-lite windows were smaller or the plate height came down, it will help with the scale. >The scale problem is most likely due to the plate height on the second floor. Consider bringing it down. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 - d.1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road, zoned I-I: Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Height and for Community Benefits for Increased FAR, Parking Variance, and Tentative Parcel Map for a new research and development campus in one seven -story building, one Page 5City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes eight-story building, and a parking garage. (King Bayshore Owner LLC, Peter Banzhaf, applicant and property owner; Perkins and Will, Derek Johnson, architect) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Staff Report 1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Attachments 1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Community Benefits Attachment 1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Traffic and FAA Attachment 1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhaf, Peter Pfau, René Bihan, and Elliot March represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Brian Delehanty, 845 Malcolm Road: I own the building down the street. The project looks lovely and it's a great improvement, however, I ’m concerned over the parking. I’ve been out there for over 50 years, my father built the second building on Cowan Road and so we've had a long history there. Two things: 237 off site parking, I find that hard to understand. There are no parking spots. Pre-pandemic, there was literately fighting for parking spaces on the street because the Marriott was full and all the people that worked there got there at six in the morning and took all spots. Our building has enough parking, but it's crowded so I don't see any possibility for a building this size to accommodate the parking they'll need. So I’d like that addressed. If they want to know what it looks like during floods, they only had to be there a month ago. That's the second time in 50 years I can remember where the street was totally impassable, it was flooded and flooding our building. Is there a way of addressing something like that because when you mention the steepness of Malcolm Road, that's true and any kind of so -called tabletop will create a waterfall towards our properties. So, please address that. (Banzhaf: I believe it's a clarification about off-street parking. The north building does not have a parking garage on it and so we've consolidated all the parking into the parking garage which has two access points, Stanton Road and Malcolm Road and that was by design to try to minimize and spread the burden of parking.) >Public comment via e -mail from Brian Delehanty, 845 Malcolm Road: a question about construction parking. (Gardiner: That is something that is part of the building permit review, so there would be a plan for where to park the construction crew vehicles during construction.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Looking at the bubble diagram, the community room is kind of tucked back in the corner. It can benefit if it had some adjunct outdoor space. Reconsider how that interacts with the lounge and if those spaces could work together. When this comes back for action, if we can see more detailed development on that and some blowup plans or focus on how the spaces are going to operate with each other. It would be really helpful because I really like to see these community spaces work even though the proximate community is still developing in that area. They need to get to know this space and know this project. > On the tenant spaces on the ground floor, it would be nice if those areas, if not lively, at least have some tenant life as it's called for in the design guidelines and not ending up as utility spaces. >Please share more details on the bird safe glazing that is being proposed. Page 6City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I really appreciate that you're making this ground public gesture at the ground floor and trying to activate that. >I’m having a little problem with the plaza, the actual space between the buildings is not that big. Has there been a shadow study? Because with the proposed building height and these buildings being denser together, I’m having trouble seeing a nice, sunny area in which to sit. It is really windy there. I'm not able to see an inviting space there. >I like where you were going with the street crossing and the access to the Bay Trail. Is it possible to put additional signage on your side of the street to the Bay Trail because you almost don't see it? >Consider having some artwork or sculpture at the plaza, which would be helpful to draw people in. >Concern about trucks traveling along Malcolm Road through the public plaza and choosing that as a route if they are coming or departing from the north building. Certainly, it's not useable as a plaza with cars driving back and forth there. >The location of the ADA ramp outside of the south building looks like it's straight away leading to the corner. I can't help but imagine skateboarders traveling along and shooting off that ramp and potentially end up in the road accidentally. Consider redirecting that ramp. Maybe make it force a turn or something so that we don't have any potential accidents going down that ramp. Likewise, you had concrete steps for seating, another potential concern where skateboarders can take over those areas. >When you work on the community room more and develop its arrangement and its use, it would be nice to consider that there may be breakout rooms and just other ways to use a space other than one large space. As you're developing, also consider for nonprofit organizations to have the ability to use this space that would be a really nice community benefit to have. >Would love to see on the next go around, some development on how you might use that entertainment podium that was identified near the corner of the south building. >I appreciate the effort being put into this. There's a lot of information here for us to see and I think you've done a great job of putting forward a good team and putting forth a good project. >Upon visiting the project site, I was actually surprised at how much higher Bayshore Highway is than most of your property and how steeply Malcolm Road tails away from Bayshore Highway going towards the middle of the area. And so, I would encourage some pretty good site sections through Malcolm Road to better understand that connection. In plan, your connection from building -to-building looks fabulous, but it's not that flat and so you may find that it goes down steeper. I don't know if there is an opportunity for a bridge to connect them and allow that to go underneath. I just feel that whole sidewalk from Bayshore Highway all the way back to both of your crosswalks, that in itself is going to be a steep board ramp. So, if you haven't had the opportunity to look through those sections all the way through the street there, it would be a worthwhile exercise. I’m worried, as you try to create connection points, how well those tabletops are going to work when in reality it's not flat at all. >In general, I really like the project. It's exciting to see a very interesting project down there and a catalyst for further change. More thought needs to be given to the balancing of how the space is activated and where it's activated. I'm skeptical that lobbies activate the space. While I like the tabletop a lot, what you really have done is created this sense of passageway. The tabletop is a passageway across the street between two lobbies and I don't believe we're going to see that many people coming from off site to go sit with their laptops in those lobbies. It's not like downtown or KPG in San Francisco where lots of people go in there and hang out. >Going back to the question that was asked about the connection to Bayshore Highway, I would be an advocate for the mid-block crossing. If there was a way to drag the green edges of the Bayshore over to the green at the face of the new building and make the connection back to the plaza there that would be desirable. I don't see anything particularly useful about a signalized corner crosswalk over to the Marriott . You can do it on either side, but neither one of them seem very significant. It's not a cross street, it's a T-street. Personally, you would get more bang for your buck attaching directly to the Bayshore and receiving that into some special event at the face of the building in the landscape. >I’m really glad that there are two ways in and out of the parking garage. It sounds like from the staff report that the primary entrance and exit to the parking garage is off Stanton Road and not Malcolm Road, which is a positive thing because you are creating a tabletop and the plaza on either side, in general, I like it. The glass boxes are fine for the office space itself. I would love to see considerably more attention paid to what the ground level looks like. I would be less convinced that if the glass just drove itself to the Page 7City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ground in the same way that it would be that inviting for anything. So, whatever the character of the glass is up above, if it's still glass down below, it probably wants to be something considerably different and something more transparent than what we might get up above. We're not that far along yet, but do pay attention to and tell a compelling story to us about the ground floor, architectural treatment. That will have a lot to do with whether this is successful or not. In general, the project is terrific. >I heard the comment in the background to ask the question about traffic. That's certainly an environmental concern out here. It does help that it is so close to the freeway, that there's more than one way to get to the freeway and that you've got more than one way to get out of the parking garage, it goes a long way of distributing traffic. There's no way all that traffic goes away, so a traffic study for purposes of the environmental study of traffic is a key study. I think it's going to be a nice project, well done. >I appreciate the presentation and I agree with my fellow commissioner. It's going to be a good project out there and I would like to see this area developed. In regard to entitlements, I can make the findings for the variance. I think there are exceptional circumstances with the way that they're developing the properties. It's going to be one project clearly and it will read, act and feel like one project and so therefore there won't be much confusion as to people working there as to where they should go and park. So the exceptional circumstance of having Malcolm Road as a public street that bisects the project means that they have two different and distinct defined parcels, but it's good to have the majority of the parking on that parcel. I can make the findings by that. >I’m compelled by the argument in regard to the signal crossing. I was a little on the fence going either way, but I see the idea of making a connection to the Bay Trail. That it might be one way to encourage office users to just come down out of the building and take advantage of that proximity. So, a crossing in that location at the mid-block would be helpful for this area and neighborhood. I had a similar concern with my fellow commissioner with regards to shade and shadow, so it would be helpful both for the project sponsors and also for us to see how shade and shadow is going to work its way across through and over that plaza. And then again, some additional detail on the interior and exterior connections at the amenities and lobby spaces at that ground floor are important for us to see next time when this comes back for action both in horizontal plane as we're talking about in terms of connection, but as my fellow commissioner was saying in terms of the vertical plan plane how the ground floor spaces are going to work in 2D and 3D, visually from the sidewalk, from Bayshore Highway and et cetera, but amongst themselves between the landscape, interior, exterior and the bird safe glazing. To see details between the other team members for how those spaces are going to work so we can make sure that, not just that we vetted it, but they've looked closely at it to give the project its best opportunity for success. >I want to reiterate that there needs to be some art or mural work or something there to enhance the public interest in that plaza. Along with the signage, following up on the comments from my fellow commissioners, we need to have some signage to get people to the Bay Trail. It doesn't sell itself from this side of the street over there, you almost miss it. The mid -block crossing is really a good idea. The retail amenities are one of the things that I really want to see developed for the public. I have walked the Burlingame Point project today and there's a coffee shop and a bike shop that are open to the public, which are great, but they have a lot of the private spaces in there. It looks like you can't get to it unless you're from the inside of the building. They're really for the people in the office. That really wasn't what I was hoping to see when we approved that project. So as much as you can give in the retail or the amenity spaces, it would be a good improvement because the fact is, Gulliver ’s was a popular spot and you had to make a reservation. You can fill a restaurant out there. Go to the New England Lobster Company at lunch and they can use twice as much space as they have. I don't know if you have been to Mr. Teriyaki and he's full. If you put a restaurant space, you're going to fill it and it will give more life to that plaza. >We need to have a traffic study. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I was encouraged by the multiple access partnerships by car to the parking garage on both of the sites and the only other concern I had was the noise that maybe created by the building. If you're going to do pile driving or drilling as well as the amount of trucks that are going to come out, I would like to see that in the environmental study. >I’m in support of the mid -block solution that my fellow commissioners brought up and for the same reasons. I still have a lot of concern over the transition of land from Bayshore Highway down through Malcolm Road and through the end of this project, there's a lot of slope going on. There's a lot going on with those plazas and the various heights in those to make them successful. We're seeing them largely in plan or distant 3D view, so it's really hard to tell how those things line up. So whether it be vertical sections Page 8City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes through some of those areas to better understand the touch points from one to the other, that's important to know. Again, it's probably less for us and it's more for them to know they have taken care of it. My fellow commissioner brought up an excellent point on how tall the building was in this plaza and sitting there looking at the plaza having an 8 story building on the southern edge meaning three quarters of the day, the shadow from that building is going to own that plaza. So, it could actually be cold and not very inviting place to go. So, those are definitely some environmental study areas for them to look at and work with. The plaza on the north property actually might be the nicest place out of that and the south property plaza is going to be cold. >To the caller's credit, having been there for a long time, my concern of Malcolm Road ’s steepness and the flooding that we just went through and where all that water is going from the Marriott property, it's going down Malcolm Road. So, I hope that we are doing something because we saw big storm drains on Malcolm Road that's not attractive now, so as we address the water and flooding through that area, that's an important piece through this environmental review. Otherwise, the project looks great. >There's a great opportunity out there and those lots definitely need it. This is the kind of project we've been looking for in this location and it does the least amount of traffic impact to our community as opposed to other places that a project like this would want to go. This application will return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes action on the environmental review. No action was required. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council reviewed the parklet rate and fee structure at its last meeting. He also reported on a presentation that he and Vice Mayor Colson made to a local real estate brokerage providing an overview of Senate Bills (SB) 9 and SB 10. Commissioners expressed interest in learning more about the property tax implications that would apply to a lot split. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 24, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2022, 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 9City of Burlingame