Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.01.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 23, 2017 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a.Discussion of R-1 Attached and Detached Garage Standards and Guidelines Commissioners Present: Loftis, Gum, Sargent, DeMartini, Terrones and Gaul. Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Senior Planner Ruben Hurin. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of current standards for attached versus detached garages . The Commission members present discussed the desireability of permitting attached garages, particularly in certain neighborhoods. The matter was referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission for further analysis and recommendation to the full Commission. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance included: William Meeker, Community Development Director; Kathleen Kane, City Attorney and Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - BandrapalliAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting for revisions to a master plan encompassing 8.32 acres in the vicinity of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way ("Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan") (Peninsula Health Care District, applicant ; Pinto + Partners, Architect) (331 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and attended their community meeting. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Cheryl Fama, Joel Roos and Prakash Pinto represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are all three segments of the helicopter flight path used equally? (Pinto: the primary path is toward the Airport. Secondary is the northerly route, tertiary is the southerly route.) >Requested more information regarding phasing. (Pinto: have changed the phasing in response to discussions with potential developers. The developers would be able to build the project more quickly, and a shorter timeframe would reduce neighborhood impact from construction.) >Clarified that the professional office building will be research and medical use. How large is the existing medical office building at Mills-Peninsula? (Pinto: unknown.) >What was the thinking behind reducing the area of the community hub space? (Pinto: found that, following economic analysis, were overprogramming the area, this lead to a reduction in the space.) >Why did the project acreage change? (Pinto: finally had a final survey prepared that lead to a more accurate representation of the total site area; some right -of-way areas were originally shown as part of the project site. Also, the prior plan included the public sidewalks and planter strips and the area abutting the hospital site.) >Should further changes be expected in the future, or is the project designed based upon what they feel that senior housing will look like at the project horizon? (Pinto: is designed based upon the projections for what is anticipated in the future. Are also building flexibility into the structures to address changing needs.) >What drove the additional 100,000 square feet of office space? (Pinto: weren't sure of the precise need with the initial concept. Have discussed needs with medical groups and found that there would be a need for additional space beyond that that was initially included in the concept. Developers were also very interested in the development of additional space. The number shown is a maximum square footage.) Public Comments: Michael Battat, 1336 Marco Polo Way: concerned that the development will increase the traffic dramatically. Feels that the study prepared during the Independence Day weekend in 2016 is not adequate; should look at traffic flows during the school year when all of the nearby schools are in session. How much does the new office space add to the existing office space at the hospital? How many dwelling units will be included within the development; how many automobiles will be brought into the area? Kathy Smith, 1811 Davis Drive: supports senior housing and medical office uses, but feels that the development is too large; will have a significant impact on the neighborhood. The proposed medical building will be right behind the residences on Davis Drive and will impact the residents' privacy. Feels that traffic will be directed through the Ray Park neighborhood; this routing would avoid three traffic lights. There is a history of passenger vans using the Ray Drive route to Marco Polo Way as a route to the facilities. Would like to see more attention given to the neighborhood impacts. Resident at 1900 Davis Drive: will live in the shadow of the office building. Concerned about parking and traffic control. Concerned about the impacts during the construction period. Concerned about flooding during construction period. Dirt, rocks and pebbles have been clogging drains in the area and causing Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes flooding. Gaby Hellier, Assistant Superintendent, Burlingame School District Representative: noted comment in Notice of Preparation of the EIR regarding the location of the school district offices. Noted that there is currently no agreement with the district for relocation of its offices. Ken Way, 1808 Davis Drive: just experienced a significant period of construction of the new hospital . Concerned about the traffic, privacy, safety, property values. Candace Negare, 1812 Davis Drive: concerned regarding the impacts due to all of the schools in the area, including the pre -school in the area. Confused about Community Gatepath's ownership of their property. Safety should be the primary concern. William Nelson, 1704 Davis Drive: the scope of the project seems to be out of scale with the neighborhood. Traffic is bottlenecked in the area. Need an updated traffic study during the time that schools are in session. There are narrow streets and it is a very residential neighborhood. The dust during the hospital construction was excessive; this impact should be evaluated. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Meeker: explained the EIR process. A Notice of Preparation has been prepared; the scoping session will inform that analysis contained in the EIR. >Expressed concern regarding the water usage of the development and the adequacy of the City's allocation, particularly depending upon dry seasons, etc. >Should look at traffic flow and signalization in the area to reduce impacts upon the Ray Park neighborhood. >Clarify the agreements with Community Gatepath and the School District in the analysis. Is parking an environmental issue that can be evaluated under CEQA; have the environmental consultant clarify this. >Can the underground parking be accessed from the hospital property; feels that that access is better than Marco Polo Way. Also analyze the bus drop-off and the traffic impacts in this area. >Huebner letter raises other concerns that should be addressed. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.745 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for home office, half-bathroom, and to legalize existing window within 10-feet of the property line. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e). (Jesse Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., applicant and designer; Conrad Carlen, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is a reasonable use fo the space. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Gum, to approve the application. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a detached garage for a new, two and one-half 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).(Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Sargent noted that he reviewed the recording from the second design review study session. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: Phil Koblis, 2711 Easton Drive: appreciates the efforts to make the project more consistent with the neighborhood. The garage placement makes it more obvious in their rear yard and also removes a large Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes tree. Hopes that more foliage will be added to enhance privacy between the properties. Concerned about drainage. The house is quite large; larger than other homes in the neighborhood. (Grange: a lot of the square footage is under the house.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes the project is improved and conforms with the property to the right. Has addressed concerns expressed by the Commission. >The special permit is necessary because of the topography of the lot and the location of the creek . Conforms with the neighborhood character. >Perfect example of where a variance makes sense; the lot has unique conditions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve application. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - c.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to the roofing material of a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Harumitsu Inouye, applicant and property owner; Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had spoken with the building inspector responsible for the project. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Noted that the installation has already started. (Hurin: the building inspector noticed the change in the roofing and advised the contractor to halt the installation.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Harumitsu Inouye represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the January 9th FYI did not provide the opportunity for a public hearing and discussion . It is the obligation of the applicant to understand the process. The fault lies with the applicant. >Presented as the dream house by the applicant. (Inouye: the dream house was the original contemporary design.) >Why was this roofing material selected? (Inouye: saw it on the neighbor's house. The contractor said the that the original material was not available. No other options were looked at.) >Is a major design change. (Inouye: doesn't understand the technical changes. Concerned about the rain impacts.) >Noted that the discrepency was first pointed out on October 1, 2016; why the delay? (Hurin: clarified the timeframe.) >Does the general contractor work regularly in Burlingame? The architect? (Inouye: doesn't know.) It is incumbent upon the contractor and architect to be aware of the changes that are occurring and and to Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes take appropriate action to seek approval of the changes. The contractor and /or architect failed to inform the property owner of the need to receive approval of the change. >When was the first time that the applicant was made aware that the tile on the approved plans was not available? (Inouye: doesn't know the specific date.) Public Comments: Sharon Kennedy, 2306 Hillside Drive: advocated for the applicant and his request for the roof change . Other people are affected by the delay in the construction - not happy about it. The tiles have been on the roof since August. Wondered about the lack of oversight and the collection of debris on the property - where is the contractor? Concerned about the roof and the setbacks in the construction. Approve the roof material so that the house can be saved and reduce the impacts upon her property. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Kane: advised the Commission to review the proposal against the design review guidelines. >Noted that the property across the street used as an example was the subject of several changes that required Commission input. >Would the project have been approved with the proposed tile when it was originally before the Commission? The barrel roof tiles actually made the design and were consistent with the architectural style of the house. Need to apply the design review guidelines to what is proposed versus what was approved. There is not just one manufacturer of the barrel shaped roof tiles; doesn't know if enough research was done to find the approved tile. >The house isn't a pure Mediterranean style; thought the proposed roofing materials would be acceptable. >Was surprised when the flat concrete tiles appeared on the roof. The barrel roof tiles are an integral part of the design. Doesn't feel like he can go along with the change. >Has been a trying process for the applicant. Would not have approved the new roofing material with the original design. >Noted that the erosion into the neighbor's property may be something to investigate at the staff level . (Kane: can be investigated by the Building Division staff; usually is a matter between the two private property owners.) >Understands the difficulty of the situation, but is not supportive of the change in the roofing material - hard to imagine that it would have been approved as part of the original design. There are quite a few Mediterranean style homes in the area that have barrel shaped roof tiles. >Doesn't see that big of an impact with the new roofing material. Is this actually a deal killer - would it have been with the original design? Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to deny the application. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul4 - Nay:Loftis, and Gum2 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - d.708 Carolan Avenue, zoned C -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Nicole Stier, Tutu School, applicant; Diebel and Company, architect; Gloria Conti and Audrey Stroupe, property owners) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent left the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Terrones noted that he reviewed the recording of the January 9th study session. Commissioner DeMartini received an email from the realtor for the project. Commissioner Gum spoke to the Farmers Insurance, Dailey Method and barbershop owners, and left messages for the tennis shop and market owners. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions for staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Nicole Stier represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Appears that the project was discussed thoroughly at the study meeting. Will be a nice addition to the community. >There isn't any special consideration before the Commission related to parking. Behooves the applicant to be certain that the business works. >Has concerns that the finding that there will be no detrimental impact to the neighborhood - there will be more visitors to this business versus the prior use. >Is located at a very busy intersection, particularly due to the presence of the school. Concerned for the safety of the kids in the space. May not be the ideal location for the business. Not supportive. >Likes the idea of the dance studio at the location. Kids at the school generally don't park in this area of Carolan. People will need to be careful anywhere there is a school. Supportive. Likes that it is in a neighborhood. >Each business at this location has already bought into a situation where there is inadequate on -site parking. Checked with staff to see if there were any restrictions on the occupancy of the building - there were no restrictions. Hard to say that the use will cause a problem in the neighborhood. If the classes do result in problems, then the Commission will hear about it - can be dealt with if that occurs. Supportive. >Also in support of the project. Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Nay:Gum1 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1145 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes story addition to an existing two -story single-family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, applicant and designer; Miro and Marica Brajenovic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Commissioner DeMartini was recused as he resides within 500-feet of the property, and the project designer is his designer. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Was there a chance to speak to the neighbor to the left at 1143 Bernal about the second floor windows looking into their backyard? (Davis: Yes, there is a letter of support for the project from the neighbor at 1143 Bernal.) > Why were the window boxes on the upper floor removed? (Davis: With the porch peak moving to the right, it would be just one.) > Window boxes are a nice detail at the front of the house and adds nice scale. (Davis: The plate height would have to go down on the porch, will have to discuss with the homeowners.) > Likes that porch is extended and interior circulation improved. > Will the new skylights be flat glass as opposed to acrylic domes? (Davis: Yes, will add a note to clarify.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project; brings it back to the original architectural style and improves the flow of the floor plan. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 - Recused:DeMartini1 - b.125 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing residential apartment building (Karen Such, Such Home Enhancements, Inc., applicant and designer; Ramon and Maria Flores, property owners) (86 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Clarified that the existing siding is actually vinyl. (Hurin: will ask the applicant to clarify that on the plans.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Robert Such represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a reason why the vinyl siding couldn't be continued? (Such: the siding leaves a lot to be desired.) Feels continuation of the siding is more desireable than stucco. >Noted the bars on the windows, particularly on the second floor - will this be continued? Why are there bars on the windows? (Such: will need to discuss with the owner.) >Is there stucco under the vinyl siding; what is the condition? (Such: doesn't know the condition .) Would the property owner be willing to remove the siding and restore the stucco? If siding is to remain, then it would be better to continue it on the addition. >Why not continue the double -hung windows on the addition? (Such: doesn't know why the aluminum windows were proposed on the rear. Will discuss with the architect.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would like there to be consistency in the project design; doesn't like the vinyl siding. Either revert to all stucco, or install wood siding over the entire building. The bars on the windows detract from the appearance of the building. >Are the bars operable for egress purposes? (Commissioner: appear to be operable.) >Concerned that the contractor is local, but the architect and owner are not in the area; will there be adequate communication between all parties to ensure that the project is built as approved. >Likes the addition of the space; the issues are a cohesive finish and /or eliminate the bars or make them part of the design. >Suggested that the siding be wood if the clapboard design is to be maintained. Would not approve the bars. (Kane: will look at the bar concerns prior to the project coming back for action.) >Project finish needs to be consistent. The windows on the rear should be consistent with the other windows. (Meeker: not within purview of the Commission to require siding on the entire building to be replaced.) >Requested sample of window. Would prefer wood windows. >Stated a preference for wood siding if siding is used. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to bring back the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that at its meeting of January 17, 2017 the City Council approved Putnam Automobile Group's requests for 85 California Drive, adopted the amendment to the City's Historic Resource Preservation ordinance adding adaptive reuse as an incentive, and introduced the amendments to the City's accessory dwelling unit regulations to bring them into conformance with State law. He also noted the that City Council will hold its annual goal -setting session from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday, January 28th in the Lane Community Room of the main Burlingame Public Library. a.612 Plymouth Way - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. b.1132 Cambridge Road - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. c.832 Linden Ave - FYI for review of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:46 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 January 23, 2017. 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 2, 2017, 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 $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2017