Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.10.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 23, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from the discussion of Agenda Item 9a (1355 Laguna Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1357 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Steven F . Baldwin and Therese M. Baldwin TR, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1357 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1357 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1357 Columbus Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Kelly noted that he reviewed the recording of the study meeting on this item. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steve Baldwin represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made to the project. >There is sufficient justification for the special permit for height given the upsloping lot. >Likes the look of the house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Scott and Leanne Duong, applicant and property owners; Thomas Biggs, Biggs Group Architecture, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1411 De Soto Ave. - Staff Report 1411 De Soto Ave. - Attachments 1411 De Soto Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Leann Duong and Thomas Biggs represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the windows really have "true" divided lights? (Biggs: yes.) >Will the louvers be simple, rectangular vents? (Biggs: yes.) >On the rendering, the front elevation looks very symmetrical, but on the plans, the overhangs look asymmetrical, why? (Biggs: the overhangs should be the same.) >Will there be no trim around the windows? (Biggs: yes.) >The renderings look very stark as a white house with black trim. (Biggs: trying for a Contemporary Farmhouse aesthetic. The renderings don't really show the contrast in textures between the first and upper floor.) >This is the first home that is being remodeled in the neighborhood; perhaps there is some way to soften the appearance. (Biggs: could perhaps set the windows in a bit.) >With respect to the right elevation, the roofline appears very grand, takes over that side of the home . Is there any way to soften this. (Biggs: if modified the entire look of the front would change. Would move the design away from the design aesthetic. Could look at adjusting the roof slope somewhat.) >Did the architect consider bringing the chimney on the left side up to the roof? (Biggs: the chimney will serve no purpose as the fireplace is being converted to a direct-vent.) >Was delighted to see such a significant change from the original design. >Perhaps something can be done to add more articulation through the use of color. Perhaps something can be done to soften the appearance. (Biggs: feels that the varied finish work and trim will break up the monotony. Offered recessing the windows by perhaps two inches to provide some shadowing that would break up the mass.) >Likes the idea of recessing the windows; would add texture to the building. >The Strawberry Tree shown in the front yard may not grow to be in scale with the remodeled home . Ensure that the landscaping filters the view of the home. (Biggs: the landscape architect can revisit the landscape plan. Trees should match the neighborhood pattern.) >Look at trim near the stucco. Public Comments: Neighbor on the right -hand side: was a second floor deck shown on the prior design removed? Would there be a concern about the deck looking into his yard or into a future second -story bedroom; was this a consideration? (Meeker: there is no guarantee of privacy in any development of this sort. The Commission considers the size of the deck and how it could be used and impact privacy. Can't consider a speculative concept for development of the adjacent property. Commissioner: try to limit the size of second -floor decks and limit them to being off of a bedroom or other similar area so they do not become a major gathering point.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made. Likes the front porch. Would prefer something other than the cable-wire railing on the deck. >Design is significantly improved. Likes the idea of recessing the windows. >Believes the wire railing system works with the design for the deck; consider landscape solutions to address privacy. >Would like the appearance of the project to be softened. >There are still a few items to be addressed; inclined to continue the matter to permit the applicant the Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes opportunity to address outstanding concerns. (Meeker: could these items be addressed through an FYI .) Yes, they could. >Feels that the outstanding issues: recessed windows, trees in the front, can be addressed through an FYI. >Concerned that the applicant may be punished because of the rendering that has been presented. >Feels that the project is approvable. >Concurs with Commissioner's assessment regarding the discussion of second-floor decks. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted showing the recessed windows and revised landscape plan for the front to address the size of the trees. Discussion of Motion: >May help to incorporate an actual chimney on the left-side fireplace. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling and a new detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Rick Lund, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 852 Paloma Ave - Staff Report.pdf 852 Paloma Ave - Attachments 852 Paloma Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Shondra Lund represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions of the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes, is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Loftis1 - d.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments 300 Airport Blvd - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. 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 Gum opened the public hearing. Ben Tranel and Amy Tian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is the reason for the substantial increase in the equipment? Will similar changes be made to the other buildings in the future? (Tranel: providing all necessary mechanical equipment for laboratory tenants on the two affected buildings. Is the only change contemplated at this time. Is intended to expand the marketing for these buildings.) >Hopes that the rooftop terraces will not be removed from the remaining two buildings. >Looks like the doors entering Building 3 have changed somewhat. (Tranel: the change was intentional; the doors in the approved application are still centered on the lobby. The "man doors" have been relocated somewhat. Meeker: minor changes of this sort may be approved by staff at the building permit stage.) >Is there an alternative that allows the mechanical equipment to be placed elsewhere without removing the roof decks? (Tranel: if a prospective tenant did not require all of the mechanical equipment, could reconfigure the roof decks accordingly. Have kept the roof terraces on the other two buildings to offset this change.) Public Comments: Patrick Halloran, manages 380-390 Beach Road: wants to make sure that all of the construction activities do not negatively impact the existing buildings on Beach Road. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Opposed to removing the amenity solely for a prospective tenant. The terraces promote the type of feel desired in the area. Will be hundreds of employees left without a rooftop deck. >Is there a means of encouraging retention of the terraces in the event that a laboratory tenant is not selected? Is this setting a precedent. (Kane: do not impose conditions that may conflict with the leasing efforts of the building. If another amendment is proposed in the future, it must be considered on its own merits.) >Removal of the terraces does not detract from the public use of the site. There are significant amounts of other open space on the property for the public and employees to use. These areas are not visible from the ground. In favor of application. >Is a small consideration to remove the open space, may in fact promote more activity at ground level. >Wonders how much the terraces will be used given the winds in the area? Can support the application. >Can see both sides of the argument; it is not simply about what you see at ground level, but also what is available to employees on the site. Would the project have been approvable as currently presented? Likely would not have insisted that all buildings have roof decks. Would hate to see further changes of this type. Can support current proposal. >Feels the rooftop decks are special amenities that may be attractive to younger tech workers. >The project as approved sets a precedent for Burlingame of promoting rooftop terraces; would like to see the terraces remain. >There is a certain cache to having the terraces viewable to executives arriving at SFO. >Referenced the large number of roof decks present on buildings in Seattle. Burlingame Point will be seen from the air, want to have the project and the City be recognized for this type of amenity. Wants the roof decks to remain. >Can see that there will be a split vote on this matter, will suggest a continuance. Further noted that making the project successful is based upon the ability to acquire good tenants. Feels uncomfortable with the City inserting itself into this discussion. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gum, to continue the item to the next regular meeting. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto4 - Nay:Sargent, and Kelly2 - Absent:Loftis1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1355 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Joann Gann, applicant and designer; Ryan and Wendy Vance, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1355 Laguna Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1355 Laguna Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from the discussion of this item as she owns property within 500-feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the property owner. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joann Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is that a new direct-vent fireplace in the family room that is proposed? (Gann: yes.) >Noted that on the left elevation, far left corner over the small gable above the dining room; when viewed from the rear elevation questioned how the elements appeared on the rear elevation? (Gann: should be shown on the rear elevation.) >Noted the metal roof over the porch area on the left elevation, but when you proceed to the other side of the gable on the family room it changes to composition shingles. (Gann: only the shed roof is metal, all else is composition shingles.) >Will the front porch columns be simple timbers? (Gann: yes, will be stained.) >Is the metal roof standing-seam? (Gann: yes.) >Expressed concern about water proofing where the two roofing materials meet. >What will be the grid pattern on the doors, also on the left elevation? (Gann: will match window grids.) >Why was the Hardie product chosen for the board and batten siding? Feels the trim with the Hardie product will look awful. (Gann: for maintenance. Can use wood materials.) >Noted that mitering corners with Hardie horizontal siding doesn't work well, but noted that the corners are capped. Felt that wood siding would be better. Note the size of the materials that are being used in the finishing. If Hardie materials are used, please provide some nearby examples where it has been used. >Will all windows in the house be replaced? (Gann: one bathroom window on the rear will remain.) Want to ensure that all materials are cohesive. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Need to have the details fleshed out on the plans. >With respect to the neighbor's concerns regarding light, the design is well within the declining height envelope. >Likes that both street frontages of the home have been designed well. >Nice design; should come back on regular action; wants to see the detailing on the trim and the materials choices for the siding. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Kelly5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. 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 Gum opened the public hearing. John Stewart and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the front elevation, is that a real window centered over the front porch? (Stewart: is a quatrefoil window into the laundry room.) >Has consideration been given to expanding the porch size since the full front -porch exemption hasn't been used? Would add more articulation on the front of the home. (Stewart: can look into this.) >is the stucco coved under the eaves? (Stewart: yes.) >Are the planter boxes wrought-iron? (Stewart: yes.) >Suggested a patio off of the dining room, onto the front porch. >Requested clarification of the plate heights; they are higher than what is normally accepted. (Stewart: ten feet on the first floor, nine on the second floor.) Consider reducing the plate heights; the neighborhood is a mix of one and two -story homes, the reduction would help the massing. Gilson: initially wanted to install a basement, but have a significant water problem. Wants to retain the proposed plate heights . Could an arbor be added at the rear? Keylon: this would add to the floor area and is not exempt.) Is there a connection between the basement and the plate heights? (Stewart/Gilson: would have permitted more floor area.) >Thinks the design works well with the neighbors. Suggested lowering the plate heights to allow the design to better fit into the neighborhood. (Stewart: what is the opinion of other Commissioners?) Public Comments: Unidentified Neighbor (across from property on Clarendon): another home was rebuilt several doors down . Feels that the home appears very massive; are a community of non -massive Spanish-style homes. Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Keep some of the characteristics of the Burlingables neighborhood that people like. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is a well-crafted design that tries to fit into the neighborhood. However, the existing homes are a bit more delicate. Can understand the desire for a ten foot plate height on the first floor, but the nine foot height on the second floor is too much. Must look at the plate heights. >Agrees with lowering the plate heights. The existing homes are smaller, many are split -level in design . Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Has a bit of a concern about the home fitting into the neighborhood. Suggested vaulted ceilings on the second floor with an eight-foot plate height. >Would like something done with the front porch and supports looking at the plate heights. >Wants the second floor plate height reduced. Also wants the porch to be enhanced. >Feels both plate heights should be reviewed, partly for consistency and partly for ensuring the home fits into the neighborhood. Homes in the neighborhood typically have first floor plate heights under nine feet. If the Commission starts to allow the greater plate heights on some houses, will see the request on other applications. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review and Condominium Permit for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 21 Park Rd - Staff Report 21 Park Rd - Attachments 21 Park Rd - Plans - 10.23.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke to a tenant who lives in the rear building. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Asked for staff to come up with a review system to be used when considering approval of parking lifts. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked how pedestrians would enter the property from Park Road? Will there be a gate on the driveway? (Levy: pedestrians will enter through an area flanked by comlumns. There will be no gate on the driveway.) >Is the area near the gas meters just a utility space? (Levy: yes.) >With respect to the common open space along El Camino Real; is there anything other than landscaping within this area? (Levy: is a contribution to the character of El Camino Real, but is not an area that would be attractive to residents. This is why private open space areas have been provided .) Would like to see something in the area that would encourage residents to use the area. (Levy: have considered options, including a wall along El Camino Real; can enclose it if the Commission wishes this to be done.) >Feels that the left side of the building could use some softening; was foliage considered in this area? (Levy: can considering installing vine pockets; need to maintain clearance for PG&E.) >There are a lot of very hard materials being used in the exterior finishing; was any thought given to Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes including some softer materials? (Levy: some of the decks have wood used on the railings to soften the appearance; the renderings are not showing this correctly.) >Has there been any engagement with the homeowners to the right of the project site. (Levy: haven't approached the neighbors, but considered staff's comments from prior iterations. Meeker: noted that the residents that were previously concerned have viewed the plans at the counter and appear satisfied.) >Where is the delivery truck location? (Levy: showed the location.) Public Comments: Ilia Lubavich, 33 Park Road: fairly happy with the current design. Noted the presence of trees adjacent to the property at 33 Park that help with respect to privacy. What is the exact plan for landscaping in this area; is there a way to keep the trees? Looks like they will be removed. Potentially have an arborist visit 33 Park to see what could be done to maintain privacy. Concerned that the Cobblestone -type driveway will generate more noise than regular driveway materials. Not sure how loud the vehicle stackers will be; wants more information on how this may affect the neighbors. Steve Kraus: this design is a huge improvement. Don't have many objections. Want the privacy concerns to be addressed. Have an arborist look at the situation to see what can be done to protect privacy. Questions of Applicant: >Doesn't notice many existing trees shown on the plans that are to be removed. (Levy: does appear that the trees referenced will be removed, but can look at this area to see what can be done to accommodate retention of the trees. May look at relocating the trash area so that the delivery area can be pulled back to preserve some of the trees. Keylon: noted that the 20-foot backup space for the driveways must be maintained; perhaps landscaping could be added on the adjacent property.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Huge improvement over prior iteration of the project. >The Hardie siding works in this instance since maintenance will be handled by the homeowners' association and is more appropriate for a multi-family building. >Likes the open space area along El Camino Real; ensure that the gardener for the project maintains this area. >Noted that the delivery services will more likely double park on Park Road for deliveries. >Understands the concern about the removal of the trees; encouraged the neighbors to look at screening options on their property. >Noted the six-foot tall metal mesh fence on the plans, clarified that it wil be a green screen. >Would like the design softened a bit more on the front, in particular, perhaps add more wood. >Likes the window design. >Reach out the neighbors to see if there is something to address their concerns about the trees. >This design is a vast improvement over the prior design; reduced in scale and size. Revisit the privacy concerns of the neighbors. Should move forward to action. >Likes the project. Should not enclose the green space on the El Camino Real side. >Phenominal change to the design. >Look at additional screening on the neighbors' side either on-site or on their property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017 October 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners' Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Noted that the City Council recently conducted a discussion regarding the use of Commercial Linkage Fees and Housing Impact Fees. 2209 Ray Drive - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 2209 Ray Dr - FYIAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 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 October 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 November 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2017