Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.01.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 25, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair DeMartini opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and GaulPresent6 - BandrapalliAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.December 14, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting The following corrections were made: Page 4; last line at bottom of page: change "was" to "way". Page 7; seventh bullet from top of page: delete "not" from second line. Page 9; fourth line from top of page: insert "Gardiner" after "Manager". Page 13; last line at bottom of page: insert "Gardiner" after "Manager". Page 15; second bullet from top of page: insert "or stabilized" after "abated". Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to adopt the December 14, 2015 minutes as amended. The motion failed and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, and Terrones5 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - Abstain:Gaul1 - 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.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Steve Atkinson/Arent Fox, applicant ; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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: >When was the project last considered by the City? (Meeker - The Council approved the project in June 2012. At that time the project included a development agreement and policy changes to the Bayfront Specific Plan. At this time the Commission is limited to discussions of the aesthetic (design) changes to the project. Other aspects of the prior approval will not be re-opened.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Ben Tranel, Gensler Architects represented the applicant and provided a detailed overview of the proposed design revisions to the project. Commission Questions/Clarifications: >Likes a lot of the details of the revisions. Where is Genzon located? Concerned about management of the project. What will happen with the standing water that is currently on the site? Concerned about on-site maintenance currently. (Genzon Representative /Tranel - Genzon is based in China, but has a local office in Burlingame. Not prepared to talk about current on -site maintenance tonight. Intend to start construction soon. Hopefully will be a general contractor on-site.) >Has the design been evaluated with respect to wind impacts? (Tranel - have done some initial testing and are continuing to evaluate. The results will be included in the addendum to the EIR.) >Address issues of glare from the property; particularly to planes at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). >With the changes proposed, are there any changes to the impact fees for the project? (Meeker - no changes. The fees are tied to the project scale. Only aesthetic changes are being made.) >Are there any concerns regarding the undercrossing between the parking structures under Airport Boulevard? (Meeker - Gensler has consulted with the Public Works Department and continues to do so to determine if this approach will be accepted.) >Is retail square footage the same? (Tranel - same amenity areas as before, but reconfigured. Are in the process of determining the appropriate scale of each of the amenity types.) Would hate to see amenities taken from the ground floor of the office buildings and moved to the amenities building or have amenity or retail space become office. The ground floor amenities activate the promenade. (Tranel - some of the amenity square footage from the amenity building could be relocated to the first floor of the office buildings.) >Is there a better use for the landscaped area to the west of the amenities building? (Tranel - have not identified a specific outdoor use. The overlook on the amenities building overlooks this area .) Perhaps consider another use for this area. >Concerned about anything in the environmental analysis that could delay the progress of the project. >Doesn't believe that the site plan translates very well in the area where the green space overlooking Coyote point interfaces with the garage entry. >What material are the fins? (Tranel - are imagining a fiberglas material that will be painted. There is a three-dimensional pattern to the fins. Can control the color and will be a smooth, glossy surface.) >On Sheet 11, shows a 90 foot wide drop-off space; will this be for shuttles, cars? (Tranel - for shuttles, taxis, car-share) >Likes the revisions. Will any of the existing vegetation remain, particularly in proximity to the Bay Trail? (Tranel - will need to remove all materials on the property; will be replaced with native species . There will be a compacted surface.) >How will be parking be managed in the area that accesses Fisherman's Park? (Tranel - doesn't have the answer at the moment.) >Likes the progression of the building design up the building facades. However that presupposes that the glass will be light – if it is dark glass it will look darker higher up the building. >What is the surface material of the amenities building? (Tranel - hasn't yet been decided. Envision Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes using an opaque material such as the fiberglas material or metal. The ends of the building are where the glass is located with views out to the Bay.) >Will there be bicycle parking on the surface? (Tranel - yes.) >Is there any sheltering along the buildings while persons move amongst buildings? (Tranel - have not contemplated creating a horizontal canopy element.) >How will southbound traffic get to Highway 101? (Tranel - noted that the traffic would move through signalized intersections to the south. Meeker - traffic impacts were analyzed in the original project EIR . Though the addendum to the EIR will assess any additional impacts to all systems, the nature of the modifications to the project do not modify the prior analysis of traffic impacts at the Highway 101 interchanges.) >Any concerns about the safety of the rails around the outdoor terraces? (Tranel - want to preserve the views, but will build to required safety codes.) >What drought-tolerant aspects have been built into the design? (Tranel - drought tolerant landscaping and treatment of stormwater.) >How many shuttles will be using the drop -off areas on a daily basis? This area adjacent to the promenade appears counterintuitive. Look at how this area will work. The initial concept attempted to get people on the promenade. Doesn't want the promenade to be a ghost-town on the weekends. >Likes what is being done to the retail spaces. Original design had more retail on the Sanchez Channel side; consider this area for more retail. >Will there be public access to any of the rooftop areas? (Tranel - the terrace on the amenities building will be accessible by the public. Not anticipated on the office buildings.) >One of the issues in the prior discussion was to maintain the human scale at the promenade level . A little concerned that the current design removes the human scale on the promenade; canopies were provided at ground level on the prior project. >How will the promenade be used? Feels like all of the drivers will be walking to the building from the periphery, not the promenade. (Tranel - a lot of people will arrive at the site through the parking structure and will exit into the promenade. Most of the surface parking will be visitor parking, not for employees.) Feels it is a bit odd to have visitors arriving at the building and needing to walk around the back of the building to get to the building entries. >Is access into the parking structure changed from the original design? (Tranel - the previous design circulated traffic through a surface parking lot. The new access is directly from Airport Boulevard. Are simply extending the deck on the top floor of the structure. A traffic analysis is being prepared and provided with the EIR addendum). > How will wind be addressed on the rooftop decks to ensure that they are useable? (Tranel - there is some mechanical equipment on the roof and other features that will be placed in a manner to help shield these areas.) >What is the project phasing? Is there a tenant lined up? (Tranel - it is planned to develop the entire project at once. There is not currently a specific tenant identified.) >How long will the construction take to complete? (Tranel - a contractor is not on board yet, so don't have a specific timeframe. Could be two to two and one-half years for the building shells.) >Does it seem like the number of parking spaces is too many or too few spaces? How many shuttles will drop off? Could be dictated more by the tenant. >Is public use of the lobbies to be only during the week, or will weekends be included? (Tranel - there is an intention for the public to use the promenade and the retail tenants. The large lobby doors would only be open during normal business hours.) >How many bicycle parking spaces are provided? (Tranel - doesn't have the exact number. Will have this available at the next meeting.) Highlight this a bit more. >With respect to the Bay Trail, a bit concerned that the Trail enters into the public open space, concerned that users may enter the more pedestrian areas. Would be helpful to better delineate the Bay Trail and what a bicyclist will see when using the site. (Tranel - envision that bicyclists would walk their bikes through the promenade. Can use pavement parking to enhance delineation of the Bay Trail.) >Wouldn't want the use of the property to become so independent that employees don't use Broadway and Downtown Burlingame. Hopes that there is a way to work with the merchants to build in a shuttle service for persons wishing to use the off -site retail areas. Are shuttles only for employees? (Tranel - haven't considered shuttles to service the Downtown areas.) >Three exits out of all of the parking, with connectors between all structured parking areas. Is this Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes how the parking works? (Tranel - clarified the exits from the parking structures.) >Has thought been given to facade maintenance? (Tranel - have envisioned that there would be roof-mounted equipment that can drop down and not impact the fins on the building.) >How would the fins be cleaned? (Tranel - same approach as the windows.) Public Comments: Rebecca Knudsen: Is the owner of the property a resident of Burlingame? Noted that there is a lot of standing water on the property; how will the water levels be addressed? Liked the original buildings that were approved before. Lives and works in the area - the property hasn't been taken care of. There are a lot of bicycles in the area. Be certain that what is best for Burlingame is taken into consideration. Will be placing 3,000 vehicles on a two -lane road. Wants to be certain that the revised design doesn't affect winds. Though the area is not well maintained, wants to be certain it is useable in the future. Jack McCarthy: Still seems to be some ambiguity between whether or not this will be a weekend destination or not. This property will set a precedent for what the are will be used in the future. The tenant of the property will impact what Burlingame is for years to come. Is this a viable location for retail? Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes getting the cars out of the promenade. >The architecture is potentially handsome. >Who will manage the site during the present time and during construction? >Glare, wind analysis, swamp conditions, local project management and control, concerned about additional time delays in having the project move forward. >Doesn't believe that the site plan fulfills the excitement of the overall plan, it is very shallow with not particularly green spaces, should dialog better with the Coyote Point. >Likes the fins on the building. A bit uneasy because the fins read on the oblique as as a textured solid, you wouldn't be able to see within the structures. >Concerned about cleaning/maintenance of the buildings. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that no action is required on this item. The applicant will consider all comments made and address them in a future presentation to the Commission. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.600 Vernon Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack McCarthy, applicant and property owner; Elaine Lee designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini had met with the applicant in advance of the Design Review Study meeting. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing Elaine Lee and Jack McCarthy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Clarifications: There were no questions for the applicant Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Thinks the applicant did a nice job. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve application subject to the conditions in the staff report. Discussion of motion: >Commissioner Loftis expressed his disatisfaction with the columns on the structure. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - b.Considerations of Amendments to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and to Chapters 25.32-25.35 and 25.38 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for amendments to side setback requirements. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 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 DeMartini opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff - supported the amendments as proposed. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to recommend approval amendments as drafted to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Scoping for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five -story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner ) (462 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 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: >Were there any comments submitted by the design review consultant? (Keylon - will have comments by the time it comes back for action.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Vadim Malik-Karamov represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Clarifications: >Appreciates all of the design changes that have been made; an incredible improvement. >Concerned about how the vehicles will circulate through the property. Would it make more sense to have the entry at the north end, rather than the south end of the property. Concerned about the turning radii leading into the garage. (Malik-Karamov - could provide another entry for use during peak traffic times. The proposed entry would be used during off-peak times.) >Have approved mechanical parking units installed on other projects, but have been much smaller. If this equipment doesn't work as advertised, will be a significant problem. Referenced a recent article in the New York Times that was provided to staff earlier regarding this type of parking. Need to have additional assurance that this parking arrangement will work. (Malik-Karamov - believes the representations of the manufacturer. Is a concept that hasn't been used in the United States . Understands the concern.) >Have the windows been specified yet? (Malik-Karamov - will be aluminum-framed windows.) >How many conventional parking spaces could have been provided? (Malik-Karamov - would have had to increase the first level height by at least three feet, to create areas for ramps. By using the automatic vehicle lifts there is much less excavation and concrete work required.) Not convinced that this arrangement will work and that residents will use the north and south driveways at appropriate times. >Have there been any discussions with CalTrans regarding the intersection of Floribunda and El Camino? Would like to see a traffic study done to determine how the traffic flow from this site will impact the proposed improvements at this location. (Malek-Karamov - have a traffic study for the project.) Sees the parking approach as a potential cause of a bottleneck. >If height of the first floor is raised, could reduce units. Referenced opportunity to raise the first floor to provide privacy for occupants, as referenced in the Downtown Specific Plan. >Concerned regarding drainage from the property. Past information was provided at a dryer time . Interested in learning what the impact would be today. (Roman Knop - will place several drains under the building and drain to El Camino.) Include authorization from CalTrans to drain to its right-of-way. >Spoke to the City Engineer regarding this matter - does have a permit to store water on the site and drain to El Camino at a limited rate. >Has the required fire apparatus access been provided? (Malik-Karamov - will seek alternative approach for this.) Show on plans. >Likes the idea of the stacked parking, but concerned that there is no staging area to permit vehicle loading and unloading. May not be as effective on this site given the limited driveway space. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have the plans been shared with the property owners to the north? (Malik-Karamov - no.) Need to be able to demonstrate that the project will not be detrimental to neighboring properties. Could be a serious shadowing issue regarding shadowing at the adjacent pools. (Malik-Karamov - can provide more trees for privacy purposes. Believes that the shadow diagram was provided with the application materials though he doesn't have the materials with him. Meeker - can look at the shadow impacts as part of the environmental analysis.) >Is a requirement for one service vehicle space; where is it? Can residents get past a truck parked in the driveway? Concerned that the traffic flow into the garage will be blocked. (Malik-Karamov - referenced sheet A2 of the plans. Showed the drop off area for handicapped. The truck can be parked in the driveway used by residents' cars; residents will be able to drive around the truck. Can be scheduled for specific times.) >The service vehicle and residents' vehicle circulation conflicts are a fatal flaw in the on -site circulation on the site. Residents could be blocked from accessing the parking garage by service vehicles. (Meeker - will ensure that this concern is adequately addressed in the environmental document.) >How is bicycle parking handled? (Malik-Karamov - referenced sheet A11 and mentioned areas that could be used for bicycle storage.) >Has an emergency generator been selected? Want to be certain that the generator meets the power requirements for the property, particularly for operation of the parking lifts, and can be located where indicated. >How will the fencing be handled on the property? (Malik-Karamov - hasn't been addressed at this point. Can provide more details.) >Landscape plan needs specific details regarding locations of materials. >The rendering of the plan should show all details of what will be on the roof of the structure (venting, etc.) >On page A2, the first unit at the top left corner; what does LD mean? (Malik-Karamov - laundry. There will be two laundry rooms. One for the master bedroom, the other for the other bedrooms.) Has never seen this type of arrangement before. Another unit has the laundry facility in the closet in the master bedroom. Wants to be certain that the floor plans are understandable. >Some of the patios are very large on the penthouse level. What types of activities are envisioned? Could be used for activities that would disturb neighbors. (Malik-Karamov - Easy to manage because a line of landscape materials will be provided at the edge of the building. There will be no way to see over the railing into the neighboring pool.) >Where is the water table for the property? Be cognizant that the presence of water could affect durability of the parking equipment. (Malik-Karamov - doesn't have the information.) >Can the elevator move one or two cars at a time? (Malik-Karamov - one car at a time.) >What is the material shown on the overhang above the fourth floor? (Malik-Karamov - Could be a built up roof. The overhang could also be used as a garden.) >How will the balconies on El Camino be used? Storage is not a good thing for these areas . (Malik-Karamov - will restrict how the balconies will be used.) >How tall are the buildings on either side of the project? (Malik-Karamov - three stories and five stories.) Hard to tell how the building looks in context; would be useful to have a rendering that shows it in context.) >How will trash truck access the site? Will it park in front of the trash lift?- (Malik-Karamov - noted that Recology will not retrieve trash from the garage. The lift will be used to bring the bins to ground level.) >Has Recology reviewed the trash plans? (Malik-Karamov - has had some conversations with Recology that confirm that they will not access the trash within the garage. Knop - trash must be brought up with the lift at the same time every week by the building manager.) >How have sustainability and green building items been addressed? Is it possible for the rear yard space be used for a vegetable garden? (Malik-Karamov - can look at this.) Public Comments: Austin Tomaney and Sofia Glynn - live in neighboring 12 unit building. Submitted letter of concern last year - have the same concerns. Feels the total maximum units should be eighteen and no more than Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes three stories in height to fit into the neighborhood. Building will detract from the community. Want a 55-foot setback between the new building and their building. The buildings are very close to one another. Her unit faces the proposed building. She has a balcony that is unused because there is no privacy. Can hear the conversations of neighbors. The height of the building will impact light and privacy. Afaf Dudum - the building will be located at a blind spot on El Camino Real. This will add to the traffic problems in the area. The new structure will block light. Trash removal will create noise impacts . Deliveries will likely need to park on Floribunda to access the property. Coming in and out of the building is very dangerous. There will be solar impacts as well as tree and landscaping impacts. Invited the Commissioners to visit her property to see how the project would impact the building. Jennifer Pfaff - noted that the site plan does not adequately reflect existing trees that are on the property and in the right-of-way. For the size of the building, the proposed deciduous trees are not of an adequate size to shield the building. Would like to see larger, evergreen trees placed in the area. The buildings along El Camino are secondary to the "linear park" appearance of the street. Elina Cherny - agrees with the concerns expressed by the Commissioners. Noted that in the R 3 district no building can be more than four stories in height. How can the proposed building be considered? The parking structure is a disaster waiting to happen because of traffic circulation, etc. Nick Popovic - height of the building doesn't meet the code requirements. Does the building exceed lot coverage? The geotechnical report needs to be revisited as it is over eighteen month old. Need to look at groundwater and other structural issues. The building will overshadow other buildings in the area . Needs to be built more in line with other buildings in the area. Concerned about congestion that will be created on El Camino. Taylor Fanti - noted that the building would block any light into her bedroom and all units on that side of her building. It will be difficult for delivery vehicles to access the property. Delivery vehicles could cause back ups onto El Camino which would be dangerous. The illustrations inaccurately represent the size of the proposed building. Concerned about noise generated by sump pumps pumping groundwater. Elba Pannitto - supports the comments made by others during the hearing. Concerned regarding the additional laundry spaces within the units. Expressed traffic concerns related to the curve in El Camino at that point. Jon Weiner - agreed with points by Commissioners and neighbors. Not familiar with the carousel parking equipment. Feels it may be more appropriate for a more urban area. Concerned about vibrations that would affect other properties. Would like to see examples where this type of system is in place currently. Would like an accurate representation of how the mass of the structure will impact neighboring properties. Community Development Director Meeker noted that it is not necessary for the applicant to respond to every concern as all of the items noted will be addressed in the environmental document. The applicant was provided time for rebuttal. Offered to meet with neighbors. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >City Attorney Kane discussed the height regulation and the need to determine the intent for interpretation of that provision of the standards. Residents concerned about this matter will be able to learn more through the staff report. >The architecture is better than before. The site program is more the issue. Creative ways of addressing parking are encouraged, though this particular property makes it challenging. Stackers have Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 January 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes been considered before, but the City has never considered fully -automated parking approaches. There is necessarily a queing location for vehicles. This complicates deliveries as well. There are a lot of complicated items being baked into the project. Understands the property owner's desire to maximize use of the property, though there are likely other ways to create a building that better fits. The site challenges are in large part due to the location on El Camino. >Shade and shadow needs to be evaluated. >The concerns expressed by the City Engineer were reinforced and need to be addressed, particularly groundwater, the parking system, sewer capacity. >The whole project hinges on whether or not the parking program will work. Needs some type of assurance that the system can work. Has the configuration been used in other similar projects and been successful? >More analysis needed to show that the driveway radii, etc. are adequate. Still a lot of work that needs to be done. >Referenced information in the packet regarding the typical densities approved; the density of this project is much higher than has normally been approved. >Noise from stackers and/or water pumps must be evaluated. >Height/story issue needs to be resolved. >Would have hoped that more of an effort would have been made to show that the stacker system will work at the location. >Huge issues need to be resolved before the project move forward. >Want to make sure that there is a dialog between the applicant and the neighbors. >Found a YouTube video of the proposed parking system in use in Korea. All information received during the public hearing will be assembled and provided to the environmental consultant to assist in guiding the environmental analysis for the project. No action was required by the Commission. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair DeMartini noted the upcoming meeting of the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee which will address future uses within the City's Bayfront. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:14 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 25, 2016. 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 4, 2016, 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016