HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.02.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 22, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.January 25, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
The January 25, 2016 meeting minutes were not available for approval.
b.February 8, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Abstain:DeMartini1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Tim Raduenz, designer for the 1250 Jackling Drive item, reported that zoning issues were being worked
out with Planning staff and anticipates the application will return at the next meeting.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner DeMartini was not at the February 8th meeting but reviewed both projects and watched
the videos.
a.472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J Deal Associates,
applicant and designer; Salima Fassil, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.722 Crossway Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and
designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Gum1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1516 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage
(Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Y&W Investment LLC, property
owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and DeMartini
reported that they had met with the property owner at 1523 Los Montes Drive.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Have the changes been shown to the property owners across the street? (Chu: No, just recently got
confirmation from the client to make the change. Chimney has been removed per the neighbor's request
as well.)
>Is the roof being lowered by having a flat roof at the top? (Chu: Had considered changing the pitch
but with the massing the 5:12 pitch looks better. Looked at 4:12 at the entry but it looked flat. Solution is
to cut the top off to create a flat area. Could accommodate solar panels too.)
>Would the flat roof be visible from the street? (Chu: No, it is very high above grade.)
Public comments:
Joe Wu, 1523 Los Montes Drive, spoke on this item:
>Has not seen the new design.
>Ridge is dropped from the left side, but the view blockage is from the right side.
>Some of the view is blocked by trees, but the view is subjective. Prefers seeing trees, not roof.
>Does not like the chimney facing the street.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Architects and developers building bigger and taller houses.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Had been concerned with roof height and the chimney. Both have been addressed.
>The architecture is well done and fits in with the neighborhood.
>Does not see view blockage based on interpretation of view blockage in the hillside area.
>Recognizes the spirit of compromise.
>House is beautiful. Could review full package with exteriors and roof plan as an FYI. FYI would come
back prior to issuance of a building permit.
>Concern that flat portion of the roof may look odd from above.
>There are other options for bringing down the scale of the chimney, A chimney is an architectural
feature. Thought house was better looking before.
>Planning Commission needs to have a consensus on interpretation of view blockage.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair DeMartini, to approve Action Item
with the following condition:
>The plan set with exteriors and roof plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as
an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli4 -
Nay:DeMartini, and Gaul2 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.50 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved new single family dwelling (Chu Design
Associates, applicant and designer; Christopher and Sandra Knightly, property
owners) (22 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli visited the property and met the
daughter of the property owner. Commissioner Sargent met with the home owner.
Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Chris Knightly represented the applicant, with designer James Chu.
Commission questions/comments:
>Has the trellis been built? (Knightly: It has been eliminated .)(Chu: It had been built but was removed
because it would have required a Conditional Use Permit.)
>Is the built garage 20'-8" x 20'-8"? (Chu: Yes.)
>Will the landscape tree shown on the approved plan next to the garage be installed? (Knightly: It's
installed.)
>Concern with the side wall missing two windows. Not sure it would have been approved with a long
blank wall. Should have consulted the Planning Division prior to making change. (Knightly: Discovered
issue when fitting kitchen cabinets.)(Chu: Wall is not facing a neighbor.)
>There are lots of trees on the side of the house.
>20-foot walk from the refrigerator to the sink.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Discussion:
>Trellis shown in the plans is not included in the approval.
>This side elevation is not visible from the street, is not a long wall.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action
Item with the following condition:
>The trellis shown in the plans is not included in the approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a Special Permit to reduce the
number of on-site parking spaces for an interior remodel (Tim Raduenz, Form + One
Design, applicant and designer; Lisa and Gregory Ott, property owners) (46 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
This item was not heard and will be continued.
d.1419 Burlingame Avenue, Suite S, zoned BAC (Burlingame Avenue Commercial) -
Application for a Condtional Use Permit for a Health Service on the second floor in the
BAC zone (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
This item was not heard and was continued to the March 14, 2016 meeting.
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.612 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for substantial
construction and lot coverage variance for a major renovation and single story addition
(Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Gordon Bull,
property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 600
Plymouth, 611 Plymouth, and 616 Plymouth.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>If the Minor Modification was reviewed on its own would staff make findings? (Keylon: Staff makes
findings and includes them in the public notification. The findings are similar to those of a variance. The
notice also goes out to the Planning Commission and City Council.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Was there an attempt to consider trimming the size of the house so a variance would not be
required? (Geurse: Considered, but not doing a second story addition. Wants to optimize as much
square footage as possible for the single story. Would have to take it off the back of the house
otherwise. Would have to squeeze the Master Bedroom and the Dining Room.)
>How would the outdoor patio spaces be used with the fireplaces? (Geurse: Garden courtyard is a
light feature or garden feature for the entry of the house. Entry hall looks out into courtyard. It is a
combined space for a visual space.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Not convinced the variance is justified just because it is single story or the lot is less than 6,000
square feet. Likes the project overall but there seems to be room to cut it back.
>No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify the application.
>Lot coverage considers impact on neighbors. The setbacks are maxed out already.
>Not building a second story is not a justification for a variance. Otherwise could come back in the
future with a second story and the variance would have already been there.
>Cannot find something extraordinary or unique about either the house or the property with regards to
the variance.
>Entry courtyard does not have a program - OK with that. Should show the landscaping on the plan to
clarify.
>Nice gesture not to have a second story.
>Landscaping on back left side could help with screening.
>Front wall and gate looks like it is closing itself off to the street. Other houses on the street with side
entries are open to the street.
>The longer, taller windows on the courtyard elevation create a monumental scale relative to the
smaller scale of the house. However they are not seen from the street.
>It can be hard to get light from side yards so a benefit of the tall windows facing the side is they can
bring in some nice high light. There might be some landscaping on that side.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to have the item return
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.11 East Carol Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design
Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Tim
Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Patrick and Brittney Aitken,
property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the property owner, and
Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right at 9 East Carol.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
>Works on existing details of the house. Kept gables, and kept eaves low.
>Modernized interior layout.
>Existing second story is like an attic. This will turn it into a family home.
Commission questions/comments:
>Rendering shows a stucco wall on the left side but plans show a wood fence. (Raduenz: There is a
more updated rendering. Will provide more recent one.)
>Will the wood trim be dark wood or light? (Raduenz: Darker.)
>Will all the wood trim match, including windows? (Raduenz: Windows are aluminum-clad. Will have
a custom color to match.)
>Was consideration given to separation of plane on back to break up mass, similar to front? There is
a band and brackets but no change in plane. (Raduenz: Could bump it out if needed, but close to maxing
out on square footage.)
>Exposed wood on gable ends could attract termites and moisture.
>What is the head height on window on far right (Bath #3)? (Raduenz: 6 feet or so.)
>Windows on front resemble french doors but with sill at bottom. Consideration for set of tall windows
with sill, and transoms reaching up to the gable? (Raduenz: Likes the idea.)
>Why does the dormer on right have no overhang? (Raduenz: Can look at it. Wanted to
de-emphasize that element.)
>Clarify roof plan - hard to read with the poche.
>Shared plans with the neighbors? (Raduenz: The owners sent emails to neighbors but have not
heard back. There are apartments to the rear.)
>Why was the lawn sign not out? (Raduenz: Will post it for the next meeting.)
Public comments:
Anne Merics,1537 Carol Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Concern with the size of the house compared to the smaller house next door.
>Six bedrooms mean a lot of people. Neighbors have petitioned the City for 2-hour parking on the
street. Street is narrow.
Tim Raduenz spoke on this item:
>There is space for a fourth car.
>Lower floor bedroom is more like a playroom or office. Could adjust it so it would not be classified as
a bedroom.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Is there an issue if the design review sign did not go out? (Gardiner: It is a design review sign, so is
not a statutory aspect of the noticing. The mailed post card is the legal notice. The item will need to
return for another hearing regardless and the sign can be put out for that meeting .)(Keylon: An
environmental notice will also be posted for at least 20 days once the environmental document is
completed.)
Environmental Scoping:
>Parking is an issue with the narrow street. The house has six bedrooms.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Design Review:
(no comments beyond those already stated)
This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar once the environmental review has been completed.
c.85 California Drive, zoned CAR and R -4 - Application for Environmental Scoping,
Rezoning, General Plan Amendment, Lot Merger and Commercial Design Review for
a new automobile service facility at an existing automobile dealership (Alan Cross,
Proto Inc., applicant and architect; Kent Putnam, property owner) (103 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Alan Cross represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Will both vehicle storage lots on Bayswater be effected? (Cross: Yes. Remaining lot may be used for
overflow inventory.)
>Would it be possible to get rendered elevations or 3-D rendering from corner of California and
Bayswater to get a better idea of building massing? (Cross: Yes.)
>Is there a plan to add street trees elsewhere, or alternates that would not remove as many? (Cross:
Adding two new street trees on California. Nature of providing curb cuts that work with the internal
circulation of the building and the site. Could consider adding additional trees on Bayswater.)
>Have you spoken to the residents of the apartment building next door? (Cross: No.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Environmental Scoping:
>Would like to evaluate the remaining R-4 parcel for viability.
>Concerned to have the R -4 lot remain as car storage when the Downtown Specific Plan encourages
residential development.
>Site plan should extend to Highland Avenue.
>Hard to understand the plans. Would be helpful to have a rendering.
>Consider traffic issues.
>The General Plan emphasizes making room for housing.
>Concern with noise with service building up against adjacent apartment building. Evaluate current
noise levels compared to anticipated noise levels after construction.
Design Review:
>Likes materials, they are cohesive with an automobile dealership. Historic elements from other areas
of downtown may not be applicable here.
>Design looks handsome.
>Rendering will be helpful.
>If this is the operation that will occur on the property it makes sense to clean up the zoning and
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
modify the specific plan.
>Concern with what will remain of the R -4 portion, if it will be deep enough to support a residential
building. Should continue residential pattern on Highland Avenue, have something consistent to create
neighborhood rather than suddenly having a vacant lot with parked cars.
>Surface lot takes something away from the block. Concern with losing R-4 to commercial.
>Concern with service backing up to apartments.
>See if there was a way to lessen the impact on the residents.
There was no motion, as the environmental review requires the application to return on the Regular
Action Calendar upon completion of the study.
d.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
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Who owns and maintains the Bay Trail? (Gardiner: The developer builds and maintains it, and is
obligated to keep it accessible to the public.)
>Who makes the decision whether to expand Airport Boulevard to three lanes? (Gardiner: The
roadway was redesigned with the prior approval, and a traffic study was prepared. Given that the floor
areas will not be changing with this amendment the conclusions from the previous approval would still
apply. The EIR addendum will review changes to configurations to driveways and lanes.)
>Would concessions be allowed to expand in the future? (Gardiner: Depends on the terms of the
Development Agreement.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Ben Tranel, Gensler, represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is pump system on the site operational? (Tranel: Pump has been mobilized.)
>Given amenity building has been reduced by 9,000 square feet, has that been added to the
commercial/retail space? (Tranel: Amenity building was 37,000, now 27,100. Difference is in the
commercial/food service/retail in the four office buildings. It is not going back as office space.)
>Will the conference center be available to the public? (Tranel: Conference space can be leased out
to public.)
>The areas in Building 3 and 4 that have been designated for possible expansion is not a certainty
but a potential outcome? (Tranel: Yes. It would require a permit amendment.)
>Is the area in Building 1 on Sheet A1.01.1 labeled as leasable space intended for retail, food service
etc? (Tranel: Yes, it was mislabeled and should indicate retail.)
>Building 2 on Sheet A1.01.2 would the leasable space next to the conference center be for office?
(Tranel: Yes.)
>Buildings 3 and 4 on Sheet A1.01.3 and A1.01.4 the food service and retail facing the promenade
would be in the future with a permit amendment? Can it be office space now? (Tranel: Conversion in the
future with an amendment.)
>What is the size of the multipurpose field? (Tranel: 75' x 100') Will it be kept open rather than
fenced? (Tranel: Yes)
>What precautions are being taken with sea level rise? (Tranel: Berm designed for 100-year flood
and sea level rise.)
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>What happens to Bay Trail in north eastern corner of the lot? (Tranel: Continues along the alignment
of current Airport Boulevard.) So it will be possible to travel on the Bay Trail without going on the new
Airport Boulevard? (Tranel: Yes.)
>Could look at amenities along channel as well.
>Would Building 2 warrant a dedicated ramp to the parking garage rather than access through a
surface lot? (Tranel: Has been analyzed by the traffic consultant, did not see issues with conflicts.)
>How often will the conference space be used? Concern with conference space facing Bay Trail not
drawing public in. (Tranel: Space is popular with tenants. Grove of trees has been designed for spill -out.
Could also be rented out for an off-site meeting.)
>Human scale on office buildings seems to be missing. Wants to be sure the public is invited in with
signage and ground level activity. Tables outside, etc. (Tranel: Believes it will be most effective to
concentrate the amenities and food service around Building 1. Food service seems best for generating
activity. Open space is designed to feel like public open space. Conference space is designed to have
synergy with the other amenities. Activity will stimulate other amenities in the rest of the project. Next to
conference center there is room for personal use/retail use.)
>What is the difference between the fin samples? (Tranel: One is a 3D print scale model of a 16-foot
fin, the other is a material sample.)
>Is the multipurpose field just for office tenants? (Tranel: It is open and connected for people moving
through the project. It is a public open space but is not technically a public park.) Could it be used for
kids' soccer matches? (Tranel: Could talk to the ownership about it.)
>Will the "Ferry Building" be open to the public on the weekends? (Tranel: It will be a retail function
that can be open retail hours.)
>How slow are bike riders on the Bay Trail intended to go? (Tranel: There is a shared bike lane on
Airport Boulevard for exercise cyclists. The Bay Trail is more of a recreational path, with turns designed
for 10 mph or less.) Should present the design to the various Bay Trail entities, and the former Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Committee members. Design of this segment of the Bay Trail slows everyone down
and creates promenades, which is different from the rest of the Bay Trail. (Tranel: Is talking with BCDC
about this currently.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Concern with office employees interacting with Bay Trail users. Usually when riding on Bay Trail
does not need to worry about cross traffic. Usually it is the trail along the bay side, and other uses are
away from that.
>Needs to have more commitment and understanding with retail and food service spaces such as
hours of operation, accessibility.
>Have a clear understanding of what is public vs. private use.
There was no motion, as the environmental review requires the application to return on the Regular
Action Calendar upon completion of the study.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner DeMartini reported that in the last meeting of the General Plan Update Community
Advisory Committee there were discussions of the Bayfront and El Camino Real. The next meeting will
discuss Rollins Road and North El Camino Real.
Suggestion from Commissioner DeMartini to develop an understanding of the criteria for evaluating
Hillside Area Construction Permits. City Attorney Kane suggested that this could be discussed among
the full commission as potential changes to the ordinance for recommendation to the City Council .
Alternatively the commission could issue a resolution that reflects the interpretive guidance of the
commission.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016
February 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Gardiner reported that at the February 16, 2016 City Council meeting the council
approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Bayview Park located on State Lands
property on Airport Boulevard. With the environmental review in place the application can proceed to the
State Lands Commission for consideration. Should the State Lands Commission agree to a lease that is
also agreeable to the City, the park will return as a project to be considered by the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
a.1533 Meadow Lane - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review
project.
The FYI request for 1533 Meadow Lane was pulled for further review, citing concerns that the applicant
had not reviewed the proposed changes with adjacent neighbors as had been required when the project
was approved.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:34 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 February 22, 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 March 3, 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 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016