HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.05.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
6:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 23, 2016
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room B (upstairs conference room)
a.Hillside Area Construction Permit (HACP) View Protection Criteria
The Planning Commission convened their Study Session in Conference Room A, in City Hall at 6:00
p.m.
Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner started the discussion and explained the current Hillside Area
Construction Permit (HACP) criteria. He provided the definitions of "distant views", "habitable areas "
and "obstruction". It was noted that trees and canyons are not counted when reviewing HACPs. He
noted that these terms were reviewed by the City Council in 1990 with the interest of amending the
criteria, but after much discussion and community opposition to changing the ordinance the proposed
amendments were dropped. No amendments to the ordinance have been proposed since.
Commission discussion:
>Suggestion to get community input on changes to HACP process;
>Habitable areas should be lounging and gathering spaces, kitchens and master bedrooms but
should exclude circulation space, laundry areas and bathrooms;
>Don't want to expand view protections to decks - should not add to or take away areas to be
covered by the HACP;
>Distant views should be areas outside of the neighborhood such as skylines, bridges, bay, East Bay
hills, airport;
>Don't need to go beyond what the code has now; property owners have rights to develop their
property;
>Distant views do not include trees or canyons;
>Distinction between diminishing vs. obstructing/blocking a view;
>Need to find consistency in the way that we are analyzing HACPs.
In summary, the majority of the Commission was able to find consensus on the approach towards
habitable area (lounging and gathering spaces, kitchens and master bedrooms but should exclude
circulation space, laundry areas and bathrooms ), and on the approach to distant views (areas outside of
the neighborhood such as skylines, bridges, bay, East Bay hills, airport but generally not trees or
canyons). Each project needs to be evaluated on its own merits, but these approaches provide some
direction. There was less consensus on obstruction, in that some commissioners could accept some
obstruction edges of views if the overall view is not substantially diminished, whereas other
commissioners considered any encroachment into a view to be an obstruction and not be acceptable.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.May 9, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the minutes.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Community Development Director Meeker noted that Item 9b (1124 Cambridge Road) is pulled from
agenda at the request of the applicant.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for One Year Extension of a previously
approved application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and
Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new,
two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc,
applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself as his firm is the project
applicant. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would reucuse himself as he resides within
500-feet of the property. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself for
non-statutory reasons.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the Consent Calendar.
Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Bandrapalli4 -
Recused:Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul3 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1722 Gilbreth Road, zoned I -B - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Community Center. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (1)(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Adam Naser and Zaheer Siddiqui, applicants; Zephyr Jones, architect;
Yaseen Foundation, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report and noted a letter
submitted by the applicant.
Questions of staff:
>Asked if the true operating hours begin at 4 a.m.? (Meeker - suggested asking the applicant.)
>Are we really trying to eliminate on -street parking? (Meeker - can't prohibit legal, on -street parking,
but there is a desire to accommodate all needed parking on-site.)
>Are proposing a few uses that will occur outdoor; do these require additional parking? (Meeker -
would assume that these uses have been taken into account as part of the parking management plan -
should ask the applicant.) Would this increase the parking demand? (Meeker - likely not, since the
parking management plan assumes maximum usage of the property.)
>If the permit is granted and problems occur in the future, what is the City's or neighbors' recourse?
(Meeker - if there are valid complaints regarding violations of conditions, the permit may be called up for
review at any time.)
>Are there other uses with parking management plans? (Meeker - there is a former restaurant near
the former Fandoran that has a similar plan. There was also a tech building that has rooftop, valet
parking in the Downtown area that was approved.)
>Assumes that the on-street parking restrictions require approval by other authorities? (Meeker -
correct, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and City Council have authority to make these
changes.) Isn't this key to the discussion of the adequacy of parking? (Meeker/Kane - not the
Commission's jurisdiction. Review the request in light of the conditions before the Commission.)
>Noted another valet parking arrangement behind the Wells-Fargo Bank Downtown.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Adam Naser and Paul Krupka, Krupka Consulting represented the Yaseen Foundation, in particular
regarding parking matters.
Commission questions/comments:
>Requested explanation of where the valets will be stationed for large evening events. (Krupka - two
valet attendants at the entry to the site which would direct the driver to the center of the parking lot
where two valet attendants will be present to park the vehicles in a stacked pattern. Early arrivals could
park themselves, or could be parked by a valet. These types of events don't start at one particular time;
they start over a one to two hour period. Parkers will be provided with a tag for key retrieval; kiosk right
inside the center to accommodate key retrieval.)
>How are vehicles stacked if five or more arrive at one time? (Krupka - the site can accommodate
stacking of vehicles within the site; the inbound drive can accommodate five to six vehicles. Any of the
open space within the lot can be used to stack vehicles.)
>Will there be a portion of the shared driveway that will not be used for stacking? (Krupka - the
applicant will define a "do not block" area that will continue to permit access to the neighbors' parking
spaces accessed from the entry.)
>Will the number of bike racks be increased? (Naser - will provide an increased number of racks
where the current racks are shown.)
>Clarified that "stacked" parking in this case actually means "tandem" parking.
>Clarified that the self parking will be striped as shown on the plan, the valet parking will not be
marked? (Krupka - the valet parking spaces will be marked lightly for guidance.)
>Requested clarification regarding circulation in self parking area if the staff parking is occupied .
(Krupka - would normally attempt to keep the staff parking empty to allow for an exit lane, but could
require a vehicle to turn around to exit in the direction it came from. Doesn't see it as an operational
concern. There will be someone on the site that can help resolve any parking problems.)
>Asked for clarification of how the valet traffic flow will occur, particularly on the north side of the
building. Appears that full-time staff could be needed in the parking lot. (Krupka - can cone off
turnaround spaces. Feels that it can function very effectively. Center staff will notice problems right
away and take corrective action. Staff members are there a lot, there will be someone there that can
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
resolve issues.)
>Will drop-offs occur on Gilbreth; still concerned about traffic flow issues. (Krupka - there will be
people dropped off at the site. Many events will occur at times when Gilbreth Road parking spaces are
not occupied, so there could be an opportunity for a quick drop -off on Gilbreth. Described how drop offs
would occur on the property. Naser - drop offs will be negligible. Drop offs will generally occur when
there is not parking demand.)
>Noted that he understands that the parking spaces along the north side of the building would only be
used at times when the valet parking plan was implemented. (Krupka - generally speaking, the valet
layout with 62 spaces would accommodate demand. When greater demand is anticipated, those spaces
would be used for staff and those working at the event.)
>Requested clarification regarding timeframes for large events; assumes will start with the valet
parking plan in place. (Naser - the Center has a schedule for large events that is known well in advance .
Attendees and members are all apprised well in advance of the parking scheme to be used.)
>Requested clarification regarding peak intensities of use. Are the valets volunteers from the
membership, or are they professional valets? (Naser - members will provide the valet parking service.)
>Is the facility open from 4 a.m.? (Naser - due to the level of scrutiny, wanted to account for the
possibility that early hours could occur.) Concerned about security. (Naser - early meetings of board
members before work and/or janitors cleaning the facility. Rearrangement of furniture to accommodate
the various activities.)
>What plans are in place to ensure that members do not use street parking and /or nearby parking lots
on other properties? (Krupka - the applicant has had conversations with neighboring property owners .
None of the adjacent property owners are interested in a formal parking agreement, but are open to
working with Yaseen foundation to work together to work out parking issues.)
Public comments:
Alex Hadar, Yaseen Foundation Board Member - Have experience with the types of activities proposed
for the past twelve years. Are carrying over a lot of the expertise from the Belmont location to the new
location. Activities occur after sundown, therefore times vary depending upon the season.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Appreciates the efforts taken by the applicant regarding the parking management plan. Is not a
typical commercial operation where people attending have a higher expectation of valet service; visitors
are likely to be more patient as they are regular visitors to the facility.
>In the most intense use, there are a total of only 29 vehicles of the 90+ total that require other
vehicles to be moved to access them.
>Also have the unique situation of shared driveways that cannot be fenced off. The facility and the
neighbors will need to work together to cooperate. The parking management plan provides full parking
on the site for the largest events. The applicant has put forth a plan based upon their anticipated
parking demand which is greater than what the code requires. Is a great use for the area; there is a
symbiotic nature of most of the peak usage occurring at off-peak hours of other uses.
>Supports the conditional use permit. Is okay with the wording to condition six as requested by the
applicant.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve as
amended with condition number six amended to read "all activities shall not reduce the on-site
parking supply required for the respective activities or interfere with traffic circulation".
Discussion of motion:
>Still concerned that the valet parking function will not work as planned.
>There is no set number of attendees, not behind the proposal.
>Doesn't expect a smooth operation from the first night, but the applicant is anticipating that
there may be problems but are going to work on the issues to resolve them. If problems occur,
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
then the item is taken back to the Commission with a proposal for another solution.
>Put the plan in action and see if it works, if not then it gets adjusted. Can support approval,
but can't support the revision of condition number six; not comfortable that the outdoor uses
will not require additional parking. Could come back and add something in the future.
>Shares the concerns regarding the function of the parking management plan. Can support
the permit because will have the opportunity to review in one and five years, or have the ability
to call back at any time. Have done a thorough job of addressing all issues. Can't recall an
instance where an applicant has performed a study demonstrating the need for additional
parking. Appear willing to make this work.
>Impressed by the analysis.
Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 -
Nay:DeMartini, and Gaul2 -
b.2117 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for Floor
Area Ratio and Special Permit for an attached garage and an addition to the main
floor and lower level. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Dale Meyer, applicant and architect; James Berta and Thuy Vinh,
property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair
Loftis noted that he had listened to the recording of the study hearing.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>With respect to the lower landscape wall; previously discussed using stone, but is now proposed to
be stucco, why? (Meyer - noticed that similar walls at most of the other homes in the area disappear
once the landscaping has grown in. Also, because the home is more Contemporary in style, keeping the
wall consistent with the materials used in the home design made sense.)
>Noted that the landscape plan schedule doesn't include the quantities of plant materials to be used;
this needs to be provided. (Meyer - missed this detail when the landscape plan was revised. Quantities
shown are accurate; will complete the table.)
Public comments:
Tom McKay, Vancouver Avenue resident - feels that the architecture of the residence does not fit with
the neighborhood. (Meyer - noted that five letters of support were provided by neighbors to the project.)
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Provide details for the landscape plan.
>Likes the changes that have been made, and the design.
>Impressed with the landscape plan and the number of trees being retained.
>Hillside is a busy street, doesn't feel that the home will stand out. Supports the project.
>Would have preferred that the landscape wall blend in more.
>Feels that clear direction was provided to the Commission by the City Council that this type of
architecture is not appropriate on Hillside. Can't support the project.
>The project is well-designed. Massing is handled well. Feels that the design fits in with immediate
neighborhood around the property. Is approvable.
>There are several houses in the immediate neighborhood that have very similar roofing details and
massing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted that provides details of
the quantities of materials used in the landscape plan.
Discussion of motion:
>Concerned about architectural compatibility, concerned about the retaining wall that has no
texture or color added to it. There is a significant amount of concrete wall being provided. Other
walls in the neighborhood have different finishing materials.
>The apparent massing of the structure from the street is a concern. Not certain that the flat
roof is appropriate. Not in support of the project.
>With respect to neighborhood compatibility, looks at scale, detail, residential appearance;
the applicant has done a good job of addressing the concerns of the Commission. The home
nestles nicely into the site.
>With respect to the retaining wall, compatability would require no landscaping in front of the
lower retaining wall, but the lush landscaping is appreciated.
>Very well articulated. Nice scale, much improved from prior iterataion. Will be a very low
impact on Hillside.
Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul5 -
Nay:DeMartini, and Gum2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1909 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a major renovation and a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling. (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and
designer; Jeremy Gordon and Jean Phatthanaphuti, property owners) (58 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the homeowner while
visiting the property.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Kristin Bergman represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is the front porch roof connected just at two points, or all along the front? (Bergman - not supported
by the roof on either side, attached to the window seat above.)
>Requestedd clarification regarding the roof material.
>Has the applicant thought of a manufacturer for the windows? (Bergman - probably Marvin .)
Reminded the applicant of the requirement for true divided light, or simulated true divided light windows.
>The overhang on the dormer on the garage will make waterproofing challenging; concerned that the
dormer may be lost during the construction process.
>Has the homeowner shared the plans with the neighbors? (Bergman - yes.)
>Suggested being cognizant of traffic congestion due to the school during the construction process.
>How close does the standing seam roof come to the flanking dormer? (Bergman - probably four
inches.)
>Have the plans been shown to the neighbor on the right; there may be a view impact. (Bergman -
they are present.)
Public comments:
Kathleen Olander, 1917 Devereaux Drive - how much further towards the rear yard will the home be
extended? Concerned about privacy impacts. Will there be any construction near the creek; could have
privacy impacts. (Commissioner - are there any potential view impacts?) Looks like the addition is near
the center of the property. Are in a one -story house, will be impacted by reduction of sunlight. (Chair -
encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbor to address her questions.)
Jim Evans, 1917 Devereaux Drive - want to be certain that construction impacts are well coordinated not
only with the school, but with the City's restrictions. Would prefer work to be focused during the
weekdays. (Chair - has the construction project down the street had an impact upon the school?)
Apparently well controlled.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Supportive of project, well designed.
>The porch is smaller than hoped; a larger porch would be better.
>Concerned about home two properties up hill regarding views, but likely doesn't require story poles.
>Is there something that could be done to dress up the area to the right of the entry.
>Feels the windows in the study area above the entry appear a bit too commercial.
>Can't determine where the new fireplace will be vented; needs to be clarified.
>If the window seat were narrowed, could reduce the appearance of the overhang ramming down and
address the proximity issues related to the adjacent roof element.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to bring the item back
on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration.
Discussion of motion:
>The standing seam roof over the entry is awkward. Perhaps something more can be done
with the porch. Maybe the roof and the window seat above can be modified to work better with
the entry.
>Noted the construction hours imposed by the City, but suggested beginning construction
after 8:30 a.m. to avoid traffic congestion issues.
Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016
May 23, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 -
b.1124 Cambridge Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition and new detached garage (J. Deal Associates, applicant and
designer; Jim Hower, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Item pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Chair Loftis noted that he will reach out to the Commissioners regarding subcommittee appointments
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the appeal related to the project at 225 California
Drive has been withdrawn.
a.225 California Drive - FYI to review requested follow -up to a previously approved
Commercial Design Review application
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 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 May 23, 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 June 2, 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 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2016