Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.07.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 25, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent6 - TerronesAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 11, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Minutes of July 11, 2016. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Absent:Terrones1 - Abstain:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that the agenda description for Item 7b (1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road) incorrectly includes a reference to extension of the Tentative Condominium Map for the project - this reference should be omitted. The discussion in the staff report stating that the map extension is provided for by the terms of the State Subdivision Map Act is accurate. 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 a.1132 Cambridge Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Julie Davenport, property owner) (66 noticed) (Staff Contact: Erika Lewit) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Application for a One-Year Extension of a previously approved Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for multi -family use and building height, Special Permits for vehicular access within the 20-ft. setback adjacent to the south property line & for building height within 100 ft. of the south property line, Demolition Permit Exception, and Fence Height Exception for a new 268-unit residential apartment building and 22-unit residential condominium project (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant and property owner) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar items. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.320 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, and Special Permits for a basement and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Eric and Donna Colson Tr, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair Loftis indicated that he reviewed the video recording of the prior discussion of this item. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding Ralston Creek protection during construction. (Hurin - temporary fencing would be placed on each side of the creek to ensure that debris and workers stay out of the area.) >Asked how many permits have been granted for increased basement ceiling height? (Hurin - almost all requests for approval of a basement include an increase in plate height to create a standard height living space.) >Why is the basement being dug so deep? Any special reports required? (Hurin - will be required to submit a geotechnical report before building permit issuance. Is a standard requirement.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong and Eric Colson represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: There were no questions for the applicant Public comments: There were no public comments. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: There was no Commission discussion. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul Absent: 1 - Terrones Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - b.811 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure with living area, a full bathroom and with glazed openings more than 10 feet above grade. (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Sandra Little, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and Sandra Little represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Will the skylights be glass or acrylic? (Deal - flat plate glass.) >Thanked the applicant for reaching out the neighbors. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is an approvable project; the applicant has demonstrated a need for the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Gaul, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the additional condition that the skylights shall be flat, plate glass. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Terrones1 - c.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-2 and R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Condominium Permit, Fence Exception, Tentative Condominium Map, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination for a new three -story, 11-unit residential condominium with at -grade parking (1509 El Camino LLC, applicant and property owner; Rodrigo Santos, engineer) (199 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding the recommendation to the City Council. (Meeker - responded that since the application includes requests for a General Plan Amendment and a Rezoning, those requests must be considered by the City Council as the City's legislative body. As has historically been the case with similar applications, the entire project will be taken to the City Council for action.) >With respect to the traffic sensitivity study; why was the intersection at El Camino and Trousdale selected? How is this information related to the impacts at the closer intersection at El Camino and Ray? Feels that the further away the intersection that is studied is located, the less relevant it may be to the discussion. (Hurin - this was the intersection where information was available.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Pat Fellowes represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Have the revised plans been shared with the neighbors? (Fellowes - yes.) >What unit has been selected as the below market rate unit - appears to be the smallest unit on the lowest floor? Would the applicant consider using another, larger unit? (Fellowes - hasn't considered using a two-bedroom unit, would prefer retaining the one-bedroom unit as the affordable unit.) >On the rendering, there are two trees shown to the between the two segments of the driveway, but the landscape plan only shows one tree; which is correct? (Fellowes - will use the information in the landscape plan, plus there are some existing trees that will remain in place as well.) >Will the HVAC equipment be visible from the street? (Fellowes - no, the parapet is 42-inches high, the equipment is 36-inches high.) >Appears that there are only ten storage lockers for bicycles; where is the eleventh storage unit located? (Fellowes - it is located within the building. Most people prefer to lock their bicycles in front of their cars in the garage.) >Recalls that a Commissioner had requested some sort of feature above the garage entry; what is planned at that location? (Fellowes - the entry will include a detailed metal gate.) >With respect to the lot combination; does the applicant have copies of the records of property transfer for the parcel? (Fellowes - has seen a deed earlier in the project's history. At some point in the past the property was deeded to the owner of 1509 El Camino Real. Disingenuous that a neighbor is representing that he doesn't have a right to the property. Could find the deed.) >Noted that some units have bathtubs and some only have showers; is this intentional? (Fellowes - will hone in on these details as the plans are developed for construction. Some must only be showers due to ADA requirements.) >Clarified that the developer is responsible for correcting the soil erosion at the creek. (Fellowes - yes.) >With respect to Unit 201 (affordable unit ), would a twenty year term be considered rather than ten years? (Fellowes - no.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: Patricia Gray - Spoke against the demolition of the homes that are on the property currently. People in the existing units will be put out of their existing "affordable" units and will be forced to move out of the City. Will they be able to commute to their jobs? The City is becoming a ghetto for the rich. Concerned that the present problems with parking and traffic will be exacerbated. Fears the larger cars will be parked on nearby streets due to the number of compact parking spaces. There is a problem with overcrowding in the local school that will be increased by approval of this project. Is not the City's responsibility to facilitate the developers profit. Referenced a citizens' petition opposed to the project. Pat Giorni - Referenced research that she performed relative to the deeds for the property; this information was included in correspondence to the Commission. The City must perform due diligence on the title for the property before considering approval of the project. Has been a lot of correspondence in opposition to the project that will assist when the project is challenged in court. The condition of the Bunya Bunya tree has improved in recent years. Mark Haberecht - Though there has been improvement to the project design, it is still too large for the neighborhood. It has insufficient parking and as proposed will have a cumulative effect upon the neighborhood and the environment. The developer must provide evidence of the title to the property to support the lot merger. The lot merger appears to conflict with City restrictions on lot combinations to allow increased development. The El Camino /Trousdale intersection lies in a commercial area. The information in the study uses ITE standards that are not adequate for this case. Feels that the findings of the analysis are ridiculous. The project will attract families. Parking is a big issue in the neighborhood. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report should be required due to the cumulative impacts. The cause of sinkhole needs to be investigated. The Department of Fish and Game has received the project for review and has not yet responded. Ann Wallach - The development would increase the number of plumbing fixtures on the site and could negatively impact the wastewater lines in the area that are inadequate. The environmental analysis incorrectly states that there will be a less than significant impact; the wastewater line is too small to accommodate the additional flow. Sewage could back up into lower -lying properties. Asked that the true load and capacity of the wastewater line be evaluated prior to sending to the City Council. El Camino Real provides no curb -site parking. The parcel to be rezoned only allows additional development intensity on the primary property. Far more vehicles will be present on the property than there are parking spaces; overflow will impact the neighborhood. Nina Weil - Appreciates the changes that have been made to the project. Remains opposed to the project due to its bulk, mass and density. Doesn't conform with the neighborhood character. The rezoning and lot combination should not be granted. Requested that preservation of the Acacia trees in the alley be added to the conditions of approval. Questions for Environmental Consultants - Mark Spencer (W-Trans) and Janna Waligorski (First Carbon Solutions): >Questions regarding trip generation differences between rental units versus condominium units . (Spencer - condominiums generally have a lower trip generation rates due to owner occupancy. There is no assumption built in the analysis regarding whether or not the units may be rented out by the owner of the unit. If the condominium units were all rented and this was known at the outset, then they would have been treated as apartments for analysis purposes. Owner occupied units have more stable occupancy than rentals which have a greater turnover - this leads to more stability in terms of trip generation. Trips don't generally track well to the number of bedrooms - there is no statistical correlation between bedrooms and the number of trips generated; units are a better metric.) >How was the ECR/Trousdale intersection selected for analysis? Is it a mistake to have not gathering data from a closer intersection? (Spencer - for the sensitivity analysis, they look where there is available data and at information at major intersections. Pulled the existing traffic count from the 1600 Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Trousdale environmental analysis. This was the most reliable source of data. Is a busy intersection that is a reliable litmus test for traffic conditions. Looked at what it would take to create a major impact at that intersection, taking into account turning movements. Considered the worst case scenario for the sensitivity analysis. If data had existed for closer intersections, would have looked at that information, but would not likely have changed the outcome.) >Was traffic analysis completed on a school day? (Spencer - yes.) >Is there a stipulation regarding turning movements from the property to ECR? (Spencer - doesn't recall if this is stipulated. If there was a stipulation, would have assumed that in the analysis.) >Did the environmental analysis cover the adequacy of potable water? Staff has verified that there is adequate water supply for all development that is on the books through 2040. (Waligorski - has not seen the most recent water supply report, but the existing water supply management plan did indicated that the supply is adequate.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Feels that the project does comply with General Plan policies. Feels that the findings can be made in support of the project. >Thinks the project is approvable. There are no special requests with the exception of the fence exception. >The information provided by the traffic engineer supports the findings of the analysis. >The lot combination raises a question, but even if it wasn't approved the project would likely be approvable, but would likely be an inferior design. >Thinks that the applicant's reasoning about the lot combination makes sense. Would help to have the documentation in support of the property title transfer. >Thanked the neighbors for all the work that they have done over the years. Also thanked the applicant for all of the concessions he has made. Is a good looking, approvable project. >The City Engineer will look at the adequacy of the infrastructure serving the property. >The lot combination provides a means of softening the design of the building; it helps the project. >Finds it disheartening that the assumption is that the new residents will be bad neighbors; they will actually add to the neighborhood. >The analysis is acceptable at a certain level. >Feels the project fits into the neighborhood sufficiently well. >The creek property will not be developed. Makes sense to allow the lot combination and the density proposed. >Requested that the property owner give the existing tenants priority to purchase the units. >Parking is the biggest problem in the City. May be time to initiate permit -only parking in the neighborhood. >Project complies with every regulation. Seems like a good example of the process working. >The project is in keeping with the type of development located to the south of the project site on El Camino Real. >The title of the property to be rezoned needs to be resolved. >The current design is much better than other designs that have appeared before the Commission previously. >Need to rely upon the traffic expert regarding the analysis that has been completed. Hard to argue greater impacts when comparing the same number of units. >In terms of the water allocation, is speaking to the City's total allocation. Just wants to confirm that the total supply can support the level of development. >Not certain that the residents of the existing units on the property would step up and acquire one of the new units. Is a little concerning that the developer is not willing to provide a larger affordable unit and/or provide a longer term of affordability when most other developers have done so in the past. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to forward a recommendatin for project approval to the City Council. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1540 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, one -story single family dwelling (retain existing attached garage) (Shlomi Caspi, Timeline Design, applicant and designer; Davis Frank and Christina Liu, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum noted that he spoke to the neighbor at 1538 Balboa Way. Commissioner Bandrapalli noted that she met with the property owner while visiting the property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Schlomi Caspi represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >With respect to the landscaping, there are differences between the rendering and the plan. There are some pretty significant tree roots that are disturbing the path. Will the landscape plan work? (Caspi - the rendering is only to be used to see how the project will look dimensionally. Will be able to tell what can be trimmed and what cannot be trimmed, once the roots are exposed.) >Likes the porch on the existing house. Is there any thought how the design could be adjusted to include a more substantial porch and neighborhood friendly entry? (Caspi - were attempting to maximize the floor plan as the lot is not a perfect rectangle. Are also trying to maximize the rear yard . Feels the porch is still nice and light, though not as wide as the original porch. >Thanked the applicant for reaching out the neighbors. If there is anything that can be done to reduce noise impacts on the neighbor it would be appreciated. >Feels that the existing bay window on the existing house is more desirable than the window proposed on the new home - the window could be more substantial. Likes how the brick work has been retained and the scale kept consistent with the neighborhood. >Has the applicant reached out the neighbors in the rear? (Caspi - have not specifically discussed the landscaping changes, though the plans have been left with the neighbor. Want to improve the landscaping at this point.) >With respect to the sun tunnels and skylights - doesn't really like sun tunnels; feels that the sun tunnel over the bath could be a skylight. (Caspi - will review.) Public comments: Pat Giorni - LIquid Amber trees are planted all along the street, but are not longer desired. If the roots are going to be damaged, the tree may be removed. There is not much of a porch on the existing home; is consistent with most of the homes built within the Ray Park development. The proposed home will essentially stay the same as the existing home; is consistent with the neighborhood. Large porches are not predominant. Are leaving a significant portion of the foundation. What are the plans for the future? Mark Haberecht - Feels the project is very reasonable. Hopefully this project will spur investment on Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes other properties. The one -story proposal has a less significant impact than a two -story project on Devereaux. The project is consistent with the neighborhood character while giving the applicant quite a bit of useable space. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Appreciates the proposal for a single-story home. >The design is done well. >The new porch is more friendly to the neighborhood. >Theoretically, the project could be a two -story house; it is refreshing to see a project that is a single-story project in a predominantly single-story neighborhood. >Would be helpful to have the applicant review what the plan for the street tree is in the future; it would be a shame to plan something that accommodates the tree, but the tree is removed in the future. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Consent Calendar Discussion Item. Discussion of motion: >Review the skylights to make the appearance more cohesive. Chair Loftis called for a vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner DeMartini noted the upcoming General Plan CAC meeting on July 27th. Noted that the Zoning Ordinance will be reviewed in the future and may include a discussion of parking matters. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that there are no actions to report from the last City Council meeting as the City Council is on summer break. a.988 Howard Avenue - Review of color scheme and materials for a new 3-story commercial building Accepted. b.770 Walnut Avenue - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. c.11 East Carol Avenue - Review of changes to a previoulsy approved Design Review project. Accepted. d.1240 Capuchino Avenue - Review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2016 July 25, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Pulled for a future public hearing. Concern expressed regarding the number of changes to the approved plan and the reason for the changes. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:58 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 July 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 August 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 8/9/2016