Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.08.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 8, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and GaulPresent4 - DeMartini, Loftis, and SargentAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.July 25, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Constance Quirk, 605 Lexington Way, spoke on this item: >Lives on a street dominated with single-story homes on very small lots. >Suggests commissioners visit home under construction at 612 Lexington Way. Large home on a small lot negatively impacts the consistency of the neighborhood. >Consider bringing back story poles for second story additions as a courtesy to residents. Hard to envision what is proposed without story poles. They tell the story. >Concern over views and privacy. >Six homes being built within 200 feet. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.807 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Variance for driveway width for a two-story addition at the rear of an existing single family dwelling . This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(1). (Daniel Dunigan, DTA- Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Lily Gray and Josh Weiner, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes This item has been continued to the August 22, 2016 meeting. b.1540 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, one -story single family dwelling (retain existing attached garage). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Shlomi Caspi, Timeline Design, applicant and designer; Davis Frank and Christina Liu, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1240 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Lonestar Holdings LLC, applicant and property owner, Baukunst Architecture, designer) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a brief conversation with the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Bucciarelli, Baukunst Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Important to build what was approved. Changes would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. >Changes have made the project better. However anyone who makes changes needs to review it with the Planning Commission. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >While there was an abundance of changes, and the Planning Commission needs to scrutinize, most are minor changes from construction issues or upgrades. >The stone base looks good. >Only minor detraction was elimination of the trim on the head over the porch, but visiting the site it looks natural. >The changes are either upgrades or do not detract. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - b.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum (Steve Atkinson/Arent Fox, applicant ; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner This item has been continued to the August 22, 2016 meeting. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1704 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Barbara Maley, property owner) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1700 and 1708 Davis Drive. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Have accessory structures with toilets been approved in this neighborhood in the past? (Keylon: Probably a half dozen accessory structures with bathrooms have been approved over the past year, though not necessarily in this neighborhood.) Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: >Is there any logic to having a door from the breezeway into the powder room on the lower floor? Could have a better connection to the outside. (Wehmeyer: The bathroom was already in place. The courtyard will be the outside entertaining area, and the bathroom will be accessible from the courtyard .) Could consider a more direct connection. >Have the plans been presented to the neighbors? (Wehmeyer: Sent emails to neighbors. One neighbor has requested to meet and be walked through the plans.) >Why are shutters only on the front window? (Wehmeyer: The kitchen window can't be too big, so the shutters and window box are intended to provide better proportions and fill out the space more. The second story is set far back and would not see shutters if further back - thought it was more important to have larger windows on the second floor to get the light in.) >The back bedroom on the right side currently has no facing windows, while the new design would have five small windows. Has there been thought to the privacy of the neighbors? (Wehmeyer: They are high-height clerestory -type windows, with the bed below. The bottom of the windows would be about 4'- 6" above the floor. The intent is to have privacy for both neighbors. The grade goes down on that side of the house as well.) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public comments: Franco, 1700 Davis Drive, spoke on this item: >Concern with the windows - they would look into Great Room at 1700 Davis Drive. >Looked at the plans briefly last night. Would like to have the windows relocated to the back of the house. There are no windows currently. >Upper windows would be looking into skylights. Would like to consider relocating windows or having obscured glass. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Would be helpful to know the elevation difference between the two finished floors. Perhaps a section of the two lots including the header height of the windows. Can just be a line drawing. >The upper floor bedroom has an abundance of windows. Encourage applicant to visit with neighbors to talk about position of upper floor windows. Perhaps make some of the windows higher so they are not looking directly down into the neighbor's house. >Privacy is not protected but cooperation and coordination is encouraged. >Courtyardd houses are tough to add onto. Difficult to integrate because of the length of the house. >Well-crafted and well-designed. Massing is handled nicely. >Applicant should look at other shingle -sided houses in the neighborhood. There are some painted shingle houses in the area, and they fit into the neighborhood nicely. >For the record, concern that currently there is a two -car garage which could accommodate two small cars, but the width does not meet the code so is only counted as a one -car garage. Part of the garage will be changed so a second car cannot be accommodated. However bedrooms have been increased but parking has been reduced. >Application should return on the Action Calendar to get an understanding if there has been coordination with the neighbors, and for other commissioners to participate. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - b.509 Burlingame Avenue, 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; Brian Ament and Sara Ponzio, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Brian Ament. Commission comments/questions: >Is the board and batten siding on the front porch going to go away? (Deal: Yes.) >Will the existing skylight over the front porch also be removed? (Deal: Yes.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Deal: Yes.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There will need to be a handrail on rear deck. (Deal: Yes, it will be on the wall.) >The massing is handled well. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Handsome project, well-crafted. Massing is handled nicely, and plate heights are not out of the ordinary. Is consistent with the design guidelines. >Appreciates that the floor area has not been maximized. >Can be on the Consent Calendar. >Concern that other commissioners are not in attendance. (Kane: If it on the Consent Calendar a commissioner may pull the item if they want further discussion.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - c.1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for facade changes (Apple Inc., applicant; Callison RTKL Inc ., architect; Avtar Johal, property owner) (37 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Atilio Leveratto, CallisonRTKL Inc. represented the applicant with property owner Avtar Johal. Commission comments/questions: >Will the remaining portion of the Gymboree storefront be large enough for a retail tenant? Concern it will not be leasable and will be left vacant. (Johal: The landlord already has a tenant lined up.) >Does the metal panel appear anywhere other than the side window on Park Road? (Leveratto: Soffit on the front elevation as well.) >Any response to the letter from Jennifer Pfaff? (Johal: The letter references the building prior.) >Concern with the scale of the entry, with doors 10-12 feet tall. It is lacking human scale, similar to the Pottery Barn and Banana Republic stores. Was there consideration of an awning or something along the front facade to provide scale? (Johal: A canopy or awning is not part of an Apple standard. The plane of the glass is recessed 2 feet into the space, so it creates a little canopy. There is also a 4-inch metal frame around the door to give some scale.) >While Apple has its concept, Burlingame Avenue has its design guidelines. In order to be approvable it needs to considerer compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and materials. There is nothing human in the scale of the facade. >The side elevation on Park Road will look stark, especially with the white stone. The new bump -outs in the streetscape emphasize the corner. Needs something to get people to come around the corner, like the Peet's Coffee across the street does. Design turns its back on the side, only focuses on the front. >The rear is also important. Also sees the alley from the back. By taking away the windows from the structure next door it is even more blank. In many respects the stores have two fronts, and there has Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes been discussion of making the alleys and parking lots vibrant places. Something needs to be done to the side and back to invite people down Park Road. >Can a 3-D model be provided to give a better understanding? (Johal: Yes. It can show it with people too to give a sense of scale. The glass in proportion to the stone looks deceivingly tall. Matches datum of jewelry store down the street.) >Does not see how a line at 8 feet will disrupt the cleanliness of the facade and entry. (Johal: Could also project the door frame further out.) The door is 10 feet tall, which is not human scale. 7 or 8 feet is human scale. >Not sure how this fits in compatibly with any other building in downtown. All other buildings have some sort of architectural relief - corbel, projecting roofline, windows are examples of architectural elements that add to an otherwise blank facade. >The scale of the door is massive. A 10-foot door with all glass and stone is alienating. >Blank facade is highly visible as one comes down the street. Maybe more glass and glazing on, would further the concept of "bringing the outside in." (Johal: Had considered another door but would have to re-do the sidewalk." Public comments: Nick Delis spoke on this item: >Owns the Gap building across the street. >Lots of work went into streetscape project. Kept the old world charm with lighting, flowers, etc. >Apple store is an asset to downtown and deserves to be unique, but needs to be compatible. >Safeway store as an example of working hard to find a way to fit into the community, and it has turned out well. >Can keep basic design but needs human element of balance. Each building in town has that character already. >Apple wants to be unique, but does not deserve to receive overly special treatment when property owners have spent special tax assessments on the streetscape to maintain the beauty. Apple building is too stark. Vice Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Overriding concern is scale and compatibility with the neighborhood. >Needs to make considerations for a unique tenant, but can be achieved and still have good pedestrian scale and street frontage. >There are a number of storefronts along Burlingame Avenue that were designed and built before design review so are not necessarily examples to reference. There are many that have gone through design review that are handsome, neighborly and have good pedestrian frontages. >Could do more with the "bring the outside in" concept, for example with the rear facade. >Hard to convey to the community that the intent is to bring the outside in with the glass on just one side and the rest is all blank stone. >Great-looking stone but there is so much of it. It will look too stark. The existing gray stone works better. >Park Road is the heart of Downtown. There is going to be development on the post office site down Park Road that will be a big part of town. Great opportunity to do something spectacular, move people down Park Road. >The white stone is remnant of a mausoleum look. Concerned the building could end up taking on that moniker. The community will critique the building as it did before, and that was before there was design review. >Glad to have Apple in downtown but it needs to step up and do more to be neighborly with the architecture. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul4 - Absent:DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent3 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1016 Carolan Avenue - Update to a Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit Application Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15 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 August 8, 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 18, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016