Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.09.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 26, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and GaulPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2016 and August 22, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Abstain:Gaul1 - a.Draft July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.Draft August 22, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1424 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure to be used as accessory living quarters and an office and with a full bathroom. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303 (e). (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, applicant and designer; Weilyn and Arthur Wood, property owners) (68 noticed) 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: >Why is it important that the electrical service is provided through the main residence? (Meeker - likely primarily to reinforce that the structure is to be accessory to the primary structure.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Weilyn and Arthur Wood represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: There were no questions or comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Confirmed that the project meets the findings outlined in the staff report. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Discussion of the motion: >Is it necessary to include a condition that prohibits use of the structure as a secondary dwelling unit? (Meeker - noted that it is not absolutely necessary, but up to the Commission.) >Clarified that the building could be used as an AirBnB rental. (Meeker - yes, this is true.) >The separate meter doesn't necessarily prohibit use as a rental unit. Shall not be used as a secondary dwelling unit. The maker and the second of the motion accepted a modification to the motion to approve that adds a condition that the structure shall not be used as a secondary dwelling unit. The motion (as revised) carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.1909 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for an Amendment to add 57 SF to the Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes front of the second floor for a previously approved application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation and a first and second story addition. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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 the project manager who gave her a tour of the building. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Kristin Bergman represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Can't see any difference in the finishing on the left -hand side of the entry - both walls have moved forward on the second story. (Bergman - did make the changes that were requested.) The window appears to be in the same relationship to the entry in the original drawings. Expected the ridgeline of the garage to appear shorter. >Be certain that the drawings are accurate. >Did the porch extend out ten or twelve inches? (Bergman - yes, it was extended out a few inches.) >Does the awning over the front porch have a gutter? (Bergman - yes.) >Were the revised plans reviewed with the neighbors? (Bergman - yes.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >In favor of project. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.770 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jonathan and Tamara Miller, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Randy Grange and Tamara Miller represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Is there a comparison of what the house looks like today versus what was approved? (Grange - doesn't have this, and doesn't read well without the entire color palette in place.) >Noted that the colored rendering was very important to the initial project discussion; concerned that the changes made to the project are not placed in context with the entire building design for review . (Miller - had the opportunity to review the changes with the affected neighbors at a block party this past weekend. Are supportive.) >Is the stucco on the side wall going to be a light color as shown? (Grange - yes.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >This was one of the homes that received much discussion regarding the color scheme. The roof color was the primary discussion. Not certain he would have approved the project with the changes proposed. >No issues with the roof material. With respect to the corbels, feels they added to the design and most other homes in the neighborhood have this type of detailing. >Is hard to imagine the corbels adding much to the design when viewing the plans that were approved. However, with the light-colored sidewall, they do add some texture to the elevation. Believes that the corbels should remain a part of the design. Even if the spacing is somewhat off, they will still work. >Was one of the initial critics of the design because of its Modern design language. Believes that the corbels add a touch of Traditional design to the home that will allow the home to fit better within the neighborhood. Takes issue with the fact that the change was made without prior Commission approval. >Important to seek pre-approval of significant design changes. >Noted that the corbels can still be installed on the home. The most important message to send is that the changes should come back to the Commission for approval prior to implementation. >When a rendering is requested, the color of the roof does become a factor in the discussion. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the exception that the corbels must be installed per the original approved plan. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - d.1375 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Amendment of an existing Master Sign Program. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, 15311 (a) (Karim A. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Salma, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Loftis, Vice -Chair Gum and Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant at the site. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Requested clarification regarding the square footage of signage on the property currently versus the proposal. (Meeker - the applicant is probably best able to answer this question.) >Is it true that what is being proposed is less than what is allowed under the prior version of the sign program? (Meeker - yes.) >How are changes to the signs handled? (Meeker - the Commission is approving the size and placement of signage, but has no control over the text. Changes to the sign content are handled administratively.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Riyad Salma and Adele Hubscher represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >What is the new square footage of signage versus the proposed square footage? (Salma - calculated 163 square feet of signage is possible; are still well under the maximum allotted under the plan with the new proposal.) >Requested an enumeration of the number of rental spaces within the building and how many signs each tenant may receive. (Salma - the prior program allowed for awning signs that allowed upper floor tenants to have signage on the exterior. With the recent renovation of the building, the awnings were eliminated and the amount of signage for internal tenants was reduced. The revised program is intended to provide better exposure for the internal businesses.) >Noted that it would be a good idea to make some minor repairs to the exterior of the building that are needed as a result of the recent removal of the awnings. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Agrees that the findings supporting amendment of the sign program may be made. Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1512 Alturas Drive - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage(Andrea Costanzo, applicant and designer; Mayas Saadi and Malek Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Faham, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the property owner while visiting the property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the spacing on the new metal pergola permitting it to not count towards floor area? (Keylon - is counted as covered space.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Andrea Costanzo and Mayas Saadi represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Can any thought be given to reducing the height of the roof somewhat? (Costanzo - can change the slope if needed, but the neighbors' properties are much higher than the subject property. Not very concerned about the view from the neighbor across the street.) >Doesn't see homes of this style in the immediate vicinity - is there a reason for embracing this style versus styles present in the neighborhood? (Costanzo - the owner likes the Mediterranean style.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Saadi - hasn't spoken to neighbor on left side, but doesn't believe the neighbor to the right has any concerns.) >On the rear elevation, why are there two different style of doors? (Costanzo - the lower level is only eight-feet tall, there is less room for arched doors; there is more room on the main floor.) >There are four bedrooms against the rear deck; concerned that all bedrooms lose privacy because of the shared deck arrangement. (Costanzo - the deck is more like a walkway; wanted to have a means of walking through that level. Want to provide a means of all bedrooms to access the rear yard.) >Has the applicant spoke to the neighbor at 3101 Cananea? Looks like the revised home design would block airport views. Has the applicant viewed the design from this neighbor's home? (Costanzo - no.) >Noted the blank wall on the right elevation outside of the family room; would like to see some form of relief from this blank wall. (Costanzo - can add another window on that elevation.) Public comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Concerned about the lack of consistency in the window design. >Doesn't see a lot of homes of this style in the neighborhood. >There is a preponderance of board and batten homes in the neighborhood. >Need to have story poles installed to determine view impacts. >Changing the roof slope may help the design. >The home confuses him in terms of style and plate height. Doesn't understand the reason for raising the height on the main floor, but not on the lower floor. Looks unbalanced. The scale is off. The window pattern is of concern. Concerned about two massive decks at the rear. Believes that the home may come back completely different. Could be a candidate for a design review consultant. >Concerned about the lack of light and ventilation to the small bedrooms on the lower floor. Agrees that the project may be a candidate for a design review consultant. >Concerned about the addition on the rear. It is roughly 300 square feet and 20-feet high; already have nonconforming setbacks and exceed the FAR for the property. Feels that the enclosure of part of Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the under deck area exacerbates the mass. Would like to see the project come back without the addition at the rear. >More thought needs to be put into the details and the texture of the house. The large amount of outdoor area could be problematic to the neighbors. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to refer the project to a design review consultant. Story poles should be installed once the design has been revised following consultation with the consultant. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.240 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new, 4-story commercial building (retail and office) (240 Lorton LP, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners DeMartini, Terrones, Loftis, and Gaul met with the applicant. In addition, while Commissioner DeMartini is a Board member of the Burlingame Historical Society he was not involved in any discussions and recused from meetings with the applicant and the Historical Society. Ryan Guibara and Andres Grecchi represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Will the Historical Society be involved with the design of the mural? (Guibara - has had some preliminary discussions regarding potential mural subject matter. Would be appropriate to sit down once the project is approved and have a greater discussion regarding the mural. Envisions it being of a tile material.) >Encouraged involving the Historical Society in the mural design. >What is the maximum size vehicle that can be accommodated by the stackers? (Guibara - SUVs and electric vehicles can be accommodated.) >Requested clarification regarding the use of the existing parking. (Guibara - all exclusive to the building; no public parking.) >How tall are the entry doors on the store fronts? (Grecchi - ten feet.) Would it harm the architecture too much to reduce the height of the entry doors? (Grecchi - no, it is all a matter of proportion .) Encouraged revisting this aspect. >With respect to the parking in -lieu fee, people will still be coming to the building by car. Has thought been given to a traffic study? (Guibara - the fourth floor (Dewey) only has four employees. The other firms that are interested are lightly staffed and do not pack in large number of employees into a small space. Feels that there will be very little parking demand generated by this building.) Concerned about not providing the required number of parking spaces - intensifying traffic in the area. Is looking ahead . (Guibara - the traffic study did anticipate this type of development and the traffic generated.) >Noted that there are a number of long -term parking lots within the area that were underutilized. This project is closer to long-term parking lots that are underutilized. >Is there any concern that the noise from the parking stackers will be an impact upon the restaurants in the area? (Guibara - not a concern; hardly notice the sound. Outside diners would be minimally affected by the operation of the stackers.) >Look at the findings for the conditional use permit and make sure that the responses are providing enough detail. >Noted that colors seven and eight are reversed on the materials board and the colors are somewhat off. Make certain that the colors are accurately represented. (Grecchi - the rendering is more accurate in terms of the color representations. Will review and provide greater clarity.) >How wide from the loggia along the driveway; how much clearance? (Grecchi - between five and Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes eight feet.) >Asked for clarification of the need for the forty -two inch guard rail. (Grecchi - intended to provide pedestrian safety.) >How tall is the existing building? (Grecchi - not certain of the height. Believes it is 35 feet.) >Requested information regarding the cornice detail. (Guibara - originally had a brisollet that protruded three-feet, six-inches from the walls; Fire and Public Works both had issues with this detail . Public Works adopted a policy that prohibits the cornice from protruding from the building. Grecchi - protrudes six-inches and doesn't cross the property line.) >May be concerned about the noise from the puzzle stackers. (Guibara - sound is not an issue . Designed to have frequent use with minimal maintenance and noise. Is at this site every day - is having constant conversations with the neighboring businesses while in the area for the 225 California Drive project. Feedback has been very positive.) >Is there an enclosure around the stacker when in operation? (Guibara - fully enclosed.) Public comments: Riyad Salma - supports the project. Confirmed the outreach performed by the developer. Very fortunate to have a team leading this project and the 225 California Drive project. The project does not maximize the development of the site. The retail element is very appropriate. The setback of the fourth floor is appropriate and attractive. Will benefit other businesses in the area by the increased amount of office space being provided. Encouraged looking at I Prive and Urban Bistro awnings to see appropriate heights for awnings in the area. Feels making the awnings too low would be a mistake. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Readdress why the conditional use permit for additional height is warranted. >Likes the crafting of the design and details. The overall height includes the mechanical penthouse and elevator penthouse. The building presents itself to Lorton as a three -story building. Feels that the project meets the design review criteria. >The building will replace one that has outlived its useful life. Is a good addition to the Downtown area. >Likes the setbacks, the materials and the architectural detailing. Likes that the project takes into account potential improvement of Hatch Lane in the future and it provides an example of the use of puzzle stackers. >Appreciates all of the outreach to the community. >Overall likes the project and its architectural style. Remains concerned regarding the parking, but would like to see some performance numbers for the long-term parking lots. >Does the project come back as regular action or consent? This developer does more outreach than any other in the community. Would like to learn of a location of a stacker in use so he can observe its operation. Would be important to finish Hatch Lane improvements - hopes that those who make the decisions regarding this issue take the opportunity to move forward with the momentum to try to get the improvements completed. >Noted that every in-lieu fee is charged even to a fraction of a space. >Expects that if the in-lieu fee is paid, the question will come up as to how much is in the Parking Fund and how much is needed to build additional parking. >Agrees with the awning comments made by another Commissioner. >Very nice project. Well organized and designed. Responds well to its location. >Thinks that the base is overarticulated by the striped effect. Feels that the cornice is underarticulated. Likes the vision that the project sets forth. Would like to see the Hatch Lane improvements occur. >Asked if the floor-to-floor height is credible? (Commissioner Loftis - yes.) Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2016 September 26, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission discussion: >It is a big downtown project and a big change for the block. >It could be pulled from the Consent Calendar if there are still any concerns, but that could be a big deal for a project of this size. Would not want to be caught by surprise if someone had an issue. >It would be safer to put it on the Regular Action calendar. >A case can be made to keep it on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bandrapalli amended the motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones and carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meet before the holidays. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council adopted the resolutions affirming its approval of the project at 1509 El Camino Real. He also noted that Planning Manager Gardiner has requested up to three representatives to service on a subcommittee to review changes to the zoning ordinance. Commissioners DeMartini and Terrones expressed interest. 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 September 26, 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 October 6, 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 10/12/2016