Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.10.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 11, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff present included Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Note: Commissioner Bandrapalli arrived at the meeting at 8:32 p.m. DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and SargentPresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 12, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the Minutes as submitted. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - b.Draft September 26, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Correction: >Page 7, first bullet, second line should state "relieve", not "relief". Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to the Minutes as amended. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Recused:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Avenue – Public comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for a new five -story, 29-unit residential apartment building. The project includes moving the house at 1128 Douglas Avenue to the site at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and additions to the first and second floors (the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue would be demolished). (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (161 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones was recused, as he is the project architect. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Laurie Header, Panorama Environmental, Inc. (environmental consultant for the EIR ), provided an overview of the environmental review process. Questions of staff or consultant: >How does one determine the threshold of significance? (Header: in the absence of the City -specific thresholds, the thresholds identified in the State's CEQA Guidelines Appendix G were used.) >How were the alternatives formulated; including the no -project alternative? (Header: usually comes out of the impact analysis. They are designed to respond to and mitigate the potential impacts.) >Define "somewhat" historic trees. (Header: they are heritage trees designated by the City, and planted by the Murphy family.) Is the level of "historic" tree above the level of "protected" tree? (Header: no, it is the same) >Is there any alterate to using data from ITE? (Header: ITE is the standard that is used in all traffic analyses because there isn't anything else comparable.) >What constitutes “merits” of the project considering that aesthetics of the projects could also be considered merits of the project? (Header: aesthetics is subjective and could fall into both categories . However individual opinions such as “I like the project” speaks more to the merits than the environmental review, and is not what the purpose of this meeting is about.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Commission questions/comments: John Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue: >Lives at 1133 Douglas across from the project site; has been there for 4 years. >39-year resident, and was a member of the of the Downtown Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. >Project is not in the spirit of the Downtown Specific Plan. >Current buildings include a 3-story condo and 4-story building with the top floor stepped back so it ’s not visible from the street. >Favors Alternative 3. >Project will increase street parking. >Project does not fit in with the charm of the existing residential neighborhood. >Project does not have guest parking, there is not enough guest parking in the area as is, adding 29 units will only increase the problem. >The condo building has a circular driveway that has room for a couple of cars which makes a big difference for accommodating guests. Could the project do something similar? Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >What about a white zone for short-term parking? >Landscaping could soften the driveway. >ITE Standards are outdated >Several people will be ordering on-line resulting in more deliveries Linda Taylor, 1133 Douglas Avenue: >Resident at 1133 Douglas for 10 years. >Family has been in Burlingame for years. >Aesthetics of the building is setting a low bar, the design is ordinary, windows, fa çade and materials are nondescript. >Downtown Specific Plan states that wall and window patterns should be well -proportioned; windows should be generally inset to create shade and shadow. >Project is inconsistent with design guidelines, window pattern not varied, aluminum windows and flush rather than wood and inset. >The building is not richly detailed with quality materials. >Supports Alternative 3. John Taylor, 1133 Douglas Avenue: >Asked clarifying questions re: whether another EIR would be needed if an alternative is selected; and how mitigation measures would be enforced. (Gardiner: the alternatives have been analyzed in the EIR and a new EIR would not be needed unless a totally new alternative with greater impacts is presented; and mitigation measures would be included as Conditions of Approval for the project.) >The EIR was a well-done document, well-written, easy to read and follow, and incredibly thorough EIR discussion on bulk and mass was well done. >Slight preference for Alternative 2. The insets give the opportunity for decks with the stepped back floors; breaks up the flat facade. Danielle Rienks, 1126 Douglas, spoke on this item: >Has lived at 1126 Douglas for 17 years next door to the project site. >The big Redwood tree has shallow roots and will not survive once construction digging starts, maybe the Oak tree trees will help to stabilize the Redwood. >Traffic will increase, 29 units is about 67 people, but she expects there will be more than that since rents are so high. >Everyone drives, maybe 12% will take public transport. >Have a shared driveway that will now have to be shared with 67 people. >Delivery trucks about 10-12 times per week. >Traffic is frustrating for neighborhood >The street is a community, everyone is social >Her house will be a black hole >The shadow study shows that I will have sunlight from 12 to 2 p.m. when she is not at home Larry Stevenson, 1124 Douglas: >A detailed shadow analysis needs to be done. May have missed it in the document. >Parking is a problem - count 2 cars per couple. >Concern with guest parking. >Deliveries are up to 4 deliveries per day. >With 29 units having 1 delivery per day it will be a lot of traffic. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have construction hours changed? (Kane: will start an hour later, and no construction on Sundays and government holidays.) Needs to update the references in the document. >Table 3.1-2 Aesthetics Table Goal D-3 - need background data to confirm consistency with “small-town” scale. Other goals need background data as well. >How is height consistent? >Is parking consistent with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan? >Are the parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan set in stone, can they be looked at in the future? (Gardiner: parking can be revisited with the Zoning Ordinance Update, but the project is subject to current policy.) >Traffic Tables 3.13-1 and 3.13-2 - it would be better to have both tables use the same base for comparison - either in ratios or in trips. >Parking - should include some sort of turnaround in the design to allow for deliveries or guest parking. >Address how the new construction hours will affect construction duration. >Aesthetics indicates the view from Bellevue Avenue will be 30 seconds of driving, what is the average time of visibility if someone were walking or biking? >Aesthetics cumulative impact is less than significant, what are the assumptions? >Tree Study - was it peer reviewed by the City arborist? (Hurin: yes, he peer-reviewed the study.) >Do the plans call for trees in ground vs. planter boxes? Trees in the ground do better. >Old data was used in EIR. >Displacement of residents - Page 3.11-5 refers to 5.1% vacancy rate, there is more recent data . How was the rate established? Is it considering comparable rents? >Table 3.12-1 school enrollment rates and capacities - can't we get more recent data than 2014- 2015? >There is no service ratio goal. Do most cities have that? What is the service ratio for parks? >Cumulative High School Impacts - states that if Burlingame High School cannot accommodate the increase in students the High School District will send students to other high schools. What is the impact on other high schools? What is the impact if these students in Burlingame now have to drive to school instead of being able to walk to school? >Transportation references are old - References 2011 and 2009. >ITE numbers are outdated. >What is the parking rate for highrise buildings (over 5 floors)? >Should have parking surveys in the local county. >Needs guest parking. >Amazon went from a $24 billion business in 2009 to $120 billion. That is a 392% increase - how does that translate to the increase in deliveries locally? Probably not necessarily a direct correlation to the deliveries. >References to City of San Francisco for per capita water use - should use Burlingame data >What is current data on water usage, during drought years, wet years? >Given the allocation of water for all these projects, will the City need to increase its allocation and cause rates to go up? >Jobs data is old, such as the percentage of people working in City. >Page 4-8, discrepancy in number of new residents 41 vs. 42. >Comments on aesthetics will be discussed during design review for the project. >Page 3.13-17 clarify why the number of trips would be less than significant LOS at the intersections. >Traffic on streets - clarify construction vs. operation. Comments may be submitted up to October 20th. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1337 California Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tony Nguyen, applicant, property owner and designer) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis was absent from the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video. 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. Tony Nguyen represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Will the eaves on the right hand side be shorter than they currently are? (Nguyen: does not know . Hurin: noted that the existing eaves would be revised to match the second floor eaves.) Public comments: Erin Donovan, 1339 California Drive: >Concerned with the eaves. >A lot of debris in the backyard. Concern with runoff. >Do the construction hours apply to a contractor doing work on his own house? (Kane: construction hour restrictions apply to any work that requires a permit.) >Had previously expressed concern regarding parking of vehicles in front of the house on the soil; still has a vehicle parked on the property and not on the driveway. (Kane: are not supposed to park vehicles in the front yard.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Do the new construction hour restrictions apply to all projects or when it was approved? (Kane: apply to all projects, and for all work requiring a permit, irrespective of when the permit application was submitted. There are certain exceptions that can be granted; contact staff for more information.) >Same concern as before, with narrow lot. It is so close and two stories, and there will be a shadow cast onto the neighbors. The house may be too large for the space. >Project has benefited from going through the design review process. Has eliminated special permit for declining height on left side. >Provisions for a Special Permit do not rise to the same level as a Variance. However there is no provision for narrower lots for the Declining Height Envelope. This lot is narrower than the typical 50-foot lot that the zoning is written for. Special Permit provisions are written to address situations such as this. >Stepping in on the second floor is a benefit. Taking it in further would be difficult to build a normal house. Not asking for special considerations for floor area or coverage. Can see granting relief from the Declining Height Envelope provision in this instance. >Requested a response to the water runoff issue raised by the neighbor? (Hurin: will be reviewed by Public Works Division as part of building permit. All site drainage must be kept on site.) >Has made some nice changes. Eliminating the request for the second declining height envelope Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes approval was a good move. Has not maxed out the height, and the plate heights are typical. >Likes the house, nicely done. Was mostly concerned with the lower-floor eave. >There was previous discussion that the overhangs would be cut back. (Hurin: can amend condition number 1 to require that the eaves be cut back.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the application with condition one to be amended to require the existing eaves to be cut back. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 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). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (240 Lorton LP, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (41 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Terrones, Loftis, Gum and Sargent met with the applicant. Commissioners Loftis and Sargent missed the Design Review Study meeting but each watched the video. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant, and also attended a demonstration of the mechanical parking system with Commissioner Gum at a property in San Francisco . Commissioner DeMartini noted that he is a member of the board of the Historical Society, but did not participate in the discussions of a mural on the rear of the building. Senior Planner Ruben Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Mentioned not rounding the Parking In -Lieu Fee. Should be consistent with the other projects and not round down. (Hurin: can make the adjustment.) >Is the In-Lieu Fee held in an escrow account separate from other funds for use for a parking garage? (Hurin: yes, this is correct; referred the Commission to a statement in the staff report. The current balance is approximately $300,000. This project would add $1,591,274.64. The City has conducted studies regarding the construction of parking structures Downtown; costs vary depending upon the location and can range from $10-$20 million.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara, Dewey Land Company, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Are there any plans for the office space to become medical office space? (Guibara: no.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Appreciates the work that has been done on the facade. Have brought down the awning to a more Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pedestrian scale. On Lorton Avenue, awnings ranges from 9 feet to 10 feet above the sidewalk. Will help the streetscape. >Color palette as shown looks good. >Puzzle stacker is not very loud; will not be an issue at this location. Comfortable with the model that has been selected. >The puzzle stacker only takes 1 1/2 minutes to bring the car down. There should be no back -up of vehicles waiting to park. (Note: Commissioner Bandrapalli arrived at the meeting at 8:32 p.m.) Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Abstain:Bandrapalli1 - 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. Commissioner DeMartini was recused as he owns stock in the applicant's company. Commissioners Gum, Bandrapalli, Terrones, and Sargent, met with the applicant. Commissioners Sargent and Loftis were not present at the Design Review meeting but watched the video. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Atilio Leveratto, Callison RTKL Architects, and Matthew Green, Apple, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Is the Hillsdale Mall store representative of the new design? (Green: it is the previous prototype, and is slightly narrower and deeper. The new ones are at Corte Madera, Infinite Loop, and Union Square.) >Were the plans shared with neighboring properties and businesses? (Green: no. The property owner from across the street spoke at the meeting last time.) >Appreciates that the height has been dropped, and the canopy works well. >Likes the inside-outside idea, and it is apparent from the front. >Can anything be done to the side and back to extend the inside -outside feel, and articulate "dimensionality"? Coming down the street from the east, people will see the side of the building more than the front. (Green: is pulling the landscape from Burlingame Avenue down the side street for the pedestrian experience, and to screen the building as seen from a vehicle. The window on the side lines up with the "community space" inside.) >Can anything be done to the back side to add interest? (Green: there is parallel parking along the rear, so it would be hard to put an entry on the back. There is a grade change along the side. The back is outside the scope of what had been wanted to take on. The focus has been on the customer experience from the commercial area. The entire building is being reclad to take away some mass, and the height is being lowered - that is the extent of what is being done on the back. A previous version had shown some windows blocked up, but there is no reason to take them away so they are being retained.) Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can there be any graphics or decoration on the back wall? Another logo? (Green: difficult due to the support infrastructure that has to feed the store along the wall. A graphic at pedestrian height would be blocked by cars.) >Is the desire to have a blank wall in the back? (Green: yes, wants to keep it simple. Leveratto: has considered a mural over the windows as an option - would that be better?) >Perhaps there are things that can be done in conjunction with the windows. What is behind the windows? (Leveratto: they're from the old mezzanine, but the mezzanine is being removed. Green: the windows are likely to be frosted over.) >It is a prominent site with high visibility. Perhaps more landscaping? (Green: the parallel parking is in the way, right up against the building, so there is not enough room for landscaping in the back.) >Will the new stone be a rainscreen or grouted? (Green: it will be grouted. Since the new stone is lighter than the existing stone, thought an open joint in the lighter stone would be distracting.) Had hoped it would have been a rainscreen; there are a lot of interesting things that can be done to a rainscreen to mitigate the sheer surface, such as moving the stone surface in and out. >While the City likes having the Apple store Downtown, this building is architecture as product design . Buildings are not products, and have other responsibilities such as civic responsibilities. >The front is fantastic. How far does the stone go in? (Green: all the way into the store.) >How far back is the glass on the side? (Green: 2'-6" back. The wall is 5 feet. Is trying to meet the commission halfway, and respect the desires of the Downtown Specific Plan.) >Is there any patterning on the glass facade so people don't walk into the glass? (Green: there is a series of dots in the interlayer of the glass.) >The back is so pure but the adjacent building is left alone. Is it possible to bring the rest of the building into the composition, create some texture? Given that the windows will probably be frosted, there may be something more interesting to do. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff: >The back side is more important than what is being considered. It can be seen way down the street. >There is no talk of doing anything with Parking Lot J in the near future. The wall will continue to be visible and is huge. >Submitted a historical photo from the 1960s as a suggestion. >The building could be anywhere; does not have a Burlingame sense of place. >The Downtown Specific Plan specifies every visible wall should be designed. Should not get a pass because it is corporate architecture. Eric Muhlebach: >The rear seems to be a concern. However the alleyway is so narrow that cars can be a hazard . Safety implications if too much attention is drawn to the back of the building and people think there is an entrance. >Service alley is hard to keep clean. >It is a far better rear facade than anything else in Burlingame, or in San Francisco, Los Gatos or Berkeley. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The cube at the edge of Park Road is the most visible part, not the back of the neighboring building. >Looking for something that would be an improvement at a distance, to just spruce up the back. Does not need to look like an entrance. >The front looks great. Just spend 1/10th of the energy on the back. Something that will blend in better and attract attention to the back so it is not old 1940s windows with modern Apple next to it. >Appreciates the evolution of the project. The 9'-6" height and glass awning is a big help and works Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with the architecture. >"Building as pavilion" - not a traditional 1930s Burlingame Avenue commercial building. It has a lightness and warmth that speaks of the pedestrian activity. >Rear facade is like an anchor to what is going on with the rest of the building. The stone is quite an improvement from what is typically found in an alley. Could have some interplay and contrast with the adjacent building, which had otherwise been left untouched. Leaving the windows to imply some scale but have them be opaque does not make sense. >Consensus on the front and side, but the rear facade needs more consideration. >The fancy sheer stone on the back sets up the problem since it implies it is another front. Could consider not putting the stone on the rear; buildings will often have stone on the front serving a civic function, and brick on the back where it is utilitarian. >This is not a good piece of urban design, but it is a good product. The fancy stone should not be used on the back of the building unless something is going to be done that makes it more like the front of the building. >The alley is challenging since on one hand it is the back of the building with trash bins, but on the other it is a prominent facade because of its visibility. Instead the back serves as the anchor for the pavilion, serving as a screen for the alley as well as the view from the farmers' market and parking lot. >Burlingame is a small town and this is a prominent location. >While the back may technically be an alley, it is not a back alley in how it interacts on that street with the rest of downtown. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the item with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - d.1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to add sales of alcoholic beverages to an existing commercial recreation facility. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Sky High Sports, applicant; The Roberts Trust, property owner) (21 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: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Kelley Manning represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >How you do track who gets alcohol? (Manning: Point-of-Sale system with wristbands. No sales after 8 p.m. since the after-dark program starts.) >How do you track who consumes the alcohol? (Manning: must be wearing a wristband to buy alcohol. Can't say that someone underage may not drink, though they cannot purchase drinks on their own.) >Does the liability waiver cover alcohol? (Manning: has not checked, but will ensure that they are Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes covered and have alcohol coverage.) >How do you prevent someone who has been drinking from getting on a trampoline? (Manning: would be a loophole.) >How to determine if someone who has had too much is on the trampoline? (Manning: referenced procedures at the Sport House in Redwood City. Will need to use court monitors.) >How did the three-drink limit get chosen? (Manning: patterned on Sky High in Portland. Most people over 21 do not jump. 70-75% of the parents do not jump.) >Concerned with the loopholes; how will they be addressed? >Will the consumption be limited to certain locations? (Manning: yes, only the snack bar area. Not in the party rooms.) >Concern with a parent having alcohol and driving kids home? (Manning: same as going out to dinner and having a glass of wine with dinner.) >Business is kid-related. (Manning: wants to expand from there. Does corporate events. Will not allow anyone on the trampolines after having alcohol.) >It is similar to a pizza parlor where alcohol is consumed. >Is there a mechanism to prevent someone from outside to come in for drinks unrelated to the recreation facility? (Manning: has not considered that.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Initially not sure why alcohol sales is necessary. Does not think the applicant has thought through this completely. It is more like a bar. Can't see how it would not be detrimental to public health. >Need to address the loopholes. >Have an obligation to the community to properly vet the application. Need to clearly address how this proposal will not be a detriment to public health. Still some things that need to be addressed. >Can be supported generally, is patterned on another business. Have controls in place to prevent persons from jumping on the trampolines if they have been drinking. There is a limit to how far can go to limit beers being passed around - would be the same as a restaurant. >On the face, it appears to be a pretty straightforward proposal. There should be some way to ensure that patrons are involved in a corporate event, or are at the property with their children. (Kane: cannot require restrictions based on age or relationship status, other than the prohibition on providing drinks to those under 21 years of age. The facility is not limited to use by children -only; as this is the case, cannot impose prohibitions. The limit on the number of drinks appears to be intended to limit binge-drinking.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the application with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1122 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for height and Special Permits for a basement with a 9' ceiling height, a bathroom and a direct exit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for half bathroom in a new detached garage. (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer; Greg Beall property owner) (61 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion as he resides within 500-feet of the property in question. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Why is the bathroom limited to 25 square feet? (Hurin: desire not to have living space in the basement. Twenty-five square feet is too small to allow a tub and/or shower.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Well-crafted house, but with a lot of special permits, particularly for a new home. There are many things that have typically not been allowed because the design could be achieved without the requests . Why can't the basement powder room be less than or equal to 25 square feet? (Robertson: had to measure to the exterior walls. It would be too small in relation to the scale of the room.) The consequences of allowing the exceptions could lead to the space being used as a party room in the future, with people using the exterior stairs to enter the space - could be disruptive to the neighboring properties. >Seems it would be possible to keep the height within 30 feet, particularly given the plate heights proposed - as a new house could be designed to comply. >Typically don't allow outdoor showers when there is not an associated activity such as a pool. Need to be concerned about the exterior shower being enclosed and the accessory structure being turned into an illegal secondary dwelling unit. >Feels that the design is well massed and nicely articulated. Likes the large porch. >Only question is the back balcony with the shingled bottom does not fit, perhaps look at adding corbels. >Landscape design needs better print quality; the plans are almost impossible to read. >LIkes the design. Front porch will be a great addition. The porch exemption works well in this instance. >Consideration for changing the slope of the porch roof to avoid the window well? (Robertson: likes the window well; feels that it breaks up the front roof plane.) >Agrees that the number of Special Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests is excessive for a new home. >Two sump pumps, is one on the backup generator? (Robertson: yes.) >Issue with the bathroom in the basement. (Robertson: could be less than 25 square feet if measured to interior walls. One wall is eighteen inches thick. Hurin: staff will confirm how the measurement is to be made.) >Have you shared the plans with the neighbors? (Robertson: yes. Right side neighbor was pleased with the design; the left side neighbor was at the meeting, but could not remain; wished him good luck.) >Feels that the cantilever is a bit strange looking, but otherwise the design is nicely done. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Have given a lot of direction. Needs to reduce the number of permit requests. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to bring the Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes item back on the Regular Action Calendar. Discussion of motion: >Suggested that some research be done to determine circumstances under which a Special Permit for height has been granted for a new home; also look at the inter-relationship of the multiple Special Permits to one another. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:DeMartini1 - b.709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage (Ayesha Sikandar, MA Dimensions, designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 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. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Ayesha Sikandar represented the designer, with applicant Luai Kaileh. Commission questions/comments: >On Sheet A-5 looks like the roof goes straight across, but on Sheet A -3.2 it looks like there is a little projecting gable over the front left room. It's difficult to tell from the drawings, they are hard to read. >Two master bedrooms are shown on the plans, one on the first floor and one on the second. Is that intentional? (Kaileh: doesn't have enough parking for a 5-bedroom based on the confines of the existing garage, so is combining the two bedrooms downstairs into a master suite. Sikandar: growing family, wants to have a master suite downstairs for the parents to visit and help out with the kids.) >What type of window is being selected? (Sikandar: Andersen 400.) >Will the windows all be clear glass, with no grids? (Sikandar: correct.) >Why is the second floor plate height 10 feet? (Sikandar: typical of new development. Wants the "wow factor" for the second -story master bedroom, with higher ceilings. The owners prefer higher ceilings.) >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Kaileh: has sent letters to let them be aware of the project. Some neighbors are tenants. Have not received any feedback. Sikandar: has tried to not to have windows facing into neighboring bedrooms, especially on the left side of the house. has used higher windows.) >Is there a reason why all the massing of the second story is shoved to the front of the house? (Sikandar: design decision based on where the stairs would be leading. Wanted to put the stairs at the front of the house so they would not be going into the main family room, which lead to more of the mass being in the front. Tried a couple of options but they created linear, skinny rooms toward the side of the house. Wanted to preserve the courtyard and not cast a lot of shadow on that side.) >The front elevation shows full -height stone coming up to the soffit at the garage, then turns the Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes corner and drops down to a wainscot height. Is that the intention? (Sikandar: yes, can look into it and consider having the stone go all the way up.) The designer submitted a 3-dimensional view for the Commission's consideration. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >The massing is not consistent with the existing architecture or with the neighborhood. Studying the project in three dimensions will be helpful. >Needs to look at the changes in the materials. >Second floor plate height of 10 feet makes the second floor look out of proportion with the first floor. >All the massing shoved to the front is not consistent with the design guidelines. >The proportions and materials need to be looked at. There are some odd resolutions where windows fall, and how the gables are positioned and resolve themselves relative to the massing of the existing house. >The balconies are too large, and particularly the large rear second floor deck needs justification . Staff should advise the applicant on the concerns the commission has had with second floor balconies in the past. >Is difficult to add a second story onto courtyard houses. >Landscaping to the left of the driveway looks like it belongs to the house to the left rather than tying into yard to the right of the driveway. Needs to be tied to the rest of the house. >The garage looks too tall compared to the current house, and becomes too much of a focal point . The current design is typical of the street and neighborhood. >Staff should show the applicant other examples of courtyard houses with second story additions. >Understands wanting to limit windows for privacy, but the sides looks blank. >Windows are not centered under the gables, so they look awkward. >Use of the stone needs to be looked at, particularly at the second story balcony where it comes down to the roof. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Sargent6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted that at the prior meeting the Community Development Director indicated the need for three volunteers to serve on the General Plan Zoning Update Subcommittee . Chair Loftis and Commissioners DeMartini and Terrones will serve on the subcommittee. Planning Manager Gardiner noted that there will likely be five or six meetings. 12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Loftis adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016 October 11, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 11, 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 21, 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 14City of Burlingame Printed on 11/16/2016