HomeMy WebLinkAbout998 Howard Avenue - Staff Reportl
,
�
SURLiNGAM6
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
June 14, 2017
Planning Commission
Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner
Director's Report
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
SUBJECT: FYI TO REVIEW CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT AT
988 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED MMU.
Summary: An application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story
commercial building at 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU (Myrtle Mixed Use), was approved by
the Planning Commission on March 14, 2016 (see attached March 14, 2016 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). The applicant has submitted an application for a building permit,
which is currently under review.
The application was approved with the following condition of approval:
Condition of Approval No. 5: that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape
materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or
amendment to be determined by Planning staffl;
During the building permit process staff noted some exterior change to the plans from the
design that was approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting approval for
the following changes:
The plate heights have been decreased slightly on all floors however the overall
building height remaining the same. As the architect refined the drawings for the
building permit submittal they found that the height of the parapet wall did not meet
the required guardrail height, so the plate heights were lowered to provide more
vertical space for the parapet height. The overall building height remains unchanged
with the plate heights adjusted slightly on each level to accommodate the parapet
height. As a result of this change the floor plates were adjusted which altered the
window heights and openings slightly. Revised renderings have been provided to
help see this slight change which is not as evident on the line drawing elevations
(which have also been revised).
• The East Lane fa�ade (west elevation-where the garage door is located) has a
projecting portion of the building on the far left side that was approved to be finished
with cement panel siding. This finish is being revised slightly with the panel sizes
adjusted to be slightly smaller than originally shown on the approved plans in order
to meet the panel manufacturer specifications.
Community Development Department Memorandum
988 Howard Avenue — FYI
June 26, 2017
Page 2
During the plan check process Public Works requested that 3 of the parking spaces
be changed to compact spaces to allow more efficient maneuverability. C.S.
25.70.044 allows up to 20% of the spaces to be compact, where only 4.4% of the
spaces will be compact.
These changes were originally scheduled for review by the Planning Commission at the May 8,
2017 meeting. However there was a concern from a neighbor regarding the proposed changes
so the applicant requested to remove the FYI off of the May 8, 2017 calendar to allow him time
to meet with the neighbor to discuss the concerns. The plans provided for this meeting have
been revised to reflect changes discussed following the applicant's meeting with the neighbor.
The FYI was then rescheduled for the June 12, 2017 meeting. The FYI that was considered at
the June 12 meeting included proposed changed to the size of the roof deck that was originally
approved at 3,500 SF. The applicant was requesting approval to have the flexibility to reduce
the size of the deck to between 720 SF and 3,500 SF based upon the future tenants' needs.
The FYI was considered and was called up for review by the Planning Commission to discuss
the changes proposed to the deck size. The applicant has since decided to remove the deck
from the FYI request and to retain the roof deck as originally approved; the plans for
consideration have been amended to remove the roof deck changes.
Please refer to the letter from the applicant that provides a more detailed explanation of the
requested changes, along with the revised plans, date stamped June 5, 2017.
Catherine Keylon
Senior Planner
Attachments:
March 14, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's letter of explanation, dated May 22, 2017
Applicant's letter of proposed changes requested, dated June 15, 2017
Architect's response to the plan check comments
Neighbor letter of concern to Planning Commissioners, dated May 7, 2017
Project Plans, with approved and revised elevations, date stamped June 5, 2017
CITY �
����:'��'����
�
ti� � �
�9wow�TrD �
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, March 14, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers
g. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned
Commercial Design Review,
Setback Variance for a nev
Robert Lugliani, property ov�
Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
MMU - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Rear
3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant;
ier; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (129 noticed)
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, Gum, Terrones, DeMartini, and
Sargent met with the applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.•
> Were parts of the application approved previously? (Gardiner.� The votes taken previously were to
provide guidance on what aspects of fhe applicafion were supported, given a/ack of consensus on the
overall application. Those items that were supported previously have not changed substantially in this
application.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Dimifrios Sogas represenfed the applicant, with archifect Toby Levy.
Commission quesfions/comments:
> Plans show cement panel siding, not composite wood. (Levy: Package was submitted hvo weeks
ago, and materials have been revised since from further outreach. Needs to be corrected on the plans.)
> Changing the type of tree was good.
> Has there been consideration of what kind of signage for the retail space on the corne� (Lery:
Assumed individually lettered signs.) Would encourage signage that is inviting and neighborly such as a
blade sign or letters standing on the awning, so it is clear it is not just refail space for the o�ce building.
> How does fhe parapet sfep down on the Myrtle side? (Levy: Moved the roof deck back - previously it
was at fhe edge. With it moved back 12 feet and the eave dropped, it brings the eye down.)
> Encourages a local rafher than chain store for the retail space.
Public comments:
Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue, spoke on this item:
> Difference between a citizen who has a sincere desire to listen to the commission and make
changes, compared to others who tell the commission what they want to do and not listen to
recommendations.
> This applicanf has taken to heart what was said, and presented thoughfful changes.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
C!ty of BuAingame Page 1 Printed on 5/4/2017
0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2016
> Impressed wifh reducing the apparent heighf,� the step-back on Myrtle helps to provide a sense of a
smaller building.
> Wood texture helps blend with neighborhood.
> Bigger trees have been included as requested.
> Done a good job making a good-looking building. Appreciates sfepping down to appear /ess
massive.
> Likes revisions - it is a substanfial design, and handsome. It is not a huge building but it is important,
and it was worth going through the effort.
> Applicant has done everything that was asked, and it is a better project because of it.
> Color is critical to the project, and changed the project dramatically.
> Variance supportable by the exceptional site bounded on fhree sides by street frontage, with the
desired frontage serving as the front.
> Appreciates that the parking variance request was eliminated.
> Conditional Use Permit supportable in that it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is
located in a way that is consistent with the Genera/ Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded
by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
application with the following condition:
> Changes in materials shown in the public hearing presentation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Ciry of BuAingame Page 2 Printed on S/4/2017
�.:
� �� �
Opus One Howard
i290 Howard Ave, #323
Burlingame CA 94oioo
Burlingame City Planning Commission
501 Primrose
Burlingame, CA 94oio
5/22/2oi�
Honorable Commissioners,
As the developer of the building at 988 Howard I submitted an FYI to be reviewed at the May 8� planning
commission meeting, for several minor items including constructability adjustments made as part of construction
development. Late on May 5th I was notified that the community development director had received a letter of
concern regarding these changes. Because of the short notice, I requested that the FYI be pulled from the agenda
in order to better understand the neighbors' concerns. I did meet with the concerned neighbor on May i8th and
had a lengthy discussion about the concerns. As was pointed out in the neighbor's comments, a lot of time was
spent working with the commission and the neighbors to arrive at a design that was pleasing to all and approvable
by the commissioners, frequenfly referred to as a very "handsome" project, and we appreciate the effort that
everyone made to get to here.
As in the normal process of design development from the planning approved schematic drawings to the final
construction drawings, minor adjustments are made to accommodate structural designs, mechanical systems,
material details and the realities of construction; perhaps in a process that is not well understood by the general
population for large commercial projects. Those minor changes are reflected in the FYI we have submitted. As
the commissioners are aware, construction drawings are rarely if ever seen by the public and all the detailed
markings of these CDs make reviewing the drawings difficult and may add to the perception that things have
changed . Also it should be noted that there was dialogue in the planning meeting where the project was approved
(March i4, 2oi6), between commissioners and the lead architect about finish details that should be integrated
into the final design but were not shown in the drawings that were approved at the meeting.
Dimitrios Sogas
In a detailed side-by-side comparison of the drawings and renderings, the changes are almost imperceptible yet if
they are pointed out, they can be seen. So to make it clearer we had both the original and adjusted design
rendered in 3-d to show that the product is still the same. While the changes that had to be made are very minor
and typical of constructability adjustments, we understand that Burlingame has very high standards and we strive
to maintain those standards. We truly believe the adjustments to the details make the project equally handsome
and approvable.
Regards,
Dimitrios Sogas
Opus One Howard
2•
Opus One Howard
i290 Howard Ave, #323
Burlingame CA 94oioo
Burlingame City Planning Commission
5oi Primrose
Burlingame, CA 94oio
6/i5/2oi�
Honorable Commissioners,
As the developer of the building at 988 Howard we are requesting an FYI modification. We are requesting minor
adjustments in 3 areas. First, as the architect completed a more refined set of plans it became apparent that the
parapet wall defined during the planning stage was not tall enough to meet the guardrail height. In order to
achieve that without making the building taller, the floor plates were adjusted in height, and commensurate with
that were changes in the window heights and opening heights to the private decks. Finish detailing was added to
maintain the appearance of the larger opening. Secondly, we had to adjust the panel sizes on the East Ln fa�ade to
meet the panel manufactures specifications. The original window shade pattern is maintained but we had to
adjust the alignment to match the new window sizes. Lastly, as a result of the last drawing review for permit, the
public ��orks department added a requirement to redefine 3 parking spaces to improve circulation. Even though
we change these spaces to "compact", are still well within the maximum allowable compact space ratio (4.4% vs
20%). We attached the architects detailed response letter for more information. Therefore we respectfully
request approval of these minor changes.
Regards,
Dimitrios Sogas
Opus One Howard
go South Park
', San francisco CA 9taio7
12 April 2017
Catherine Keylon
Senior Planner
City of Burlingame, Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
(650) 558-7250
415 777 o56i tel
4i5 777 5�i7 f�x
Project: 988 Howard Avenue:
Project Permit #: 616-0276
Subject: Planning Division; Plan Review Comments
Dear Catherine:
"c.
LEVY DE�I�N P�RTI�i�I�S
: i. �
���
�
The following are the responses to the Plan Review Comments #3:
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS & RESPONSES
BUILDING PERMIT
2 This project was approved with the following condition of approval:
Condition of Approval No. 5:
2.1 Significant decrease in size of roof deck- 3,500 SF approved, and
a roximatel 720SF ro osed.
Response - _ ��v:a� � : _ - - _
Changes in window heights- It appears that the panel openings (to the deck
2.2 areas) have become smaller in height, approved at approx. 9' where the
buildin set of lans shows them at a rox. 8'
Res onse _ � . ._
P �-,l � � ...
uiil:ii � ;;ci Gf �,?��i,3. II-� �.,�.. _ a.. _ ;. G � ��. , . ., ..i!��._. ...c... _.1c
es:�blished parapet heigr�t in the �!annir�y set did not allow for a guard� a.
height. VVe had to siightly lower the roof level elevation by 1.17' to make _:.
par�pet our guardrail for the required fa!I protect:en height. in doina t�,i� .,
eiin-.inated a required guardrail on top of ti-�� para;�et. This cl�ange di� «... _
i:-� �' �e lowering of the openings at the 2 decks w��ere ti�zy had punci :_,
o��enirgs at the top floor. This was lowered ap�roximately 18" to acc: �� I�
li':; �Of Sf�lllll'lg. �n �_ �i , cc `� l_'''�� , =� -���. -��^r.:= 'ra �i3�JC ��Cic� _ _�.._
�'�i�1=. - =,-iE� [� ' �. � _ � � � � ..__. .,i
Changes to sunscreens and window panels — vertical panels have changed
2.3 in sizes and shifted slightly, appears as more prominent architectural
features on the a roved lans.
Response _, �. �e' ��_ _. _ , ,�
� � s r �, : J ��n.� ,. _ _
� _ �-�t+ern b��. cr_:� I����i s���.
90 South Park, San Francisco, CA 94107 phone.415.777.0561 fax.415.777.5117
Page 2
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 8� RESPONSES
Additionai Change(s)
#1 �r � �,.:sic��� .. ,�: _ �., � , _ . .., � . � , . ;i� _ � u:��i:; 'vvcr:.s t ,
_^-,ge (3) parking spaces to compact parking spac�s, giving these parki�-:a
space more maneuverability in and cut of the parkirg space. We are
�Ilowed per Planning Code Section 2570.044 to have 20% compact. Witi,
i:il� (@�'ijiCll',N2 IIOVd �l"f2f1`�\j �"13`;� �� n%�' CO?7,'�l?Ct pa!kli�:� Sj'2��S OVZI"�,ii
.. c'�� _ .. ..
Sincerely,
FCQI7COZQCQ90ZQ LEEDAP, CGBP
LEVYDES/GNPARTNE/IS, /NC
90 South Park San Francisco CA 94107
41 5-777-0561 tel 41 5-777-51 1 7 fax
Cranco ir I�v� desian r�rtner:.com
90 South Park, San Francisco, CA 94107 phone.415.777.0561 fax.415.777.5117
05.08.17 PC Meeting
FYI
988 Howard Avenue
Page 1 of 1
From: Jennifer Pfaff [mailto:jjpfCa�pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 3:19 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners
Cc: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker
Subject: 998 Howard Avenue on FYI agenda
Honorable Chair Gum and fellow Planning Commissioners:
R�CE10/ED
MAY 08 2017
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
I was very sorry to see the request for an FYI for what appears to me to be substantial
design changes regarding the above office property, not yet underway.
Those of you involved in the long process towards design approval of this signature
office structure at the main entrance to Lyon & Hoag, will remember the time and
effort spent through several design iterations to get the plan "just right". The resulting
design was a perfectly proportioned, exciting project plan. Varied siding widths and
well-proportioned window dimensions (and voids) were woven through each side,
helping the initially clunky and `busy' elements evolve into a refined piece of
architecture that would, and should have set the bar high for this prominent location.
If I understand correctly, most of the changes reflected in the revised plans resulted
primarily from engineering constraints that will reduce the height of the entire
structure by 1 ft. Comparing the "approved" plans to the revisions, these
�hanges appear to involve very important design elements such as
the varied siding widths and significantly reconfigured/ resized
windows all around.
I'm wondering if it is plausible that 1 ft. on a 45 ft. tall building (2%) would have
thrown a wrench into all the previously perfectly refined proportions of glass, siding,
and various window dimensions? If that truly is the case, then perhaps the developer
should apply for a height variance for you to entertain, rather than settling on Wilat
appears to me to be an inferior design that cannot hold a candle
to the original.
C"�::t1:iIZ-.�-IC.4TIOIV RF_C'EIi'ED
�FTER PREPARATIOn'
OF STAFF REPnRT
Sincerely yours,
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame