HomeMy WebLinkAbout1500 Cypress Avenue & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report��
BURLINGAME
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
August 7, 2018
Director's Report
Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
FYI — REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT
AT 1500 CYPRESS AVENUE 8� 101-105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3.
Summary: An application for Design Review and Condominium Permit for construction of a
new three-story, four-unit multi-family residential condominium building at 1500 Cypress Avenue
and 101-105 EI Camino Real, zoned R-3, was approved by the Planning Commission on June
25, 2018 (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes).
At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following
revisions being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item (condition of approval #2):
that the project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the
following items prior to building permit issuance:
a. both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be
revised to add articulation;
b. the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a
landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon);
c. the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material;
d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add
articulation and/or openings;
e. consider reducing the size of the roof decks.
Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project architect, dated August 6, 2018, for a
detailed list of changes made to the project in response to the Commission's direction. Plans
showing the originally approved and proposed site plan, landscape plan, floor plans, and
building elevations, date stamped July 18, 2018, were submitted to show the changes to the
previously approved design review project.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated August 6, 2018
June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped July 18, 2018
Architecture/Planning/Interiors
98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103-1239
Te1:415/863-8881 Fax:415/863-8879 www.garygee.com
August 6, 2018
Mr. Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
Community Development Planning — Planning/City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Planning Commission Minor Revisions
103 El Camino Real
Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Hurin:
. � s:-�
� e ... � }� �4.m,
�j r � mh' � " u�� i�.a
'�,!!G 4� `� 'r'0;�
_ �',' '=�� �3U�t�i�JG�l�rr
_ - . =`.f•:�•;'sl��u DI`�l.
The following minor design revisions were requested at our last Monday, June 28, 2018 Planning
Commission hearing:
1. Cypress Avenue East Parking Wall: "Add penetrations or design features at top of
wall."
A. Three (3) diamond shaped penetrations with painted crossbars were inserted at the top
of the parking wall. These diamond shapes emulate the ceramic tile pattern at the El
Camino Real fa�ade. See Sheets A3.2 and Cypress Avenue Landscape Elevation.
2. Cypress Avenue Elevation: "Central portion of wall needs more definition and
windows at the residential levels."
A. Previously the central portion of the Cypress Avenue elevation was recessed three
inches (3"). This central portion is now six inches (6") deep and now reads as a more
definitive recessed plane on this fa�ade. See Sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.2 and Landscape
Cypress East Elevation.
B. Three (3) windows were added to this Cypress East Elevation fa�ade.
• One (1) window was added at the southeast bedroom at the second floor. See
Sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.2 and Landscape Cypress East Elevation.
• One (l ) window was added at the kitchen on the second floor. The windows
at the central portion of the fa�ade were realigned to create a more balance
layout within this recessed plane. See Sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.2 and Landscape
Cypress East Elevation.
• One (1) window was added to the 1500 Cypress garage level. See Sheet A2.1,
A3.2 and Landscape Cypress East Elevation.
101-105 EI Camino Real/1500 Cypress Avenue, August 6, 2018 Page 2 of 2
3. West Elevation: "Similar East Elevation changes should be included onto the West
Elevation."
A. Previously the central portion of the West Elevation was recessed three inches (3").
This central portion is now six inches (6") deep and now reads as a more definitive
recessed plane on this West Elevation fa�ade. See Sheets A2.2, A2.3 and A3.3
B. Three windows were added to the West Elevation farade.
• One (1) window was added at the southwest bedroom on the second floor.
See Sheets A2.2, A2.3 and A3.3.
• One (1) window was added at the kitchen on the second floor. The windows
at the central portion of the west elevation fa�ade were realigned to create
more balance layout within this recessed plane. See Sheets A2.2, A2.3 and
A3.3
• One (1) window was added to the 105 El Camino Real garage level. See
Sheet A2.1, and A3.2.
4. South Property Line: "Install a six foot (6') high concrete wall along the south
property line."
A. A six foot (6') high concrete wall is now located at the south and partial east property
line. The wall height is measured from the surface of the parking lot. See Sheets
A1.4andA3.3.
5. South Landscaping Plants: "Can the Pittosporum Hedge be 10 or 15 gallon plants
instead of the proposed 5 gallon plants?"
A. The landscape drawings now specifc I S gallon Pittosporum Hedge at the south and
west property line planters. See Sheet Landscape Drawing L1.
6. Roof Decks: "Can the roof decks be modified in size?"
A. We added deck furniture and a table to show the size and available areas of use for
these sun decks. Portable planters are now shown along the perimeter of the sun
decks to add landscaping and scale. See Sheet A2.4.
Very truly yours,
Gary Gee, AIA
cc: Wayne Hu & Derrick Chang
P:\ 15-017\ l 03 EI C am i n oPCM i n orRev i s i on8-6-18
� CITY �
;�s�:�i �
^"'+e1� > �
, � �,_�
�ro�'� 9 � �o°
9vownr
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
f. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 EI Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design
Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot
Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (b). (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary
Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Anachments: 1500 Cvpress Ave & 101-105 EI Camino Real - Staff Report
1500 Cvpress Ave & 101-105 EI Camino Real - Attachments
1500 Cvpress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
105 EI Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation
1500 Cvpress 101-105 EI Camino Real - qlans - 06.25.18
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from fhis item as she lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.�
> The neighbor is asking for an 8-foot fence. Is that in the purview of the commission to allow?
(Gardiner: Would require application for a fence height exception.)(Kane: Would need to meef the findings
required for a fence height exception to be approved.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architecfs, Inc., represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Has the applicant seen the letter submitted from the neighbor? (Gee: Property owner can address.)
> Could the center portion of the side e/evation be bumped ouf fo provide deeper articulation? (Gee:
Yes, or alternative/y could be recessed in 6 inches.)
> South elevation second floor ba/cony rails are shown as cement plaste� on the elevations, but they
look different on the renderings. Would they be painted differently? (Gee: Was one of fhe considerations;
could paint if off-white to set it off a bit, but intention is to have a solid rail for privacy. The balconies are
shallow, not for parties or sitting.)
> Cypress e/evation has a wall along the parking area. Could it be broken up with some openings, or
wroughf iron? (Gee: Could integrate four along the top to create a rhythm, about 8 inches down. Simp/e
detail.)
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 8/8/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2018
> Cou/d the Pittosporum along the side be larger than the 5-gallon plants specified on fhe p/ans? (Gee:
Wou/d need to check with the /andscape architect. 15-gallon could be considered. Piftosporum is a
fast-growing hedge.)
Public Comments:
Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue: Good changes to the projecf. Busy fraffic location, requests a
tra�c study. Side elevation facing Cypress Avenue looks like a great wall that divides neighborhoods, is
very stark. The front of the building /ooks great. Concern roof decks will create noise and privacy issues
for neighbors.
Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Nice changes to the building, but the changes have more windows
and balconies facing, so less privacy than the previous version, and building is closer. Rooftop patios as
well as wel/ as balconies. Sight line is misleading, trees are not all 22-feet tall and garage is only one
story. Privacy is a big concern. Concern with the noise of garage doors, and wants a solid wall to reduce
noise rather then a fence.
Calvin Paes and Stephen Wolf, 107 EI Camino Rea/: Concerns with the distance between the two
buildings and fhe height. Property now is 10 feet from fence, project would be 4 1/2 feet from the fence
and straight up. Concern with appearance of the wall and sunlight. Requests distance of the new building
be the same as existing. Has a patio adjacent. Also lives in a three-story building, would want the same
side setback. 107 E/ Camino Real does not have roof decks.
William Steul: Lives next to 1508 Cypress. Shares concerns with sight lines and noise levels. East side of
building facing Cypress needs more work. Looks very blank, will not show well in the neighborhood.
Krrby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Plans are much nicer than previous version. Does commission have
purview to require maintenance of the cypress tree? Concern with entrance on Cypress, intersection is
dangerous and sight line could be b/ocked by parked cars. Cypress elevafion is too austere, stark .
Should be more consideration for the current neighbors' privacy, responsibility of the applicant rather than
the existing owners. EI Camino addresses should not be eligible for street parking permits, parking should
be provided on site.
Wayne Hu, project applicant: Believes has addressed most of the privacy issues in the neighbor's letter.
Has prepared site line drawings. Rear setback is 20 feet, and neighboring house has a 12-foot driveway
for a total of abouf 32 feef between buildings. Living areas of the adjacent house are on ofher side of the
house. Garage of adjacent house is 15 feet tall. Roof decks are set back so view into adjacent property is
obscured. Agreeable with requesf for garage door openers.
Questions to applicant:
> Does the entrance to the driveway have a door? (Gee: No. It is open so there would not be queueing
up.)
> How are the roof decks expected to be used? (Gee: Used as open space for fhe unit. Could restrict
types of activities if needed. Not large gathering spaces. Have been moved closer to the EI Camino side.)
> (Gee: Interior side setback is 7'-2" on the ground floor, and 9'-2 1/2" on the second and third floors.
Has exceeded the required setbacks.)
> Could the fence along the soufh side be changed from redwood to a solid 6-foot walf? (Gee: Would be
amendab/e to it.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
City of Burlingame paye p Pilnted on 8/8/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2018
> The fenceline along Cypress shou/d be addressed. Right now it's a long, flat wall, could use some
deviations. The wrought iron sounds like a good idea.
> The height of the building is consistent with the pattern along EI Camino Real.
> Privacy issues are noted; the last iteration was better in terms of the neighbor's privacy.
> East wall should jut out more to rncrease the depth.
> Would like some detail on the solid wall on the Cypress side, rather than a solid block wall. At /east
the portion viewable from the street.
> A lot has been done to the rooftop decks to address privacy. Decks and noise cou/d be addressed in
CC&Rs, but they're not large enough for a big party that would create impacts for neighbors.
> Has not maximized the building envelope.
> Approach from E/ Camino heading north is an important viewpoint. On Cypress elevation would like fo
see more articulation or integration of materials to enhance the Spanish Revival sfyle.
> Could add additiona/ fenestration on blank part of wall on east elevation. (Gee: Originally had more
windows on that side, but in the revision a closet was positioned against the wall. Could put a window in
the closet.)
> Painted railings on the juliet balconies look a bit commercial. (Gee: Has designed similar type of
balcony at 824 Linden in Burlingame - can be viewed at 8241inden.com.)
> Revisions to the project are significant and to the better. Four units are replacing two, so while it is an
intensification it is not a huge revision. The height is less than allowed, and it meets the setbacks.
> Landscaping has been broken down so the residences have a presence on street. Nof insular like the
previous version; laudab/e that it addresses E/ Camino in a manner that most projects do not.
> Concern with roof decks, despite ambient noise from E! Camino. Could be reduced in size, current/y
15' x 15'. Not clear what people will do on the roof decks, but does not think noise will be an issues.
> Sight line studies are not particularly helpful, buf does not believe people will be standing on the edge
of decks, particularly the lower-floor decks. However it is important to have more robust pittosporum.
> Does not think there will be noise issue with EI Camino, but could reduce the size. Does not expect
they will be used that much given the attractions of Downtown Burlingame. Appreciates the positioning of
the decks, mitigates the sight lines well.
> Simple straightforward solution with good architecture, not trying to have too many units on the site .
Just needs work on the Cypress side.
> Would want a bit of outdoor amenity for residents, and that is provided by the roof decks. The small
outdoor seating area is useful buf not as significant, and would not necessari/y want more acfivity on the
ground level since it would be adjacent to the fence. The roof decks provide the amenity; maybe they can
be reduced in size but they are nicely placed.
The project shall go before fhe Planning Commission for review of an FY/ for fhe following items prior to
building permit issuance:
a. both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and fhe interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add
articulation;
b. the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect
(current size proposed at 5-gallon);
c. the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material;
d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along fhe parking area shall be revised to add articulation and/or
openings;
e. consider reducing the size of the roof decks.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application with the following condition:
The project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items
prior to building permit issuance:
a. both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to
Cify of 8urlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/8/2018
14
z
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 25, 2018
add articulation;
b. the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape
architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon);
c. the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material;
d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation
andlor openings;
e. consider reducing the size of the roof decks.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Clty of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 8/8/2018