HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.05.29City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 1
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 PM Council Chambers
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner,
Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Present 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
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
A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the Consent Calendar. The motion passed by the following vote:
Aye: 7 -
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
a. 25 Arundel Road, zoned R -1 - Application for a One -Year Permit Extension for a
previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to
an existing split -level house. This project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert
Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Channing and Carrie Chen,
property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Attachments:
25 Arundel Rd - Staff Report
25 Arundel Rd - Attachments
25 Arundel Rd - Notice and Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
b. 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Neubert, applicant and architect; Michael Stein, property
owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Attachments:
Staff Report
1125 Jackling Rd - Attachments
1125 Jackling Rd - Plans - 05.29.18
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a. 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. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Jesse Guerse, designer; Luai Kaileh,
applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) ( 135 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
Attachments:
Staff Report
709 Plymouth Way -Attachments
709 Plymouth Way - Plans - 05.29.18
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Appreciates the revisions.
> Has tweaked the size of the decks. Is more comfortable with the revisions.
> Appreciates having the sizes of the second floor balconies reduced.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
b. 21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and
Tentative Condominium Map for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building .
The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Levy Design Partners,
applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) ( 167 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments:
21 Park Rd - Staff Report
21 Park Rd - Attachments
21 Park Rd - Plans - 05.29.18
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto reported ex parte communication
with the applicant.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Brian Yang, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Will the trees be planted on neighbors' property and they would be responsible for upkeep of hedges?
(Yang: The neighbors will be responsible for the upkeep. The project is responsible for the installation.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Project has been reviewed several times, in several iterations.
> Project has been massaged with additional details that are satisfactory, and addresses the points in
the design guidelines.
> The detailed revisions are an improvement.
> The fencing adds a bit of greenery.
> Wood on balconies give more articulation, softens the facade.
> Condominium permit is in compliance with the General Plan, is compatible with the neighborhood with
six additional units (seven total) in a neighborhood comprised of multiunit housing.
> Did a nice job working with neighbors on the evergreens.
> Has come a long way since it was first submitted several years ago.
> Not trying to force too many units onto a site that is not capable of handling it. It's a good addition to
the neighborhood and fits in well.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
c. 556 El Camino Real, zoned R -3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium
Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new
five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (VMK Design
Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) ( 950 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin
Gardiner
Attachments:
556 El Camino Real - Staff Report
556 El Camino Real - Attachments
556 El Camino Real - Plans - 05.29.18
556 El Camino Real - 2nd Revised Initial Study May 2018
556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix D Geotechnical
Investigation
556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix E Traffic Queuing
Analyses
556 El Camino Real - Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis
556 El Camino Real - Appendix B Construction Health Risk
Assessment
556 El Camino Real - Appendix C Tree Survey
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 traffic study provides analysis of potential operational impacts. Would potential impacts on traffic
from construction also be evaluated? (Gardiner: The traffic analysis that has been prepared focuses on
the potential queueing that would be associated with the parking mechanism. Otherwise the relatively
small size of the project would only warrant a simple trip generation estimate, rather than a full traffic
impact analysis. Construction traffic is not typically studied given it is a temporary situation and the project
is relatively small.)
> Have the vehicle charging stations provided any credits against other project requirements? (Gardiner:
No.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jane Knop, Roman Knop, designer Vadim Melik -Karamov, and Mike Brinck of Citylift represented the
applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Is there a contractor on board? (Jane Knop: We are general contractors. Have worked on projects in
Belmont and San Carlos with significant excavation within the last 1 1/2 years.)
> Are the trucks 18 cubic yards or 10 cubic yards? (Roman Knop: 18 cubic yards.)
> How long will the excavation take? Caltrans does not allow lane closures before 9 am or after 3 pm.
(Roman Knop: Estimates 15 working days, 6 hours per day.)
> Where are the three queuing spaces for the garage located? (Jane Knop: There is space for three
cars on the ramp.)
> What does the 90-second duration for parking refer to? (Mike Brinck, Citylift: One car pulls into the
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 5
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
loading bay and three cars can queue behind it. The loading bay is similar to a residential garage, 24-feet
wide by 20-feet deep. The user parks their vehicle, they leave their vehicle and the loading bay, the garage
door closes, and the lift takes the car and parks it on one of the three levels. The 90 seconds is an
average; there are 11 cars on the first level, which will have faster retrieval times. Assumes time for people
to get out of their cars and unload their cars.)
> Where could a guest stop to pick someone up? (Jane Knop: There are two spaces next to the
driveway designated for short-term parking.)
> Is one of those two spaces for charging an electric car? (Jane Knop: The system allows for electrical
charging throughout the system. There does not need to be a separate space in front for charging.)
> Concern with how people will use the circular drive and possibly block traffic on El Camino Real. ( Jane
Knop: There are already 14 units on site, and the incremental increase in trips is only 3 trips in the peak
hour. The existing building has a similar circular driveway with one lane in and one lane out, and there have
not been problems.)
> The Hexagon peer review suggested switching the direction of the driveway to provide more room for
queuing. Has that been considered? (Melik-Karamov: Had this design in the past, only concern from
the traffic study was the turning radius being too big to get into the driveway .)(Jane Knop: Also makes it
more difficult to access the visitor spaces.)
> How were the driveway widths determined? (Melik-Karamov: 10 feet for each car.) Has the Caltrans
design manual for driveways on state highways been consulted? Recollection with Caltrans is there are
minimum and maximum widths. Concern the maximum is 14 feet, but the proposal shows wider widths .
Concerned with how the queuing and ingress /egress to the site would be impacted if Caltrans
requires narrower driveways. (Jane Knop: Each driveway is one -way. Has had multiple conversations with
Caltrans . Caltrans engineers have reviewed this design and indicated it will be acceptable. However Caltrans
will not provide sign-off until the environmental review has been approved.)
> Has the basement size been reduced? (Gardiner: The reference in the staff report is that the garage
has been shifted away from the property lines, not reduced .)(Melik-Karamov: The garage has been moved
10'-8".)
> Groundwater has been encountered at depths of 5 feet. However the Downtown Specific Plan does not
allow dewatering. Is the geotechnical engineer confident this can be achieved? (H. Allen Gruen,
Geotechnical Engineer: Yes.)(Jane Knop: 30 feet is only in one small portion where the system goes
down. Most of the garage is only 20 feet.)
> Some of the buildings behind on Almer have subterranean garages only down 10 feet and they
constantly pump water. Concern with water in the garage. (Jane Knop: This project is later than those
buildings and using different techniques that are capable of dealing with the drainage. This is not the first
project in Burlingame that would be doing this.)
> How is the water being removed from the garage? (Jane Knop: There is waterproofing for the project .
The intent is not to have water going into the garage. For stormwater, there will be underground tanks to
retain water to take out to El Camino Real at speeds specified by Caltrans .)(Roman Knop: Has a letter
from Caltrans providing approval of the drainage.)
Public Comments:
John Weiner: Lives behind the building. A lot of people are concerned with the project. Concern with
process of building it. Concern with the water table. Does not matter with the technology, there will be
entropy and can't guarantee that water will be able to be kept out over the lifespan of the building. Lives in
a building where the first level only goes down 10 feet but has water coming in through the walls. Building
a 30-foot swimming pool is a concern. Letter submitted mentions additional new units, but it is 14 rental
units being displaced by 21 high value condos. One electric car charging outlet will not be sufficient.
Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: Big decks jutting out 10 feet from the south side of the building .
Health risks from toxic pollution and dust, 30 feet down along the property line, 10 feet from the condo
building. A hole large enough to put the 3-story condo building in. Experimental project will effect traffic .
Needs a permit to park on Floribunda Avenue, nowhere for guests to park. Peak 15 minute period with 6
or 10 cars arriving during peak hour, while other people come home. 12 units at 550 El Camino Real has
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 6
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
17 working people come home every day in rush hour traffic. Can't block the sidewalk. Parking system is
better suited to a hotel or office building, too ambitious and experimental for El Camino Real.
Property manager from building next door at 1545 Floribunda Avenue: 5-foot deep garage floods .
Geotechnical report was prepared during the drought. Huge redwood tree 8 feet from the property line, root
systems shallow but extend out, doesn't see how the tree would survive if the roots are cut off. There are
no buildings higher than 35 feet on the block. Concern with shadow impacts. Solar system on the roof,
had expected zoning would protect it from being ruined. Project is too ambitious.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Are the construction impacts on traffic evaluated as part of the environmental review? (Will Burns,
David J. Powers and Associates, environmental review consultant for the City: In terms of traffic the
assumption is excavation would avoid peak hours .)(Kane: Caltrans has restrictions on when lanes can be
blocked. The Building Division reviews a construction management plan as part of the review of the
building permit application.)
> Are the construction logistics something the Planning Commission should not be concerned with?
(Gardiner: Construction logistics are evaluated as part of the building permit application review.)
> Should the environmental review have considered traffic impacts from construction? (Burns: It is
considered a temporary impact. The environmental review considers long-term operational issues.)
> Can the environmental review be asked to consider construction traffic? (Gardiner: The environmental
document has already been revised twice. These issues had not been brought up at the scoping session
or in subsequent reviews of the documents .)(Kane: If this is something that needs to be addressed it is a
City and Caltrans issue, not a project issue. The environmental review has considered the impacts on air
quality from construction, but when the scope of the study was established there were not instructions to
evaluate construction traffic impacts. If the commission deems the environmental review inadequate it can
deem it so.)
> Project has been coming before the commission for several years. It has made incredible changes
since it was first submitted.
> Design review has made strides. Condominium permit is acceptable.
> Hard to support the Conditional Use Permit in finding the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood . The additional height allows additional units, which puts pressure on the design to
accommodate the units. In particular the parking system, circulation, and queuing will effect
the neighborhood. Cannot make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit.
> Environmental review is acceptable in the analysis applicable to a CEQA document. Can accept the
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration from a technical standpoint. There are not impacts that rise to
the level of a significance under CEQA.
> The condominium will have 21 individual owners who would expect the vetting for the project was
sound.
> Intense project with very little room for error. Parking is not allowed on El Camino Real, and there is no
backup plan if the cars cannot queue on the ramp and within the property. Cannot make the finding that
the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
> Does not think the building is a bad building in terms of design review. Would have liked to see the
decks enclosed.
> Concern El Camino Real is already congested.
> Concerned with the groundwater with the subterranean garage. Concern a subterranean garage with a
sloped ramp will not be able to dispel rainwater.
> Shadowing does not seem fair to the other buildings in the neighborhood.
> Project fits well on El Camino Real in terms of design.
> Condominium permit findings refer to "sound community planning." Tenuous in that everything relies
on the garage being functional. If the garage goes out, the project is no longer compliant with the parking
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 7
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
requirements for the city. Cannot support placing a complex mechanical system in a bathtub, and
consider that to be sound community planning. Does not know where the cars would go if the garage fails,
since parking is not allowed on the street.
> The height is OK. El Camino Real needs some 5-story buildings.
> Appreciates the architectural style of the project, but with reservations in relation to the neighboring
buildings. There is a taller building down the street on El Camino Real, but it is on the corner, not
impacting neighbors as much in the middle of the block. Does not have the trees in front of the building to
provide scale.
> The issue is not the height, it is the number of units. One less floor is only two less units. The issue
is too much of a burden on site, particularly the functionality of the traffic with the potentially risky
technology to solve the parking.
> Number of units not necessarily the problem. The program is the queuing of the cars, the ingress
and egress, and the parking system in a pit.
> It is not the height or number of stories that is an absolute. The issue is a building that relies on
certain given systems and configurations to function. A 5-story project with a level of parking in the rear
with a conventional basement and stackers could be a different issue.
> Problem is not the height and design, it is the parking structure. Could consider parking reconfigured
with podium parking or parking in the back.
> Not opposed to the project in the height and design, but has problem with the parking system. Does
not seem like it will work, will put impacts on the residents.
> The concerns with the parking system are beyond a few tweaks, hence the motion for Denial With
Prejudice.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to deny the
application with prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 -
Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Nay: 1 - Loftis
d. 1818 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a class use in an
existing office building. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class I.
(Carol Chou, Ingenious Learning, applicant; George and Jenny Chang Trust, property
owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Attachments:
1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 1
1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 2
1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 3
1818 Gilbreth Rd.sr
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
> Can the variance be conditioned to this specific operation for child -age learning classes? (Hurin: Can
be conditioned to a specific to a type of use .)(Kane: Should stay within the use category unless there is a
particular reason for distinction.)
> Premise for this variance is that the students will not be driving, they will be dropped off. ( Kane: Can
be stated as for school-aged children or other participants who do not drive themselves to the facility.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 8
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Carol Chou, Intelligent Learning School, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> In the summer program that goes from 9-5, do the students go all day or just come for parts of the
day? (Chou: Depends. They have the flexibility.) Do they study all day or do the get breaks? (Chou: Yes,
but not outside. There will be a field trip once a week outside the building.)
> What is average amount of time a typical parent spends waiting to pick up their student? (Chou: Most
are quick, just pickup and go. Only stay if there is something to discuss with the teacher. Typically just a
couple of minutes, in and out.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Good community resource to have after-school and summer programs.
> Likes that the number of students has been decreased. The parking and queueing can work in this
area.
> Doesn't see an issue with the parking variance. Application is supportable.
> Parking study is pragmatic and compelling based on the fact that the students don't drive, are not of
driving age.
> Doesn't like the trend of businesses asking for forgiveness rather than permission but the application
has come to a good common ground.
> Has a problem with premise of starting with a building that is substandard with parking now, then
further intensifying the use. Could become a problem with a change of mix of tenants in the building.
> Symbiotic relationship with the other businesses and does not intensify the site, but specifically and
only if it is school -age users who are not driving to the site. This type of use will not further intensify and
contribute to additional parking demand provided it is this type of use and class.
> In the proposed General Plan Update would this area be rezoned for different uses, and would there
be an impact? (Gardiner: The proposed General Plan has this area designated "Innovation Industrial"
which would have similar characteristics to existing uses.)
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item with the following conditions:
> To be occupied by an educational program for school-aged children or other participants
who do not drive themselves to the facility (educational facility).
> Change the reference to the business name in the Conditions of Approval to "educational
facility."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 -
Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Nay: 1 - Sargent
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 9
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry
Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) ( 107 noticed)
Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
Attachments:
2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 05.29.18
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:
> Doesn't anything over 70 square feet count as a bedroom? (Gardiner: It is a combination, both of the
dimensions as well as the direct access to the garage in this instance would not allow it to be considered
a bedroom.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, J. Deal and Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Page A7 wood brackets under the second floor do not appear on the side elevation. ( Deal: Should be
shown.)
> Square footage is being removed from the front on the second floor. Is there also square footage
being removed in the back adjacent to Bedroom #3? (Deal: Yes. The original floor plan is very complex.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Straightforward, no issues with the design.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7 -
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
b. 209 Channing Road, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling.
(Winges Architects, Inc., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela
Wong, property owners) (133) noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
Attachments:
209 Channing Rd - Staff Report
209 Channing Rd - Attachments
209 Channing Road - Plans - 5.29.18
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 10
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jerry Winges represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Was there consideration of reducing the pitch slightly to meet the height limit without needing to
request a Special Permit for the 9-inch differential? Most houses in the area are single story with low pitch
roofs. (Winges: Had looked at a 7/12 pitch to get below the height limit, but the 8/12 pitch looks better. It
seems like a small portion of the roof and should not be a problem for neighbors. Floor to floor heights
are at the minimum, at 8'-4" on the lower floor and 8 feet on the upper floor, so feels it is compatible with
the design guidelines.)
> Is the existing flat roof structure on the back being retained, just with a mansard roof added?
(Winges: Yes. The portion of the house is in good condition. The mansard has been added to tie it in with
the rest of the house.)
> No access from the second floor to the flat roof in the back from the second floor? (Winges: Just a
small window to access the water heater bumpout. It is not a usable deck.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Good project.
> Transitioning neighborhood, will probably change over time.
> Agrees with the analysis of the special permit. Special permits have been approved in the past to
maintain the integrity of the design. The pitch looks good, and it will have a low impact on the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7 -
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
c. 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (Chu Design and Associates, Inc ., James
Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) ( 109 noticed) Staff contact:
Sonal Aggarwal
Attachments:
1697 Broadway - Staff Report
1697 Broadway - Attachments
1697 Broadway - Plans - 5.29.18
Commissioner Kelly was recused, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 11
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Why the curved roof over the entry? (Chu: There is a similar curved entry on a house up the street on
Hillside, which the homeowner liked.) It does not seem consistent with the rest of the design. Perhaps
there could be other curves elsewhere in the design.
> Could provide a photo or the address of the other property with the curved roof element. Has seen
other examples where it works.
> Likes the curved element, it is something different.
> The average setback is approximately 16 feet. Why not place the house closer to the street? Would
provide more back yard space, be more consistent with the neighborhood. ( Chu: It is a good suggestion .
Will consider it.)
> Have the arborist assess the 18" pine on the corner. Is does not appear to be in good shape. Since it
is being retained, is there anything that can be done to help the tree? (Chu: Yes, will follow up.)
Public Comments:
Neighbor to the left (1601 Broadway): Likes the design, it looks like a lovely house. Inquiring what the
rights of the neighbor is in the process. Best part is the house is the back yard, will be changed with a
two-story house and assumes rules have been adhered to. Has a young child, wants to know what
provisions there are during demolition for dust and debris. ( Kane: Leave contact information with staff for
follow-up. Construction-related impacts are handled through the Building Division.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Handsome project.
> Curved porch roof is not a problem. Some eyebrow dormers or other curves might integrate it and help
tie things in better.
> Impacts to neighbor will be modest given house is across the alley, and bulk of massing is shifted to
the corner. The larger garage will be replaced with a smaller garage.
> Staff can provide neighbor with information on controls available during construction.
> Suggest moving the house forward to the block average setback and gain extra yard space.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 -
Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Recused: 1 - Kelly
d. 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Best Construction, applicant;
Cornelia Haber, designer; Symagny LLC, propert owner) ( 108 noticed) Staff Contact:
Sonal Aggarwal
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 12
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
Attachments:
1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report
1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachments
1104 Clovelly Ln - Plans - 5.29.18
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Cornelia Haber represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Is there a strategy for which of the interlocking boxes is wood vs stucco? (Haber: There is not a rule.
The idea is to create a play on the two materials, and emphasize the protruding pieces. A small departure
on the previous designs which are a little more traditional.)
> Sheet A5 has a deck with a tiled parapet cap, with horizontal siding. However on the right side
elevation looks like it will be stucco. Should it all be the same material or was the intention to just have
the siding on the front side? (Haber: Yes, two different finishes.)
> Concern the tile cap will not fit in. Perhaps wood would integrate better.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Looks confused, like it got expanded from inside.
> Does not see a rhythm or logic in the materials.
> Not sure the pitched roof works. Could either go full modern or go back to more traditional.
> Lots of blank spaces, and nooks and crannies where it does not seem natural for them to be there.
> Project is trying to do the right things but not doing it quite right.
> OK with the subdued contemporary style. Massing is reminiscent of the existing house.
> Needs better order for how the bump -outs and various pieces have the wood siding applied. Should
only change materials at an inside corner so whatever mass feels like a wood piece.
> Every other house on the street has an attached garage so not an issue with the special permit.
> Heights could be revisited. 9'-6" on first floor, plus the first floor is already 3 feet off grade - adds to
the height and massing, makes the proportions difficult. Work with the plate height, also maybe the first
floor finished floor height.
> Front door looks massive, is maybe taller than 8 feet so makes the first floor proportions look taller.
> Should look at window patterns. There are are a lot of designs and styles.
> First floor plate height creates a proportion issue with the garage.
> Siding should turn corners, not look like wallpaper.
> Likes the contrasting materials, but they need to be ordered in a legible way.
> Talk to the rear neighbor about planting per the letter received, see what kind of additional planting
there could be. Noted that the proposed house is pulling away from the property line further than the
existing house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018 Page 13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 29, 2018
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7 -
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
None.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
A special General Plan study session will be held on July 11th or 18th, to be determined by
commissioners' availability.
The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will meet on June 7th to discuss the Accessory Dwelling
Unit regulations.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 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 May 29, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 8, 2018, 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.