HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.06.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 11, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gaul opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 -
ComarotoAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the April
23rd and the May 14th minutes, with the following correction to the May 14th minutes:
>Page 7, Agenda Item E, Commission Questions/Comments; strike "is" from the end of the first
line of the first bullet.
Chair Gaul called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
a.Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The April 9, 2018 minutes were not available for review, but will be available for the next regular meeting.
b.Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
c.Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Attorney Kane asked to add one item to the end of the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Brian Benn: spoke regarding the wireless telecommunications ordinance. Called for preparation of a
master plan for these installations.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Gaul, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar items with the exception of Item 7d (1697 Broadway) which was pulled for a
separate vote. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
a.1537 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension for a previously
approved application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an
existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (Kenny Yip,
applicant and designer; Yan Li, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1537 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report
1537 Westmoor Rd - Attachments
1537 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
b.2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry
Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) (54 noticed)
Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report
2104 Roosevelt Ave - Attachments
2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
c.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.
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Winges Architects, Inc ., Jerry Winges,
applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff
contact: Sonal Aggarwal
209 Channing Rd - Staff Report
209 Channing Rd - Attachments
209 Channing Rd - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
d.1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
15303 (a). (Chu Design and Associates, Inc ., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan
Wang, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
1697 Broadway - Staff Report
1697 Broadway - Attachments
1697 Broadway - Plans- 6.11.18
Attachments:
Commission Kelly indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on this item as he resides within
500-feet of the property.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gaul, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the application. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Recused:Kelly1 -
e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R -3 - Planning Commission resolutions on 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) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
556 El Camino Real - Staff Report
556 El Camino Real - Resolution
556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and
equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right -of-way at the locations
listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility
pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. These projects are
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole
Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak
Grove Avenue) (39 noticed)
2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed)
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Staff Report
ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Attachments
ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Plans
ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Attachments
ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he resides
within 500-feet of the installation proposed on Hillside Drive; he left the Council Chambers. All
Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Teddy Rejillas and Talin Aghazarian, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Noted that it is represented that the fiber optic cables already exist near each installation .
(Aghazarian: fiber optic already exist at the locations, separate permits will be obtained as necessary for
connection to the new antennae.)
>Has experience working with fiber optic cable. Noted that the photo provided to the Commission
inaccurately shows the size of the cable. Concerned that accurate information is not provided regarding
this aspect. No information is provided that shows the details of how the cable will be routed to the
installation. (Aghazarian: The details of the fiber optic cable installation are not provided at this point, but
are under a separate permit. Rejillas: have shown the details that are required at this point. The excess
items on the Winchester pole will be removed prior the the new AT&T installation.)
>Can't make an aesthetic decision with the limited detail provided; the scale is too small. (Aghazarian:
Could do a close up view of the photo simulations. Rejillas: offered a site visit to an installation that would
reflect the installations proposed in Burlingame.)
>Was Our Lady of Angels approached regarding integration of the installation on Hillside into the
Church structure? (Rejillas: sites like the church steeple are typically reserved for micro -cells. They are
not suitable for the limited range with the type of installation proposed. The provider has rights to install on
utility-owned poles.)
>Is access to poles first come, first served? (Rejillas: typically first come, first serve. One pole, one
carrier.)
>On sheet A3.1, will the shorter pole and the stump be removed from the Winchester site?
(Aghazarian: the shorter pole will be removed, as will the stump.) Installation will be on the full -height
pole? (Aghazarian: yes.)
>How do trees affect the service? (Rejillas: they block the signal.) How is the signal distributed?
(Rejillas: 360-degree distribution.)
>The applicant has submitted seven sites for consideration; Verizon has submitted applications for
twelve sites. Should these installations be approved one at a time without consideration for how the City is
impacted? (Kane: whether the City prepares a masterplan would require City Council direction; could also
require revisions to the ordinance. Must process the applications as submitted within a reasonable period
of time. Community feedback has indicated a desire about a broader vision for the installations. Must
process applications as they come through. Can't withhold action pending City action to prepare a
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
masterplan.)
>Considering that the Commission is asked to review only the aesthetics of the applications; how was
the location preference order determined? Have all options been considered? (Aghazarian: obtained
information from AT&T regarding a potential service gap. Looked at every pole within a certain radius and
evaluated their suitability. Locations have been refused by PG&E as well as extensive vegetation in areas
where other poles are located.)
>What would be the option if there are no viable poles available? (Rejilla: this is the technology that is
evolving; is setting the foundation for 5G service.)
>Are these installations being installed elsewhere in neighboring cities? (Rejillas: are working with cities
up and down the Peninsula and across the country.)
Public Comments:
William Sexton: moved to Burlingame in 1949. Citizens of Burlingame rallied together about ten years ago
that resulted in an ordinance to regulate these installations.
Patricia Gray: concern is about how the poles look. Electromagnetic radiation is dangerous to human
bodies. More energy is needed to meet the needs of current technology; will require more installations .
Need to be careful and aware of the dangers to humans.
Chair Gaul reminded those wishing to speak that the Commission is limited to discussing only the
aesthetic aspects of the installations.
Stephen Lamont, Adeline Drive: understands the need for more coverage. Understands the limitations on
regulating the time, place and manner. Had industry representatives at the table when the wireless
ordinance was prepared; was deemed a reasonable set of requests. The submissions received now are as
bad as what was submitted prior to adoption of the ordinance. Need to find some mechanism to work with
the carriers to ensure that the installations are done in an aesthetic manner. The two sites set a precedent
for future applications. There can be improvements on the locations and the designs. A master plan is
needed; could assist in pushing back and requiring co-location.
Claudia Rizzo, 701 Winchester Drive: referenced her correspondence objecting to the proposal. Will
negatively impact aesthetics and property values. Most people do not wish to live near cell
towers.Wonders how safe the installations will be when multiple service providers have installations that
overlap within the same neighborhood.
Brian Chen-Hoon: Resident since 1979, and a homeowner. Recalls the Extenet discussions at the City
Council level in 2012. Anyone in the community could have an installation in front of their home. Agreed
with prior speakers comments regarding aesthetic impacts and property value impacts. If the requests
move forward to the City Council, residents will fight it again. Nothing has changed since 2012. Proposals
look the same.
Rich Goldman: is a homeowner in the community. Asked whether the shorter pole adjacent to the pole at
the Winchester site is needed for stability? Will there be additional measures taken to ensure the stability
of the pole on which the antennae are installed.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion.
>Are limited to time, place and manner in the placement of the antennas. Has difficulty making the
findings required. Has not provided adequate aesthetic details of the installations. Should have the
opportunity, and have the obligation, to review the full aesthetic details of the installations.
>Still has a hard time determining that installing a nine -foot section atop an existing pole will not be
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
detrimental to the properties in the vicinity. Cannot make the necessary findings.
>Cited the visual impact requirements of the applications as contained with the municipal code.
>Need to do a better job of mitigating the visual impacts.
>Agrees with other Commissioners. There are better design options for these facilities that need to be
explored.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the
applications without prejudice.
Discussion of Motion:
>Requested clarification of "without prejudice". (Kane: the applicant can re-submit the
applications immediately without paying additional fees. Permits the opportunity for revision.
>How does this form of denial help the process? (Kane: there were a number of outstanding
issues that the Commission requested more information about. Revisions/clarifications could be
made by the application that could be brought back immediately for reconsideration.)
>There may be some other stealth details, technologies that could be used to address the
concerns expressed.
>Would also like the opportunity to view similar installations within the vicinity.
>Would like to see a "good" example.
Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.841 Rollins Road, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition, setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an attached garage. This project
is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines SEciton 15301 (e)(1). (Joe Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant;
Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Erika
Lewit
841 Rollins.sr
841 Rollins Rd - Attachments
841 Rollins Rd - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Kevin Peng represented the applicant.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are the shutters on the front of the building of wood? (Peng: yes.)
>Why are the shutters provided at the limited locations shown? (Peng: was the recommendation of the
design reviewer. Most concerned about the front and the side facing the neighbors.)
>Were there other windows that were considered? (Peng: no, the one proposed is maintenance -free.)
The vinyl window sample provided is a good example of why vinyl windows are typically not approved. Other
than that, the revisions to the project were good.
>The changes made are really good; the design is nice.
>Encouraged looking at other types of low-maintenance windows.
>Sees a need for a vinyl window in this location, given that it is in an R -3 zone; also next to the freeway .
Vinyl windows will clean up more easily. Could support the vinyl windows in this instance.
>Can support the variance for the attached garage due to the configuration of the lot.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
There was no Commission discussion.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application as submitted.
Discussion of Motion:
>Concerned with the use of the vinyl window that is proposed. Need more significant muntins.
>Felt that the vinyl windows are appropriate in this instance given the proximity to Highway
101 and the fact that the property is zoned R3.
>Need to be consistent with the decision regarding windows; have denied this style of window
previously. There may be better-detailed vinyl windows that may be considered.
>Fiberglas clad windows may be an option.
>May find comparably priced windows that meet both the Commission's concerns and the
budget limitations of the applicant.
Chair Gaul called for a roll-call vote on the motion and the motion failed by the following vote:
Aye:3 - Gaul, Kelley, Loftis
Nay:3 - Terrones, Sargent, Tse
Absent:1 - Comaroto
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application with the additional condition that an FYI be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit that provides full details of the window selection. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on
the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.1812c Magnolia Avenue, zoned C-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial recreation use in an existing commercial building. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303- Class 1. (Nicole Byrne Yoga, applicant; Patricia Ann
Britton Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1812 Magnolia - Staff Report
1812 Magnolia - Attachments
1812 Magnolia - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Nicole Byrne represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions/comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
There was no Commission discussion.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application.
Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
d.1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and
Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; Blaise
Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner )
(16 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Ranier Gadduang represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are there any plans to add classes to the schedule? (Gadduang: on the weekends. Not adding on
weekdays.)
>Is there a statistically significant number of clients that take transit, bike or walk to the facility?
(Gadduang: a few do, but some carpool.)
>Requested clarification of the parking study.
>Is the use intended to stay there for another five -years? (Gadduang: the intention is to be there less
than five years. The property owner has other plans for the property, so are seeking other locations for the
business.)
>Cost of bathrooms? (Gadduang: is quite expensive, but other locations are much more costly. Willing
to shoulder the expense.)
>Is the business available for drop-ins from the hotels? (Gadduang: have drop-ins from time-to-time.)
Pubic Comments:
There were public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion.
>Would it be too burdensome to have the conditional use permit come back for review in five years?
(Meeker: is problematic, can get lost in the process.) Encouraged some form of check -in. (Kane: a
check-in is acceptable, but shouldn't put a time limit on the conditional use permit.) Doesn't want a
termination, but would like a check -in to monitor parking complaints. (Meeker: this can be done. Also, if
the use violates the permit, then the matter may be brought back for revocation/modification.)
>Good application, has come a long way. Can support due to the cap on the number of users.
>The number of cars they will have on site is less than the available parking on site.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application with the additional condition that a review of the applicant's compliance with the
terms of the conditional use permit, including any Police Department reports regarding the
operations and input from the applicant, be provided to the Planning Commission within
one-year of the date of approval. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.829 Maple Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for
first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits for an accessory
structure with a depth more than 28 feet and located in the rear 40% of the lot, and
Conditional Use Permits for a half -bath and glazed opening higher than 10 feet above
grade in an accessory structure. (Gary Diebel, AIA - Diebel and Company Architects,
applicant and architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
829 Maple Ave - Staff Report
829 Maple Ave - Attachments
829 Maple Ave - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 820 Maple
Avenue.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gary Diebel represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was consideration given to placing the half -bath within the opposite corner of the garage to provide
more vehicle clearance? (Diebel: could possibly do so.)
>Could window grids be provided to ensure a more Craftsman -style appearance? (Diebel: will look at
this.) What type of window cladding is proposed? (Diebel: hasn't determined yet.)
>Has a covering over the front porch been considered? (Diebel: wanted to keep it light and airy as it is
north facing.
>Expressed concern about the massing of the right side elevation. Were any options considered to
bring the exterior walls of the dormer inward? (Diebel: did a few studies. The bedroom is fairly large, so
could adjust.)
>What is the proposed detailing for the cement fiber siding? (Diebel: are considering mitered corners.)
>Indicate the size and style of the proposed siding material to be used.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Believes the findings for the special permits can be made.
>Concerned more about the massing of the second-floor addition.
>Good project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the
application on the Regular Action Calendar. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote and the motion
carried by the following vote.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
b.301 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition and Special Permits for a basement with a ceiling height of over 6'6", a
direct exit and a bathroom greater than 25 SF. (Catherine Nilmeyer, applicant and
architect; Dale and Elaine Chang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine
Keylon
301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report and Attachments
301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Dale Chang, Michael Nilmeyer, and Catherine Nilmeyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Clarified that the cross-section shows landscape terraces rising up from the patio area adjacent to the
basement. (M. Nilmeyer: yes, this is correct.)
>Clarified that the bathroom in the basement is only a powder room. (C. Nilmeyer: correct.)
>Make sure that the specifications for the windows include the notation for simulated, or true divided
lights that are permanently installed.
>What is planned for the use of the recreation room? (Chang: Just a play room for the children. Wife
works from home, so she can work upstairs while the children play in the basement.)
>Will the living room be closer to the sidewalk than the existing garage? How much does the bay
window project? (C. Nilmeyer: two feet.) The bay will be roughly 8 1/2 feet from the sidewalk. (C. Nilmeyer:
7 1/2 feet is required.)
>How close is the second floor wall to the sidewalk? (C. Nilmeyer: twelve feet from the property line,
which is inset from the sidewalk.)
>Unclear how the landscaping works with the basement area. Provide more detail on the plan.
>Shows a sump pump next to the stairway, sewer or groundwater? (C. Nilmeyer: groundwater pump.)
>Where will the AC unit be placed? (Keylon: can be on the property line, outside of front setback, with
proper sound attenuation.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Struggling with the "extreme farmhouse" style; not sure it fits with the neighborhood. The standing -seam
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
metal roof pushes the design over the top. Worried about this type of roof taking over in Burlingame. Also,
the steep pitch of the roof adds to the mass of the house.
>Also concerned about the steepness of the roof. Given the corner location, the side of the house
reads as the front of the house; its location on the lot is overwhelming at the street level; needs to be
either setback more, or broken up more.
>Can't support the exterior stair. In this instance the design of the exterior stair adds to the footprint of
the living space; the patio with terrace appears much like an amphitheater.
>Like the massing of the house; this style can be supported in the neighborhood. Would like a 3-D
rendering.
>With respect to the exterior stair in this instance, can support the direct access as it is located next to
a street and not next to a neighbor where such a design may impact a neighbor. The lot is undersized, the
terraced area with stairs makes outdoor are more useable. Could be lushly landscaped and detailed.
>Okay with the basement bathroom and the basement ceiling height.
>Likes the design. Would like the applicant to look at the gable massing, could be pretty imposing on
the Bloomfield side of the property.
>Agrees with comments supporting the exterior stairs from the basement.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse4 -
Nay:Loftis, and Gaul2 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
c.1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront (Ron Stanford, applicant;
Jeffrey J. Burris, architect; Olive Group Capital, LP, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
1117 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1117 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1117 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff..
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Ron Stanford represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will the sidewalk tables be removable? (Meeker: would need to be removable.)
>Feels like a walk-up window is being installed. If the furniture is present with the window open, could
be a nice feel.
>The awning that is proposed seems to fit with the proposed use, but doesn't want the design to make
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the space feel like a fast-foot restaurant. (Stanford: could detail the rendering better.)
>Asked about the frosted glass on the lower portion of the facade. (Stanford: wanted to maintain an
all-glass appearance, but provide frosted glass on the lower portion to maintain privacy.) Perhaps could
install Ipe wood as an alternative. (Stanford: could look at this, but cost is a concern.)
>Requested information regarding the Ipe materials used on the canopy; not a roof. (Stanford: is
provided only for shade, not protection from rain, though this could be a good idea.)
>Why is there a screen on the window? (Stanford: thought it is required by the Health Department; if
can get away without it, will remove it.)
>Having trouble with some of the proportions. Requested clarification of dimensions. Seems like that
dimension to the bottom of the window is too short to work with tables.
>The front elevation gives the impression that there are three horizontal slats. Gives a false
impression. Raising the base may help with the proportions of the windows.
>Having difficulty understanding the vertical wood elements on eave. Need to clarify dimensions and
provide greater detailing.
>Not clear how the proposed canopy relates to the adjacent awning.
>Requested clarification regarding how food is prepared. (Stanford: there is an array of foods that are
available, then the customer picks the elements and builds a bowl.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the design; would want the design to address the canvas awning to the left. Would prefer
removal of the screen, if possible.
>Seems like there is a lot going on in such a small facade. Need to simplify a bit.
>Worried that the thin slats on top of the c -channel will look cheap. the entire assembly of the canopy
seems insubstantial, unresolved. Doesn't like the flourish on top of the canopy.
>Agrees that there are things to like about the application; the use could be a good use to add to
Burlingame Avenue. Detailing needs to be refined. Facade could be detailed better by working the Ipe
wood into more of the facade detailing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
The Commission adopted a resolution recognizing Community Development Director Meeker for his
service to the City of Burlingame, and wishing him the best in his upcoming retirement.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that this was his last Commission meeting as he is
retiring effective July 7, 2018. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner is being promoted to the position of
Community Development Director effective July 8, 2018.
He expressed his gratitude to the Commission for having such a supportive working relationship with staff
and wished all the best in the future. He noted that though he is leaving the field of planning for now, he
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018
June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
will remain in the Bay Area for the forseeable future.
a.723-A Laurel Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
723-A Laurel Ave - Memorandum
723-A Laurel Ave - Attachments
723-A Laurel Ave - Plans - 06.11.18
Attachments:
Direction provided that the item be scheduled for a public hearing as the siding approved for the project
was a significant point of discussion when the project was initially considered.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:53 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 June 11, 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 21, 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.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/13/2018