HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.08.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 13, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to
approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted and as amended. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
No changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.28 Bloomfield Rd, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached
garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 28 Bloomfield LLC,
property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact:
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report
28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments
28 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 -
b.125 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing residential apartment building. This project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e) (2). (Karen Such, Such Home Enhancements, Inc ., applicant and
designer; Ramon and Maria Flores, property owners) (170 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
125 Park Rd - Staff Report
125 Park Rd - Attachments
125 Park Rd - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd.,
116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for
Multi Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment
Development with two levels of below -grade parking. (Fore Property Company, applicant;
John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J. Mortensen
Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (320 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Keylon
920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 8.13.18
920 Bayswater Ave - Resolutions
920 Bayswater Ave - Application Materials
920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Letters 7.17.17 Meeting
920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Letters 11.13.17 Meeting
920 Bayswater Ave - CEQA Comments
920 Bayswater Ave - CEQA
920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Comments, Notice and Aerial
920 Bayswater Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis each met with the
applicant.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
>Does the Density Bonus require findings? (Keylon: No, the Density Bonus regulations are mandated
by State Law, and do not require findings.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Mark Pilarczyk of Fore Property Company, Derk Thelen of Withee Malcolm Architects, and Dave Gates of
Gates + Associates represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the reason for the grid between the glass on the vinyl windows? (Pilarczyk: With the number
of windows, need to have the grids between the glass to facilitate cleaning. Harder to clean large
quantities of windows with the external grids.)
>If the windows are double -hung, could they be cleaned from the indside? (Pilarczyk: Would not want
to clean from the inside since management would need to enter each unit.)
>On the balconies will the design with the four columns be hard to keep clean compared to a single
column? (Pilarczyk: Yes, but the four columns are consistent with the Craftsman style.)
>Should mailboxes be more centralized for everyone to have more equidistant access? (Pilarczyk: Can
consider that. Maybe a sub group closer to the Anita Road side.)
>What material is the base of the balconies? (Pilarczyk: Trex.) Is real wood an option? (Pilarczyk:
Longevity would be a concern.)
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: Grateful for the process, and extra steps. Posts on the balconies were originally single and
looked spindly, and perhaps they could be a single wide column but these look good. Appreciates the
simplicity of the windows, could consider only grids on the tops and keep the bottoms clear. Second best
choice would be no grids at all. Appreciates the efforts for saving the trees.
Kent Lauder, 449 Bloomfield Road: Assumption that location along the rail corridor will compel residents to
take the train. Expects only 2% of residents to take the train. Could build higher density anywhere .
Caltrain ridership has peaked and Samtrans ridership has declined. Cars allow the flexibility that transit
cannot fulfill. Washington School enrollment is close to limit. Cannot add another floor to Washington
School.
Mary Tao, Bayswater: Appreciates the changes, but concern with density. Concern with traffic flow,
expects each family to have more than one car. Neighborhood already has issues with parking, and having
space for garbage cans. Neighborhood was not designed for this type of growth. Proposal for time limit on
street, would need to pay $54 per year for permit, and not sure it will resolve the issue. There is another
parking lot across the street that may become another development in the future. What is the visibility
from the fourth floor, potential for people looking into backyards? Concern with invasion of privacy.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Refinements are substantial.
>Would not want to lose the substance of the volume of balcony posts. Would consider a combined
post of the same volume, but does not want to lose the volume.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Would rather not have the grids at all than have them between the glass. Could be considered as an
FYI.
>Environmental review has studied potential impacts, and determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration
can be supported.
>Project will represent a substantial change to the community, but the community needs housing.
>Would be a loss if the grids were not in the windows, but does not support grids between the glass.
>Suggestion to eliminate the grids in the courtyards and french doors.
>Suggest cladding the four balcony posts rather than a single large post.
>Project fits within the parameters in terms of size, impact on schools, density. It is all allowed by the
provisions of the zoning and conditional use permit.
>Would like the doors to have true divided lites. If they go away will look stale with the Trex and Hardie
Board.
>Project is big and highly repetative. Materials make the building look cheap, and the project is large
and will be in place for a long time. Bothered by the nostalgia of the project.
>Design is significantly better than where it began. Neighborhood has a lot of sloping rooflines; this will
fit in.
>Hardie Board can look good if it is applied well.
>Likes the architectural details.
>Appreciates the trees being retained, but they will need to be maintained so the new trees grow.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>that the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with an FYI for review of the type
and style of windows to be used for the project prior to building permit issuance; the windows
shall not have internal grids.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
b.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment to Conditions of
Approval #6 (retail and food service provisions) and #21 (Transportation Demand
Management provisions) of a previously approved office /life science development
("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC,
property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
300 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report
300 Airport Boulevard - Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto had
conversations with the legal representatives for the applicant.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Would the changes approved in 2017 to remove the roof decks from two of the buildings be retained?
(Gardiner: Yes, those have not been proposed to be changed with this application.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Tosta, Arent Fox, represented the applicant. In his presentation he provided an update that that the
public-facing amenity is proposed to be increased and combined into 2,500 square feet in Building 1.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chris Hom, Facebook, represented the prospective tenant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Had hoped for a restaurant that would be open to the public, beyond the needs of the tenant, and
would be an attraction for the Bayfront. Traffic generation was not the only consideration; had hoped to
enliven the Bayfront, and thought the restaurant would be an attraction.
>What went into the math to change from 1,600 square feet to 2,500 square feet? (Tosta: 6,000 square
feet in the orignal approval anticipated a commercial success of the retail and restaurants from the
tenants, with a two-year trial period. Facebook needs at least 60,000 square feet for its own needs and it
cannot be shared with the public; the more space that is created for the public, the less available for
Facebook for its own purposes. Facebook will be attracting trade to this part of the city; the experience in
Menlo Park has been a lot of changes to the surrounding area.)
>There needs to be some "pioneer species" to enliven the Bayfront.
>The rooftop terraces were removed to allow space for additional mechanical equipment for biotech
uses, but this is not a biotech. Could the rooftop terraces be restored? Will the other two rooftop terraces
remain? (Hom: Still needs the rooftop space for mechanical units .)(Tosta: The other two rooftop terraces
will be retained.)
>Example of Google Charleston East example has a green loop running through the project and a
public-facing restaurant shared between Google and the public. Could there be a public restaurant here
too? (Tosta: The space here is intended to function similarly, and serve both Facebook and the public .
The 2,500 square feet is comparable to the space in the Google example, and is a viable area for a
commercial space that can be maintained over time.)
>How was the location for the amenity space determined? (Tosta: Intent to get people into the
promenade. Wants to activate the promenade.) What would prevent the amenity space from facing the
water, rather than the promenade? (Hom: Balance with the rest of the use of the building, including the
location of the kitchen.)(Tosta: Did not want it to be remote. Wanted a front-door location.)
>Why couldn't a destination restaurant on the Bayfront be successful? (Tosta: Not enough traffic for a
white tablecloth restaurant.) Would like to offer people an additional reason to go over to the Bayfront.
>Kincaids is a busy restaurant, and it's on the Bayfront. It is busy at lunch and dinner. Wants more
attractions for going out to the Bayfront. Not sure the economic feasibility argument is correct. (Hom:
Facebook's kitchen is specific to Facebook. To have another restaurant it would need to have its own
kitchen, which requires more space .)(Tosta: Size is not as important as what is in the space. Something
more than a coffee destination.)
>Had wanted another restaurant - another reason for people to come to the Bayfront. Viability of the
restaurant requires tenants of the new building to support it. Should find a restaurant who wants to be in
the Bayfront location.
>Originally wanted more retail to enliven the area. Why would there not be other tenants like a bicycle
rental or tackle shop? (Tosta: It takes a lot of traffic to support a bike shop. There is 2,500 square feet
that could include some bay -specific products. Retailers are in a lot of trouble with flattening retail trade .
Could consider some pop -up uses on the weekends. Had proposed a farmer's market in Belle Haven in
Menlo Park, but it was not economically viable. Instead Facebook modulated it into a truck that drives
into the neighborhoods.)
>Issue with the word "may" for Bay Trail users. (Tosta: Did not want it to be specific to a particular
market such as people on the Bay Trail .)(Kane: Emphasis has been to maintain flexibility over time
without locking into a particular solution. Needs to have long -term enforceability, and assumes there will
be some experimentation to determine what works in this location. Use patterns may change over time,
particularly as other developments are built in the area.)
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: This project has been 15 years in process, and each time it has been an effort to get the
developer to provide something for the public. Seems like each time something is taken away; a thousand
cuts are being made to try to make a tenant happy. Likes the pop-up idea, something creative.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Scott Kirkman: Represents the Owners of the site across the street comprising 8.76 acres, and has
looked for 30 years to figure out what to build. It is hard to attract uses in this area. This could be a
benefit to the other surrounding properties.
Tim Tosta: Can set aside an additional 2,000 square feet as a "reserve" to allow expansion in the future .
The market does not exist now but this could accommodate something later.
Chris Hom: It is less about the square footage than it is about what is going to be built. Willing to put the
energy into working to find what that is.
Note from City Attorney Kane: All commissioners file a Form 700 which disclose financial interests. Some
commissioners may have Facebook stock as an individual holding. The identity of Facebook is not
crucial to the application; the question is whether the conditions language should be amended to
accommodate a single tenant. The action is being sought by the original applicant (Genzon); whether or
not a commissioner has holdings in Facebook would not be material to this application. If Facebook were
to become the applicant, staff would need to conduct a conflicts analysis.
Note from Community Development Director Gardiner: The 2,500 square feet is an envelope that can be
split between different tenants, or could be combined into one. The distribution can be changed over time.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Amendment to the Transportation Demand Management condition is supportable. Allows flexibility
over time with review by the Community Development Director.
>Can support the amendment that the 1,600 square feet of space becomes 2,500, and that the
applicant crafts an additional setaside of 2,000 square feet.
>Likes the synergy of the two spaces together. Would work better than two separate spaces in different
buildings.
>Can support 2,500 square feet plus the setaside for 2,000 square feet.
>Needs to determine the location of the public-facing space.
>If the public-facing space faces the central promenade, it ensures the promenade will remain open to
the public rather than being closed off in the future.
>If Facebook gets more involved with the community in the future, it could host uses such as pop -ups
on the central promenade.
>Could add a local angle to the space, perhaps a mural or something to commemorate the former
drive-in.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>The project shall provide an additional 2,000 sf of "reserve" space for expansion of
public-amenity uses. The location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall
be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
c.521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling. This project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner;
Stewart Associates, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Patrick Gilson represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Could there be an awning window? It would provide privacy and add some light. Would give a classic
look. (Gilson: Had considered it. Proposes a town and country fireplace with a direct vent, which presents
some clearance issues. Needs to keep a set distance from the flue. Had considered two 2 x 2 windows
but wants to have bookcases inside. Proposes 24- or 36-inch box trees to screen the side.)
>Could the flue go up through the chimney? (Gilson: The size of the top of the chimney would not be
large enough unless the shroud is expanded.)
>Why was having the two 2-foot small windows rejected? (Gilson: Too invasive. Neighbors would be
able to look into the home. It's in a clear line of sight from 232 Burlingame Avenue.)
>Could there not be a window covering for privacy? (Gilson: It's a main focal point of the house, with the
fireplace wall and bookcases. There is a total of 35 windows and doors on this house, and that side of the
house has many windows.)
>Because there are so many windows, the blank wall stands out. (Gilson: Could have some
wrought-iron planters to break it up a bit, or stoning the chimney, or elaborate tilework. Was a design
mistake to have the windows there in the first place.)
>Question is whether it would have been approved in the first place. Would expect it would have been
an issue if proposed like this originally. Is there anything else that could be done to get more light into the
room? (Gilson: There is a 10-foot bifold glass door on the east side of the room that will allow plenty of
daylight to come in.)
>Could consider leaded or obscured glass to address the privacy concern.
>Concern is the exterior appearance, not the amount of light in the interior.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Architect's letter mentions privacy issue from the sidewalk. Does not understand what these windows
on this wall present as a privacy issue versus the large window on Clarendon.
>Would not have approved a blank wall originally. High wall windows with bookcases below is a very
traditional fireplace wall design. Commission needs to consider how it looks from the street, and it is not
approvable as it has been presented.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
d.829 Maple Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for
first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits and Conditional
Use Permits for an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e)(2) of
the CEQA Guidelines. (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 - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gary Diebel, Deibel and Company Architects, represented the applicant.
There were no Commission Questions/Comments:
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Revisions are great.
>Excellent design that speaks of Craftsman style. A current interpretation of how to accommodate
square footage in attic spaces.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
e.1660 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant
and designer; Amauri Campos Melo, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1660 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report
1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments
1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Amauri Campos Melo represented the applicant.
There were no Commission Questions/Comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the changes. Needs to specify that the windows have simulated true divided lites. Wants to
clarify that detachable grids would not be acceptable, as they do not hold up over time.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve with the
application with the following condition:
>that the window muntins be simulated true divided lites.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
f.1615 Ralston Avenue, 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). (Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer;
Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report
1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments
1615 Ralston Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tom Saviano represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Drafting error still showing 4 x 4 rafter tails. (Saviano: Can make that correction.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>All the changes that were requested have been made.
>Plans need to to specify simulated true divided lites.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve with the
application with the follwing condition:
>Plans shall indicate that the window muntins shall be simulated true divided lites.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
g.2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit to enlarge an exiting second -story deck at a single-family residence.
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant ot CEQA Guidelines 15301 (e) (1). (Panko Architects, Stan Panko, applicant
and designer; Tom O' Brien, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal
2516 Valdivia Way - Staff Report
2516 Valdivia Way - Attachments
2516 Valdivia Way - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Stan Panko, Panko Architects, represented the applicant.
There were no Commission Questions/Comments:
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion:
>Cable rail system will be a good choice. The neighbor should be happy with it.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback
Variance, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and
architect; Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report
717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments
717 Neuchate Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Would the metal porch railing need to be higher than 24 inches? (Davis: Only if it is higher than 30
inches from grade. Will note on the site plan.)
>What is driving the placement of the dormer window in front of the bathtub in the master bathroom?
(Davis: Exterior appearance, so it would look less horizontal.)
>Variance application could be strengthened with referencing extraordinary conditions of small lot. The
standard setbacks and block average requirements are based on a typical lot. This lot is less than 3,500
square feet. Furthermore the house is built as it is, and in order to keep the bedrooms as they are the
circumstances could support a variance.
>Where did the average front setback calculation come from? (Davis: A neighbor was doing a remodel
and had a surveyor prepare a survey the block. 19'-6" is the prevailing block average from the survey.)
>Porch seems deep. Is there a possibility of having the porch be partially recessed into the house, and
just a 3-foot projection forward, just to reduce the depth of the porch projection? The recessed garage
makes the porch feel like it is projecting even more. Perhaps even just 18 inches. (Davis: Existing porch
has enough depth to have a 3-foot arched opening on either side. Arches would be squished if it the porch
were pushed back.
>Why does the right-hand side wall on the family room not have any windows? It does not seem like it
would have a privacy issue with neighbors. (Davis: Can look at it. Was designed to accommodate book
shelves inside. The adjacent neighbor to the right reviewed the plans specifically to make sure nobody
could see their side, and they were fine with what is proposed.)
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes project, including the porch. Does not think it will be very intrusive.
>Minor quibble: dormer seems to clutter an otherwise nice simple design, but it is not very visible so is
not critical.
>Family room wall was a concern but it can't be seen. Would not make it unapprovable.
>The wall in the family room would provide a place for a television, since there are the glass doors
across the back.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
b.133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit
for building height for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim
Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC,
property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
133 Crescent Ave - Staff Report
133 Crescent Ave - Attachments
133 Crescent Ave- Historic Resource Analysis Report
133 Crescent Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she lives within 500 feet of the property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>It is a traditional style but has been broadened. Has there been consideration of changing materials
between first and second floor? Or some kind of articulation such as a flair line, or trim with dentils and
corbels. (Raduenz: Would be open to it. Tried to do something at the bottom with the clinker brick and
the band. Would be open to doing a flare with the trim detail at the second floor line.)
>Have the concerns in the neighbor's letter been addressed? (Raduenz: Yes. Will make the change to
the landscaping and get a letter from the neighbor.)
>Sheet 3.1 the driveway elevation looks like it is the same as the left side elevation. (Raduenz: Will
correct it.)
>Was 9' first floor/8' second floor considered? (Raduenz: Looked at it, but the design has been
patterned off of a remodeled house on Poplar Avenue in San Mateo Park with the same proportions.)
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There are a lot of lines on the drawing, it is confusing to read. Would like to see a model, or photos of
the inspirational house. (Raduenz: Had submitted a model to staff.)
>If there is precedent with a house in San Mateo Park it would be helpful to see photos.
>Why is there a curved wall in the back from the first floor to second floor. (Raduenz: It is a detail to
create some flow. Could make it more rigid and square off the cap, or put more detail on it.)
>Would suggest more parity to the windows in Bedrooms #3 and 4. Bedroom #2 has nice windows on
two sides of the bedroom. The elevation on Sheet A 3.0 shows a spot above the Living Room window to
put a bedroom window in that corner. On Bedroom #4 where the curve detail is, it accentuates a blank
spot; perhaps a window facing the back yard. (Raduenz: Bedroom #4 can be done, Bedroom #3 might
have impacts on neighbors. Will take a look at it.)
>Tension in the center window above the front porch pediment. Could the sill be raised in line with the
other two windows? The bottom of the casing is touching the top of the ridge. (Raduenz: Yes.)
>Needs to see a roof plan. (Raduenz: Will include in the next round, as well as the 3-D rendering.)
Public Comments:
Joe Holmes: Adjacent on the south side. Spent some time with the applicant on the positions of the
windows. Matched the placement so they are not staring at each other, particularly on the second floor .
Large redwood in back is next to property line is uplifting the patio and fence, would like to have it
removed.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Confused by the design. Seems broad at the front, and would be a big house for the neighborhood. A
lot of the houses in the area are broken up more. This seems like it would overpower the block compared
to the other homes. House seems to be more appropriate for a wider lot with more room in front.
>Could change materials between the first and second floor or adding a flare would be helpful.
>Not as supportive of special permit. Lowering the plates to a more standard height would reduce the
height. With the large roof form there is room for the second floor to have vaulted ceilings to make it more
spacious.
>Other houses in the neighborhood have second stories tucked more into the rooflines, including the
neighboring house to the right. The neighboring house could be overpowered by this house, so would be
hard to grant the special permit for height.
>Has approved a similar design previously, but it was broken down with two layers.
>Most of the front porches in the neighborhood have larger sitting areas.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
c.212 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing two -story single family dwelling. (Steve Lesley, applicant and
architect; Jason and Anya Sole, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine
Keylon
212 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
212 Howard Ave - Plans- 08.13.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Steven Lesley represented the applicant, with property owner Jason Sole.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>When were the existing vinyl windows installed? Particularly the windows over the garage? (Sole:
Those were installed prior to purchasing the house.)
>Would the new windows be white vinyl, or would they be painted to match the existing windows? (Sole:
Yes, match existing as much as possible.)
>Why vinyl windows? To match the existing windows? (Sole: Correct.) Would need to see the
specifications of the proposed windows.
>The existing house has more charm and character than what is conveyed in the elevations. Eaves
should show the exposed rafter tails. Space between the head of the garage door and the corbel brackets
is larger than what is shown. The house has more character than what the drawings convey, and hope the
addition will capture some of the same character.
>Some of the existing windows appear to be in disrepair. Should step up the quality of the windows on
the addition, in an effort to possibly replace all the others later. Will be happier in the long run. A wood
window clad on the exterior is close to the same cost as a good quality vinyl window.
>Top left wall is lacking windows, looks stark. Will be very visible from the side street. (Sole: There is
a closet along that side .)(Lesley: Could add a window in the shower, but would prefer to avoid having a
window in the closet. Concern with clothes being faded.) Suggest a low -e window in the closet, should not
have a problem with fading of clothes. Natural light can be desirable in a closet. (Sole: Open to having
more windows on the left side to provide balance.)
>The addition looks really tall. Consider a lower plate height. 8'-1" would look better from the exterior;
the ceilings could be vaulted to provide height inside.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Roof plan indicates a jumble. Hard to understand how the addition is organized. The existing building
is straightforward but the addition gets highly complicated.
>Not understanding the windows, but it's based on the floor plan and interior layout.
>Details can be best addressed with a design review consultant.
>Direction for the design review consultant: plate heights, window selection and placement, capturing
some of the character and charm of the existing structure in the addition, and simplifying the addition .
From the front, the addition looks like it is looming over the house; bringing down the plate heights and
simplifying the roof forms should help it better integrate with the rest of the structure.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
d.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Permit and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential
condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect;
Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (387 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report
1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments
1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Chair Gaul was recused from this item as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Casey Feeser of Levy Design Partners, architect, and Chris Ford of CFLA, landscape architect,
represented the applicant, with Vincent Joutain, representing the developer.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How do cars circulate in and out of the site? (Feeser: There is one drive aisle that provides access to
the garage, which will contain two standard parking spaces with the remaining spaces provided in a
mechanical puzzle stacker.)
>On sheet A3.1, the East Elevation, the shadow lines on second story shows a recess, but doesn't
show on floor plans. (Feeser: There may be an error on the building elevation. Will look into this and
make corrections if necessary.)
>There may be a drafting error on sheet A 0.7, drawing #4, think you meant to say plan unit 7, not 3-7.
(Feeser: That is correct, we will revise the plan.)
>What is the path of travel to dispose of garbage? (Feeser: Garbage room is located on ground floor
next to lobby. Residents would access the garbage room using the stairway and main corridor on the
second floor, through the lobby and into the garbage room; there is also an exterior door in the garbage
room to take the garbage /recycling bins out to the street. Residents in Unit 8 could use the main corridor
or the exterior pathway along the right side of the building.)
>Is the rounded stairway at the front of the building open air? (Feeser: Most of the stairway is covered
by the deck above; only a portion is open air.)
>The pedestrian use and character section of the Downtown Specific Plan encourages a pronounced
entrance with some definition. Looks more like a side entrance, is small in scale and has no weather
protection. Encourage revisiting the design of this element. (Feeser: Will revisit design to create a better
entry.)
>What is the thought with the composite wood on the west elevation? Why is the geometry arranged as
it is? (Feeser: Have used a few different composite products that can be looked into including Resysta
and Cali Bamboo. The proposed geometry seemed to have the right amount of playfulness, but still tied
everything together.)
>What is the thought with the turret at the front? (Feeser: There are a lot of buildings in the area with a
stair feature at the front facade. This was our way of incorporating the stair feature, which would have
lighting coming out from the top.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Programmatically the project is supportable.
>Slight reduction in scale.
>Have precedent that supports the concept for the parking.
>Parking is now at grade, with ample space for parking based on the street this project is located on.
>Similar questions with the front turret element. Seems foreboding, not inviting. Does not celebrate the
entry. For the sake of visitors would like it to be more inviting.
>Likes the palatte of materials on the west elevation, but the geometry seems a bit random and
jumbled for the context of the neighborhood; should be revisited.
>Support for building height, particularly with fourth floor being stepped back. It is well articulated and
presents itself as a three-story building.
>Encourage possibilities for common outdoor space, such as vegetable gardens if there is enough light
and air.
>Nice project but needs to calm down. West facade interplay of materials works, but does not need the
geometry.
>Entrance turret is not working, should revisit.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to bring the item
back on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
All accepted.
a.834 Crossway Road - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a
previously approved Design Review project.
834 Crossway Rd - Memorandum
834 Crossway Rd - Attachments
Attachments:
b.825 Edgehill Drive - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a
previously approved Design Review project.
825 Edgehill Dr - MemorandumAttachments:
c.1500 Cypress Avenue/101-105 El Camino Real - FYI for requested revisions by the
Planning Commission for a previously approved 4-unit residential condominium project.
1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 ECR - Memorandum
1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Plans - 08.13.18
Attachments:
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018
August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d.1697 Broadway - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
1697 Broadway - Memorandum
1697 Broadway- Attachment
Attachments:
e.772 Walnut Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
772 Walnut Ave - MemorandumAttachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:23 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 August 13, 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 August 23, 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 $551.00, 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 17City of Burlingame Printed on 10/10/2018