HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.06.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 8, 2015
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m.
a.FYI Applications and Protocol
The commissioners reviewed the document "Design Review - How to Process Changes After Project
Approval" dated July 10, 2008. Direction provided was to retain the list and procedures, with the
following changes:
>Change of window grid that is inconsistent with the other windows and /or the style of the house
should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
>The Conditions of Approval and approved plans should be reviewed and acknowledged by the
property owner, architect /designer, and contractor prior to issuing a Building Permit. Planning staff
should develop a mechanism for documenting such review, possibly in coordination with the approval
letter.
Direction was to draft amendments to the 2008 document and bring back to the Planning Commission
for a public hearing. Desire is for the public to be aware of the procedures and provide input.
b.Renderings for Project Applications
Commissioners noted that renderings can be helpful for reviewing projects, but can represent an
expense to a project and may not be warranted in all instances. Renderings can also be helpful to the
public in understanding plans of proposed projects. Direction was given to:
>On the Design Review application check list, include renderings as an optional but suggested item.
>Planning Division should maintain a book of sample, representative renderings to guide applicants
on how renderings should be depicted. For example, a rendering should be from a perspective viewpoint
(rather than axonometric or isometric), and ideally should show neighboring buildings and landscaping.
c.Planning Division Workflow and Agenda Management
Planning application data was shared with commissioners, showing that current year is on track to have
highest volume of applications since 2008. Implication is that Planning Commissioner meeting agendas
may become more crowded, or applications will need to be put on a wait list until there is room on a
meeting agenda.
"Rule of thumb" has been to have no more than four Action items and four Design Review items on each
agenda; commissioners indicated they would be willing to expand agendas to five Action and five Design
Review items.
Some commissioners indicated they could accept an earlier meeting start time, but some indicated 6 PM
would be difficult. 6:30 could be a possibility.
Scheduling additional meetings was suggested, but would present a logistical challenge for
administrative staff under current conditions. Additional meetings could be revisited once an additional
part-time administrative assistant is hired. The position is currently in recruitment.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.May 26, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Approved with the following edit:
>Item 9a (1715 Toledo Ave), page 11, 8th bullet, add "and should match elevations."
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve as
amended the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.4 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1 - Application for a One-Year Extension of a previously
approved design review project for a new single family dwelling and attached garage
(Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer; Christopher Awoyinka and
Suzanne McGovern, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused for non-statutory reasons.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 -
Recused:Sargent, and Terrones2 -
b.1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 – 1025 Rollins Road – Resolutions
recommending to the City Council Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), and action on an application for a Condominium Permit and Tentative
Condominium Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for multi -family use and
building height, Special Permits for vehicular access within the 20-ft. setback adjacent
to the south property line & for building height within 100 ft. of the south property line,
Demolition Permit Exception, and Fence Height Exception for a new 268-unit
residential apartment building and 22-unit residential condominium project
(SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; SummerHill Apartment Communities;
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Stucker Family Trust and Oscar F. Person Testamentary Trust, property owners) (134
noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Commissioner Sargent abstained, as he was absent from the meeting. Planning Manager Gardiner
noted a typo in the resolution that the date of the plan set should indicate May 19, 2015.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Abstain:Sargent1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for approval of an
as-built trellis at the rear of the house (Peter Jaunich, applicant and property owner;
MH Architects, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini and Terrones reported that
they had each met with applicant on site, Commissioner Gum had met with neighbor previously, and
Commissioner Sargent had watched the video but did not go to back yard. Commissioner Loftis reported
that he had not visited the back yard.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Peter Jaunich represented the applicant.
>Does not need side setback variance - trellis complies.
>Plate height is related to height of window and door. Five stairs go down to the deck. The height is
not arbitrary, it is designed to clear the windows and doors of the house.
Public comments: None
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Previous concern was variance, but that is not required.
>Given that the trellis is an open structure, OK with it exceeding standard plate height, particularly
with accounting for the stairs.
>Neighbor who had a big issue with it no longer has an issue with it.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
b.1601 Sanchez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special
Permits for attached garage and basement ceiling height for construction of a new,
two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and
architect; Bryant McLaughlin, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief conversation with the
neighbor to the right. There were no other ex parte communications.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Yossi Zinger, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.
>No typical garage pattern on the block.
>Garage flipped to right side to allow living areas to have best sun.
>A similar metal roof being constructed in the Easton Addition currently. Is light, not shiny, not
disruptive.
>Ribbon window is a common approach for getting light into the house.
Questions of applicant:
>Possible historic significance to the existing house? (Zinger: No.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Nice update to a traditional form.
>Does not agree with assessment of attached garage. Not sure this is a neighborhood where an
attached garage can be approved.
>Neighborhood context for attached garage - windshield survey indicated 12 detached, 7 attached
(not including corners). The design guidelines do not have a particular ratio.
>Driveways can provide distance between houses. Do not have to be given to cars, can also serve as
a useful space.
>Houses next door to each other both right up to setbacks.
>Rationale for having garage on the right is compelling given size of adjacent house.
>Metal roof on the house on Bernal Avenue looks good. Concerned with metal roofs in future if they
are bright colors, but fine if a neutral color.
>Shed roof over garage does not help. A flat roof that extends the line of the porch across with a
trellis above the garage would be helpful.
>Troubled to see existing house go away, would prefer to retain same form. House to right has an old
Burlingame feel.
>There is sufficient precedent in the neighborhood for an attached garage. Handles attached garage
nicely, is set far back from street.
>Awning is a mistake - looks flimsy, afterthought, not an integral part of the house.
Discussion of motion:
>Approximately 1/3 of the houses on street have attached garages. Well integrated with the house
according to the City's guidelines.
>Majority of the basement height is below grade.
>Awning does not need to be addressed specifically.
>Dissent - point of design guidelines is to try to perpetuate garages to be in the rear.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gaul, and Bandrapalli4 -
Nay:Gum, Sargent, and Terrones3 -
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.1440 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a fence exception for a rear
masonry fence (J.Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Jane and Barry Shiller,
property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project site. DeMartini reported that he had met with the applicant in
their back yard, and met with the City Arborist in the easement. Commissioner Terrones met with the
applicant to get access to the back yard, and Commissioner Bandrapalli met the applicant.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Is the maximum fence height the same for R -1 and R-3? (Barber: Yes. Fences are not required; the
height is only to limit the fence if there is one.)
>What is the status of the code enforcement for the paving over the easement? (Barber: A violation
would need to be observed. Cannot require a fence.)
>Can the City require that the paving be removed? (Kane: Yes, if there is an encroachment onto a
city easement. However there are no current administrative proceedings pending.)
>Precedent for any fences of this height? (Kane: Only a few precedents.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant and Jane and Barry Shiller represented the property owner:
>Trees were planted for privacy, but the trees are damaged and will be removed.
>Trying to get screening back. Will take vines time to grow up and over fence. Fence will afford
privacy until vines grow.
>Is a special permit, not a variance.
>Apartment behind is tall.
Commission questions:
>How will privacy be improved by 12 foot fence when 30-foot trees are being removed? (Deal: Trees
will not survive much longer. Are already thinner than had been previously.)
>City arborist does not say the trees will die. He said the trees are more susceptible to disease, and
the cut limbs will not recover, but did not say they would die. (Deal: Drought is causing trees to be
stressed.)
>10-15 feet of dead branches are providing some privacy. (Deal: Does not believe dead limbs should
be relied on for privacy.)
>When did the trimming occur? (Jane Shiller: October/November 2011. Wants masonry wall for
protection from apartment parking lot.)
>How long has the fence been leaning? (Jane Shiller: Within the last couple of years.)
>How long have the trees been stressed? (Jane Shiller: Within last year.)
>Have trees been pruned in the past? (Jane Shiller: Yes, but had not in the last four years. Was not
aware that branches were a problem on the other side of the fence .)(Barry Shiller: PG&E also trimmed
the trees regularly.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Pine trees in general are very vulnerable. These trees appear stressed.
>Wall is response to issue with the trees and maintain privacy, not a desire to build a wall.
>An 11 or 12-foot fence will not solve the problem.
>Code Enforcement should push the issue with parking encroachments. Removing pavement would
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
not help as people would still park on dirt - would need bollards.
>Does not believe trees will die.
>Concerned that when trees come down, will still have a view of the apartment building and wall will
not provide privacy.
>Could relandscape with new trees, and put up a temporary fence until trees grow.
>Concerned that if this is approved, there will be more taller walls elsewhere.
>No other CMU walls on alley. They are all redwood fences. If others used CMU it would begin to
look industrial.
>There are plantings that give immediate screening. Bamboo can be purchased tall.
>With a big wall won't be able to put in trees in the future since the trees will compromise the wall.
>Prefer standard fence and retain trees, or replace trees and utilize bamboo.
>Can make fence height findings - will not negatively impact neighbors. Easement is adjacent.
>Can something other than what is proposed be approved? (Kane: Can propose a different height, or
can be continued with direction.)
Commissioner Gaul made a motion to deny the application without prejudice. The applicant can come
back with a revised design. Commissioner DeMartini seconded the motion.
Commission discussion:
>Cannot support the motion. Believes findings can be made.
>Concerned with precedents, but each application looks at circumstances. Circumstances are
extraordinary in this instance. Others in the block may not have the same circumstances.
>This is the only instance where there is not a fence on the adjoining El Camino Real property.
>Others will have to look at the fence, not just the apartment building.
The motion failed 3-4-0-0.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Action Item. There was no further discussion, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli4 -
Nay:DeMartini, Gum, and Gaul3 -
d.1811 Adrian Road, zoned RR - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permits for use and floor area ratio and Parking Variance for a self
storage use within an existing commercial building (Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage
Inc., applicant; Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc ., designer; Public Storage Inc .,
property owner) (22 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini, Gaul, Terrones, Bandrapalli,
and Gum met with the applicant and their consultant on the project site.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage, represented the applicant:
>Designed to provide a retail presence.
>Willing to provide the drought-tolerant landscaping requested.
>Obsolete building with only four truck docks and substandard clear height.
>Not enough parking for retail.
>Code has been changed for over 10 years and there is limited desire for auto uses.
>Goodwill will remain as tenant until 2030 at rear of site.
>10% of customers are commercial users.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions:
>Had offered to provide financial analysis previously. Has that been prepared? (Fitzpatrick: Did not
get to do it. Believes project provides an economic benefit. Commercial users do not have to store on
site. Will bring consumers into Burlingame for restaurants, goods and services.)
>Questions why auto use cannot be accommodated? Had not seen property listed for lease. What
data has convinced owner that auto uses are not interested in the property or area? Is it currently being
marketed? (Fitzpatrick: Has owned it since 1999, has been vacant and has not received any
auto-related requests. Wilco was tenant for past 5 years, had been occupied for about 50% of the time
before that. Property is empty and is not being marketed currently.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Reasonable use for the property. Will have some retail space for packaging.
>There is a demand for the use, will enhance the building.
>Will provide some identity for the end of Adrian Road.
>Parking variance supported because space is not fully occupied by employees. Handful of
employees, and visitors to storage units on a lighter scale than light industrial or heavy industrial.
>This is a light industrial and warehouse neighborhood.
>Mitigated negative declaration has made proper findings and can be supported. Only impact is on
the property is noise from the airport, but no impacts from the property to surrounding properties.
>Can be supported in that there will be no negative impacts on surrounding neighborhood, and
parking variance supported based on parking study demonstrating unique use different from other
warehousing uses with more limited number of visitors.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Nay:DeMartini1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.816 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing accessory structure (Pearl
Renaker, designer and applicant; Michelle and Michael Chrisman, property owners )
(60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and
toured the property.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Pearl Renaker and Michael Chrisman represented the applicant:
>Has talked to neighbor, can flip-flop floor plan to avoid views of bedroom windows.
Commissioner questions:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Talked to other neighbor to see if it could be flipped? (Chrisman: Has seen initial plans, but was not
home when discovered issue with wanting to flip the plan.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Understands simplicity of design but it seems top-heavy - perched on top of a ranch house.
>Eave brackets make sense but are not used consistently. Why not also add to the first floor of the
back of the house?
>Overly simple design, seems like it is a layer on a layer.
>Knee braces suggest a bungalow or craftsman. With extended portico reminded of an "airplane
bungalow" where a piece is perched on top and spans, and has a piece that comes down to the ground
floor to integrate the addition better.
>There is a lot of "forehead" between top of second story window and gable peak on the front. Could
add gable vents or wood siding.
>Doesn't embrace ground floor at all.
>Would benefit from design review consultant.
>Can make findings for other permits, including recreation use and toilet and shower.
>No issues with glazed openings - no privacy issues.
>Existing condition has been there for an extended period - no complaints from adjacent neighbors.
>Modifications being made to bring the property compliant with code.
>Should not be used as residential living space. Should include with Conditions that it will not be used
as a living space.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the
Discussion Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
b.616 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Lot Coverage
Variance for first and second story additions (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant
and designer; Joshua and Hilary Henshaw, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul visited the neighbor at 1612 Vernon
and viewed the project from his back yard and deck. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor to the
left.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal and Joshua and Hilary Henshaw represented the applicants:
>Trying to keep the charm of the street, be least obstructive to neighbors.
>Garage is into the right setback, back is into the rear setback already. Already over maximum lot
coverage.
>Proposal will reduce coverage from what exists today with the shed included.
>Will reduce the bulk on the second floor with the increased first floor.
>Wants higher ceiling in Living Room/Dining Room.
>Porch adds about 74 sq ft to the lot coverage.
Commissioner questions:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Rear neighbor has concern with second floor deck. (Deal: Intent is to be able to open french doors,
not to create living space. Applicants are agreeable to eliminating it.)
>Shared plans with neighbors? (H. Henshaw: Next door neighbors, but not others.)
>Consider other locations for stairs? (Deal: Yes. Wanted to be able to look out to the side area, which
functions as a rear yard.)
>No plans to upgrade landscaping? (Deal: Not proposed.)
>Vaulted ceiling prevents moving addition further forward? (Deal: Correct. If further forward would be
looking into side yards.)
Public comments:
Pat Tyler spoke on this item, 615 Lexington Way:
>Residents since 1977. Located directly behind 616 Vernon Way.
>Letter and photos in packet.
>Existing house is already inconsistent with others in the neighborhood.
>Existing awkward design makes solutions difficult.
>Neighbors to the rear on Lexington Way are part of the neighborhood too.
>Backloading addition to rear of house will highlight lack of rear setback.
>Application for Variance should be denied.
Ray Tyler spoke on this item:
>Awkward design of existing house brings backyards in close proximity.
>Rear balcony would be privacy impact.
Russ Cohen spoke on this item:
>Once in a while a house exists that can't be added onto. This is one of them.
>Lot coverage is already over the allowed amount.
>Not against well-designed second story additions.
>Current front entry is considered awkward, but proposed porch is more awkward. Column is
underscale for the mass and bulk of the new design. The door with the two sidelites is over designed for
the style of the house and out of character with the neighborhood.
>Lacking detail. Stacked stone is decoration without context for design of the house.
>Window sizes are out of proportion to the house and to each other.
>Not clear what style the house is meant to be.
>No architectural integrity in the design or materials, and is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Resident at 600 Vernon Way spoke on this item:
>Also plans to submit a similar application for an addition.
>Believes this proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood.
>Hopes it is representative of direction neighborhood is going.
Hunter Middleton spoke on this item:
>Lives across the street.
>Is in favor of the design, feels it is in character with the neighborhood.
>Also plans to submit a similar application for an addition.
Jerry Deal spoke for the application:
>Many houses have been approved with a 20-foot rear setback.
>Small lot. Factoring garage there is not a lot of living space.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Does not think moving addition forward is the right solution.
>Will eliminate balcony at back.
>Only one bedroom proposed upstairs.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>House fits neighborhood, and there are precedents for second stories in the neighborhood.
>Not convinced by variance, doesn't see unique circumstances. Seems there are other design
solutions that could work without variance.
>Would like to see it come back but without the variance.
>Lot size is not a sufficient justification for variance.
>Ironic that porch is a benefit to the house, but requires variance. Second floor comes down and
touches ground, which improves design but causes additional lot coverage. However not sufficient
exceptional circumstances for variance.
>Storage shed cannot be counted since it was not permitted.
>The variance is not causing the conflict with the neighbors, but has a problem with justification for
the variance.
>Second floor addition is greater than the minimum setback.
>Extraordinary circumstance is that it is a courtyard house.
>Front porch is not elegant, seems jammed in the corner.
>Stairwell windows seem too big for the size of the house.
>Should upgrade landscaping, does not match a two-story house.
>Should share plans with neighbors.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
c.1460 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance for a major renovation including a first and second floor addition to an
existing single family dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Raymond Han,
property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject
property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum reported he had met with
the neighbor to the left. Commissioner Terrones met with the neighbor to get access to the rear yard .
Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the neighbor and the applicant.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Yossi Zinger, TRG Architects, represented the applicant:
>Maintaining style of the house.
>Retaining existing Living Room portion as it is.
>Wants to add porch facing front rather than side.
>House is further forward than others on the street. Porch would project no further than existing
setback.
>Landscaping will be retained.
>Replace tandem parking with side-by-side garage.
Commission questions:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Landscape plan is sparse. There is a lot of existing concrete. Understands plan is to work on
landscaping after the work on the house is completed? (Zinger: Correct.)
>Has a landscape plan been prepared yet? (Zinger: No, focus has been on the house.)
>The existing house has clipped corners on the gable end and on the new garage, but why not the
additions. They would continue the style of the existing house matching up with the garage, would give it
a different flavor compared to others on the block.
>Vent over front window is architectural but also probably functional. Could include that over the new
front Living Room window as well. (Zinger: Attic over Living Room has been reduced. Wants to have
high ceiling over Living Room. Clipping gable would impact interior space.)
>Apparently this house is at low portion of the block; there are problems with water collecting. Any
mitigation to runoff? (Zinger: Has not had a civil engineer or professional to look at it. Will need to
reconstruct sidewalk as part of the project, can level it better.)
>Will applicant be coming back with landscape plan later? Shows some new landscaping on the plan .
(Zinger: Minimal, related to garage and front walkway changes. Otherwise does not affect existing
landscaping.) Would be preferable to consider landscaping now at same time as house.
>Second story window in front seems too low. (Zinger: Rendering shows it raised, will be fixed.)
There were no further questions of the applicant.
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Should drainage issue be addressed to the Stormwater Division? (Barber: Will notify Engineering
Division.)
>Well-done addition, cleverly massed, captures upstairs space without adding a full second floor.
>Well composed and asymmetrical, does not seem forced.
>Right side gable element is very nicely composed.
>Porch is better than existing but not sure variance can be supported.
>Cannot support exacerbating condition that is already out of compliance.
>Porch could be too close to the street.
>Building could be better with porch moved back. Only needs to be pushed back 2 1/2 feet. Existing
facade is nice because of the different planes.
>Difference could be absorbed through rest of floorplan.
>Porch at 19'-4" (block average) would not require a variance. Could reduce front porch, foyer, and
maybe a bit of the bedroom.
>Project should return but without the variance request.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
d.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Environmental scoping and Design Review for an
application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use
Permit for building height, and Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new
3-story commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property
owner; Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Barber
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>In the future if the retail space changed to office, the parking requirement would change. Could that
happen and how would the requirements be adjusted? (Barber: Would be a problem since parking
requirement for office use is higher than retail use. Would likely need to come back to the Planning
Commission at that time. Could not be approved administratively.)
>Is there a variance application for the parking reduction on file? (Barber: Left out of packet by
mistake. Will obtain.)
>Guidance on analyzing the methodology of the parking study? Are these generally accepted
standards? (Barber: The study references the ITE manual, which is generally accepted as a reference
tool. Has been reviewed by staff engineer and determined it is consistent with industry standards. Will be
further peer reviewed by a third party in environmental review.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Franco Zaragoza, Toby Levy Design Partners and Demitrios Sogas, represented the applicant:
>Site well connected to downtown and Caltrain, directly across the street.
>Entry lobby off of Howard and East Lane to create pedestrian-friendly experience.
>Wanted to define front yard on East Lane so that the Myrtle side could have a larger setback .
Pedestrian plaza next to the retail space.
>Parking tucked behind the lobby. Garage entrances off East Lane and Howard.
>Upper floors with flexible layout to accommodate multiple tenants. Every floor would have exterior
decks for connection to outside.
>Roof terrace.
>Height kept within 45-foot building height to parapet.
>Needs 13-foot floor-to-floor for the office floors to have space for mechanical uses. Would get 9 feet
clear typically.
>Wood paneling system on exterior for sunscreens along all three elevations. Vertical and horizontal
sunscreen system.
>Metal panels with three different colors, and a fourth accent color.
>Concrete and glass on ground floor.
>Sun study has been prepared and no shading on adjacent properties except north neighbor.
Commission questions/comments:
>Is the wood paneling real wood? (Zaragoza: It is a composite.)
>Variance findings need to be made to justify reduction in parking. If it is only because it is next to
Caltrain, that would apply to all properties in this area. Variance findings require unique circumstances .
(Zaragoza: Ground floor elevation is tall to accommodate parking stackers. Could add another stacker
for three additional spaces if uses change.)
>Height concerns include how it fits into neighborhood. There are not a lot of buildings that height in
this area - just an apartment building at Myrtle and Burlingame Avenue.
>Suggestion for flipping setbacks makes sense. Better for transition to residential neighborhood.
>Will there be soil studies? (Zaragoza: Yes. Has not found anything with initial soil borings. Expects it
to be full removal of the tanks. Not expecting much .)(Sogas: Phase I and II have been completed. No
case will be opened. Some soil needs to be removed.)
>Who anticipates to be tenants? (Sogas: Has not marketed it yet until further along. Can be split
multiple ways. Financial services, VC, tech. Lots of tenants want to be in this area in a Class A building.)
>Encourages retail tenant that brings life to street.
>Site and corner is important. Reference other corner buildings in town.
>Will glazing be translucent? (Zaragoza: Yes.)
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>What will gesture be for corner? (Zaragoza: Transparent corner.) Encourages stronger corner.
>Three stories can be made to work if the architecture is right.
>How many occupants? (Brett Barron, Capital Realty: Office market is very tight. Potential tenants
want to take train, don't want to drive. Vacancy rate downtown is less than 3 percent for office. Numbers
of people depends on how space is laid out. 10,000 sq ft floor plates.)
>Shower accommodations? (Zaragoza: Yes.)
>Would public access to the roof deck be provided? (Sogas: It would be accessible, but has not
considered it. Physically accessible, depends how the building is leased.)
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Senior Planner Barber noted letters were received from Mr. Wald (included in staff report) and Jennifer
Pfaff (received after). Also noted that Phase I and II site assessments were submitted and will be
included in the hazardous materials section of the CEQA document.
Commission comments - environmental scoping:
>Potential soils contaminants should be reviewed. (Barber: Will include County letters in the report.)
>Parking needs to be considered, including current use. There is a parking issue in the neighborhood,
wants to know about existing use on the site.
Commission comments - design review:
>Good to see office space, and is a good site for it, but doesn't understand the architecture.
>Design is frenetic when it needs to be calmer. There is a lot going on. Nice examples of small,
elegant office buildings built in Palo Alto in recent years.
>Consider going down two stories with parking. Frees up ground floor for other activities.
>Close to downtown, will be an important building.
>Great location for the use, and replacement of existing use. TellApart building next door has been a
good precedent.
>Likes the front facade, but not the Myrtle/Howard side.
>Retail will be tricky but important.
>Would be nice to have roof deck accessible to public, but single tenant may want it exclusively.
>Parking is difficult currently. Some may be from existing auto use on site. Neighboring TellApart
building had variance in configuration but not quantity. Hard to justify parking variance just because it is
next to Caltrain.
>TellApart example initially did not have many employees in building, but over time has had
substantial increases. Layout of office spaces has changed quite a bit over the past few years, so 3 or 4
per 1000 sq ft may not be adequate; some are pushing 6 or 7 per 1000. Doesn't want to see a parking
variance in this neighborhood.
>Wants to see documents to justify plate heights.
>Addition to former garden center building on Chapin Avenue is a good example of contemporary
architecture. Calm, relaxed, not trying to do too much.
>Pedestrian realm is good but building above is a heavy mass.
>Hard to justify a variance with a brand new building. Argument is based on mitigation solutions, not
exceptional circumstances of the project.
>Patio on Myrtle will be a nice space.
>Suggest adding some benches.
>Office hoteling concept - rentable conference rooms.
>Does not seem to provide a buffer between busy downtown and calm residential. Seems as busy as
downtown. Needs something to create a buffer or blend, whether architectural or scale or mass.
>Likes swap of front and rear setbacks.
>Could step back upper floor, would reduce parking requirement.
>Likes retail on ground floor, would like more. Could consider putting some parking on upper floor to
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
June 8, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
allow more retail on ground floor.
>Not much glazing on ground floor vs. garage openings and parking walls. Not the right urban design
move. It is a parking garage with planting against it, and two small windows into the building. Not a good
extension of downtown or transition into the residential neighborhood.
>Would like to see an example of a 5-car stacker in this area.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the
application to return for another Design Review Study meeting once the project has been revised
as directed. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 1908 Easton Drive - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
b.FYI: 1901 Hillside Drive - Review of proposed changes to previously approved Design
Review project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 11:02 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 8, 2015. 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 18, 2015, 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 $485, 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 7/20/2015