HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.09.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 14, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.August 24, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the meeting
minutes with the following amendments:
>Vote tally on Item 8b is not correct. It should be 4-2-0-1.
>On Item 8b the motion regarding an FYI for the removal of the stairway from the rear
elevation was part of Commissioner Sargent's motion.
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
None.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1500 Easton Drive, Zoned R-1/R-3 - Application for Conditional Use Permit to replace
an existing wireless facility with a new wireless facility on the rooftop of an existing
church building (First Presbyterian Church of Burlingame) (Verizon Wireless,
applicant; Streamline Engineering & Design, Inc ., designer; First Presbyterian Church
of Burlingame, property owner) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
applicant. Commissioner Gum was recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of staff:
>Since this is just a CUP is there any space to comment on architectural details and screening?
(Barber: May make design suggestions.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Joseph Camicia represented the applicant.
>Filling service and performance gap.
>Had looked at other locations.
>Co-location opportunity using decommissioned Metro PCS facility.
>Residential neighborhood, but using a non-residential use that already supports wireless use.
>Stealth design with faux cupola.
>Kept cross per church and neighbor preferences.
>Screen wall around equipment area.
>Community outreach meeting was held on June 29th.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Question with sign at back of building referencing radiation, on basement level. (Camicia: Signage is
required at any access point where one might encounter the facility. It does not necessarily mean
exposure is at that specific location. It is an advisory that should someone proceed past the sign they
may reach an antenna facility. It is informational signage required by the FCC .)(Raj Mather, Hammett &
Edison: Requirements are that signs need to be installed at the antennas on the roof where levels may
exceed FCC limit. The equipment itself does not emit radiofrequency energy - it has coaxial cables
leading up to the antennas, which emit the energy. Sometimes signs get inadvertently posted on the
equipment when they shouldn't. The equipment and the room will be well below FCC limits. The sign
should be posted up on the roof near the antennas.)
>Will the existing Metro PCS equipment be removed? (Camicia: Yes. May retain some platforms and
structural foundation work.)
>Is it necessary to use the same structural foundation work? Interested in moving the screen wall
further back or using a different material. (Camicia: Will need to investigate. Can look at other locations
and architectural design treatments. Property owner is also trying to screen some other mechanical
equipment.)
>The existing signage is not related to this project, correct? Verizon has not installed any signage?
(Camicia: Correct, Verizon has not installed any equipment or signage for this project.)
Public comments:
Bill Nagel spoke on this item:
>Concern with EMF, still a highly debated issue.
>In Sweden won't put up towers near residential neighborhoods.
>Early studies concluded little risk, more recent studies have created problems. Reference a Brazilian
study.
>Facilities should not be near facilities with children.
>Replacing an antenna with <1% of emission of EMFs with a tower with antennas that will be three
times that exponentially.
>Suggestion to move it to the El Camino side, further away from the neighborhood. Least harmful
area is steeple in front. Should be further investigated.
Jennifer Callahan spoke on this item:
>Lives across the street on Balboa.
>Understands when living across from a church will have to deal with parking on Sundays and noise
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
from events. However does not expect a church to sell air space to cell carriers and become a cellular
station.
>Photo simulations are misleading, as trees are shown in full foliage. For 50% of the year trees will be
bare.
>Large box changes the look of church from the Easton and Balboa sides. Large base looks like a
furnace or air conditioner.
>Should be kept out of site, or should move away from building towards El Camino Real. There are
already boxes on the lower roofs on that side, the residents on El Camino Real are further away, there is
a big parking lot in between, and most trees on that side are evergreen.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>State prohibits commission from commenting on radio frequency. However can take aesthetics into
account.
>Roof screening takes breathing space away from main body of church and second floor of adjacent
building. The screening closes that gap. If screening needs to be there should be pushed back to align
with first jog/vertical reveal in the side wall so it relates in an architectural way.
>Interested in having applicant study feasibility co -locating equipment in front steeple. It would look
better aesthetically. The existing cross loses some of its delicate appearance with the addition of the
large base.
This is a study item so there is no action. It will return on the Regular Action Calendar at a later date.
b.1722 Gilbreth Road, zoned I -B - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Community Center (Adam Naser and Zaheer Siddiqui, applicants; Zephyr Jones,
architect; Yaseen Foundation, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
>Is there guidance in zoning or planning principles on the use of on -street public parking to meet the
needs of a private property? (Gardiner: On-street parking is available to all uses in a neighborhood .
Would not condition it for the use of one particular business.)
>Are there any examples in the City where overflow parking demand has been met with public
on-street parking? (Gardiner: Will see if there have been other examples within the City.)
>Would maximum parking requirement for special calendar event be 60 stalls? (Gardiner: 60 stalls is
for regular calendar events. Would need special arrangements such as valet for special events.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Adam Naser represented the applicant.
>Operates full-time facility in Belmont.
>Wants to increase focus on youth activities and activities for women.
>Has run programs within the existing facilities within the allowed 50 person maximum.
>Has had events for 200-250 people with special event permits. About 20 in last two years.
>Current configuration allows five events to run concurrently.
>Calendar of events shows types of uses expected.
>80 families = 80 cars. Brings children in cars.
>L and G calendars. G calendar once per month.
>Up to 292 people on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
>Similar uses in the area already.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Short overlap with peak traffic hours.
>On-site parking is adequate 95% of the time on both calendars. Two events would exceed parking
available on site: Friday prayer (17 space shortage) and once per month weekend events (10 space
shortage).
>Less on-street parking impact when compared to an office building of 0.9 FAR.
>Has done outreach with neighboring properties, held an open house.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>What would the maximum occupancy be if wildly successful and numbers were exceeded? (Naser:
Has data from 1999 to now. As community grows can raise more funds and acquire more facilities. Can
split calendar to accommodate more people.)
>Concern with "shoulder" time around 6 PM. (Naser: Traffic study considered peak period. Expects
some will stay longer, away from peak hour.)
>When there are 152 people is on-site parking still sufficient? (Naser: 17 space overflow at 152 peak
between 12 and 3 pm for a total duration of 2 hours.)
>Is there a transition period between activities to prevent overlap? (Naser: Currently runs 2 sessions
in Belmont. 35 minute activity within one-hour timeframe.)
>Given the common driveway with adjacent property, can't have a fence. How to assure neighbors
there won't be overflow into their lot? (Naser: Parking attendant can restrict parking to adjacent lot. Will
educate members not to park on neighbors' properties, tow if necessary.)
>Would encourage cooperative parking with adjacent properties that have available parking.
>Survey does not appear to show enough space on north side for stacked paraellel stalls. (Zephyr
Jones, architect: Confident there is adequate space.)
>Concerned there is not enough room for drop -off. Will take time to unload people from cars. Drop-off
area shown is a traffic lane, would back up someone behind. (Naser: This would only be during special
events. People come in staggered, not all at same time. Families ususally park and all walk through
parking lot together.)
>Concern with assumption that surrounding uses will operate at regular 8-5 office hours. (Jones: All
drop-off is on the egress. Any backup would be on site. Goal is to not encroach onto neighbor.)
>Do high school kids come from all over Bay Area? (Naser: Come from area between San Carlos and
San Bruno.)
>On occupancy charts, number of persons not as critical as numbers of cars. Should focus on
occupancy of cars and if that figure changes.
>Is parking for 5 bicycles adequate? (Naser: Can add more bike stalls if needed.)
>Has there been discussions with neighboring properties on having dedicated driveways rather than
shared? (Naser: Needs width of drvieway for parking space backup.)
>Valet parking for bigger events? (Naser: Has approached neighboring properties to discuss
possibilities. Projections are for 10 years from now, there is not an urgency now. Could add parking
structure at rear for nearly 200 cars if needed.)
>Thoughts on drought -tolerant landscaping similar to neighbors rather than artificial turf? (Naser:
Willing to exceed requirements. Three trees are required. Will consider using gray water to irrigate
landscaping when restrooms are expanded.)
>Are the strands of lights around building temporary? (Naser: Yes, temporary, for celebration.)
Public comments:
Diana Domchenko spoke on this item:
>Space for women to work out and exercise with modesty.
>Open to all women, not just cultural members.
>Place for kids to come and meet other kids from different cultures. Language classes in at least two
different languages, leadership classes, civic engagement classes.
Rola Abulhasan spoke on this item:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Has owned business on Bayshore Highway nearby since 1995.
>Leads girls' support group at Yaseen Center.
>Programs for entire familes.
>Most activities are after regular business hours. Area is mostly deserted when there.
Talal Bargouthi spoke on this item:
>Has owned business on Bayshore Highway nearby for last 20 years.
>Most activity not during business times, except sometimes Fridays. Most activities in evenings.
>Most neighbors maintain regular business hours.
>Teaching kids to socialize in a nice way.
Eman Khalil spoke on this item:
>Member of youth committee.
>Siblings enjoy being part of the center.
>Tutor to siblings and other children. Setup is more suitable than mosque for community activities.
Naser Abdelrahman spoke on this item:
>Center has contributed to his development.
>Built interest in politics through workshops.
>He and his sister attend social justice workshop each Saturday.
>Media journalism training sessions offered. After renovation will have media production room.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Can Conditional Use Permit include conditions related to numbers of cars or number of people
participating? (Gardiner: Yes. Can provide examples of other projects where the maximum occupancy is
tied to parking.)
>Use states it will be overflowing at limited periods. Why wouldn't a parking variance be required?
Concerned with overflow and needing to regulate traffic; ingress and egress is shared with adjacent
uses so can't fence off property.
>Condition the use so it can work within the boundaries and not overflow and require traffic policing.
>Applicant should consider valet parking, or stacked parking.
>Have the City look at street parking restrictions. Currently 10 pm - 6 am, change hours from midnight
- 4 am or so to open up parking that is unnecessarily restricted for too much time. Needs a restriction to
prevent overnight parking, but something less than an 8 hour period.
>Good use for the building, beneficial to the community.
>Can arrange buses for large events.
>Work with neighbors on an agreement or lease, there is a lot of parking nearby.
>No issue with use, or with building occupancy. Concern is whether there would be deficiencies with
parking, and what are the concequences to traffic at peak times. Could simplify the analysis.
This is a study item so there is no action. It will return on the Regular Action Calendar at a later date.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1533 Meadow Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Sharon R. O'Byrne, property
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this application because she lives within 500 feet of the
subject property.
All commissioners had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Previously had issue with balcony on front. Revisions have lightened it up, particularly on the side.
>Declining height request is a function of the lot and has been addressed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul6 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
b.949 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for building height and declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family
dwelling (the existing detached garage will be retained) (Kerry J. Perez Tr, applicant
and property owner; J Deal Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini was not at the Design Review
Study meeting but watched the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Deck is not affected by the flood zone.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Why are front stairs concrete? (Deal: FEMA regulations.)
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Window grids are an improvement.
>Special permit warranted for raising house being raised above flood level.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
c.325 Chapin Lane, Zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
proposed changes to a previously approved design review project for a first and
second story addition and attached garage (Nick Rogers, applicant and property
owner; Chris Spaulding, architect) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis had toured the site with the applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Nick Rogers represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Appreciates applicant coming to the Planning Commission to seek permission for changes.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Findings on the Mitigated Negative Declaration as made by the Community Development Director
are sufficient.
>Special permit findings that were made previously still stand.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
d.2940 Dolores Way, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a major renovation including a first and second story addition
to an existing single family dwelling (Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates, applicant
and designer; Sanford Lau, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini had met with the neighbor at 2930
Dolores prior to the first Design Review meeting. There were no other ex -parte communications to
report.
Catherine Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Johnny Darosa represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Changes to the front porch are good. Scale has been brought down, is not as massive.
>Additional windows on right elevation help the design.
>Concern that wood trims might become in foam or plaster, and house would look bulky. Must remain
wood.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve with
the Action Item with the following additional conditions:
1.that the materials identified on the plans as wood sill and casing, and wood molding and trim
be installed as noted and not be substituted with plaster or foam; any proposed changes to
exterior materials shall require review and approval by Planning Division staff and if needed,
Planning Commission;
2. that all new windows to be installed shall be true divided light windows or simulated true
divided light windows, as detailed in City of Burlingame Planning Division Window Guide
handout;
3. that the landscape plan be revised to include details on the planting proposed for the front
yard and the revised landscape plan shall return to the Planning Commission for review as an
FYI item.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
e.232 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition (Mark and Kathy Strem, applicant and property owners; John Matthews
Architects, project architect) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke with daughter of the neighbor to
the right.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
>Was there a landscape plan? (Barber: Projects this size do not require a separate landscape plan .
Applicants are asked to show landscape details on the site plan.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jack Matthews represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Project has improved from previous submittal.
>Only asking for design review for addition and responds appropriately to the Design Guidelines, so
is therefore approvable.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
f.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design, applicant, designer and
property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Will the front windows be changed? The front windows on the as -built elevations don't match what is
built. (Carlson: No, they match and have been installed.)
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>The as-built elevation as submitted does not match the built conditions.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action
Item with the following amendment:
>The as-built elevation comes back as an FYI to accurately reflect as-built condition on the
site.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
g.1500 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling and a Special Permit
for an attached garage (Hamed Balazadeh, BOD Design, designer; Shahram
Zomorrodi, Zomorrodi Corp., applicant and owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
Chair DeMartini noted this item is being brought forward in the agenda.
All commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones visited the property to the left, and
Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor across the street.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
>Concern from several commissioners that the story poles are not accurate. Almost appears as
though the story poles were installed backwards.
>Can there be recourse in a tree removal permit? (Kane: Commission has control over the design of
the project including landscaping. It is in the purview of the commission to look at tree issues. Arborist
reviews permits as submitted. Whereas a tree removal may be on condition it is within a proposed
building footprint, the building footprint is the purview of the Planning Commission. Impacts on trees and
plants are within purview of commission within the overall project design.)
>What if the removal permit is issued not related to a project? (Kane: If not contingent on a planning
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
permit, permit holder can exercise the right so long as the permit is valid independent of Planning
Commission action. Commission may still ask question as to whether tree would need to be removed if
conditions are changed. The right to remove the tree vests with the valid permit unless appealed through
the permit appeal process under the Tree Ordinance. Most permits that come through with planning
projects are contingent upon Planning Commission review.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Shahram Zomorrodi represented the applicant and Hamed Balazadeh represented the designer:
>Story poles have been certified.
>Existing house is a bit higher than the first floor of the proposed house, which could cause
misleading story poles.
>Has valid permit to remove tree. Has not removed tree because has been seeing if there is a way to
save it, but existing tree is not in good condition and has been advised it would need to be removed.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Will there be grids on the windows? (Balazadeh: Just minimum grids, on tops of windows.) If
Anderson 400 series should have "permanent bar" spacer bar window detail.
>Is vertical siding a sheet? (Balazadeh: Board and batten.)(Zomorrodi: Proposing hardy plank but can
also use wood.)
>Viewed story poles from adjacent neighbors? (Zomorrodi: Went around from street side, and from
roof to check view blockage, but did not go to neighbors' houses.)
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Finish on hardy plank would be OK, but concerned with corners. If breaks, hard to patch. Would
prefer wood.
>Sees hardy plank on houses throughout town, does not need to be regulated here.
>Lack of detail on exterior trim exterior. No dimension on battens. Would assume 1" x 2" applied on,
but as drawn looks like T1-11 vertical siding. Could be handled through an FYI.
>Looks like ridge pattern on story poles is backward. Not sure it would effect distant views.
>Believes building might impact distant views, from kitchen, bathroom and bedroom upstairs in house
next door.
>Should share plans with concerned neighbor.
>Felt views from across the street were not impaired but concerned with views from adjacent
neighbor.
>New arborist report seems to justify removing the tree.
>Three commissioners say the story poles are not accurate. Should verify and check with neighbor
from inside their house to prevent further delay.
>Roof plan should be submitted showing which poles are intended to be where.
>Get poles recertified, check view issues.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
h.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
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Renaker, designer and applicant; Michelle and Michael Chrisman, property owners )
(60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he had talked with the
applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Pearl Renaker represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
None.
Public comments:
None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Adds visual interest to have the three windows on top.
>No issues with the Conditional Use Permits for the accessory structure and toilet/shower.
>Glazed opening only facing fence - not a problem.
>Accessory structure use has been in existence for some time, being legalized now.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2718 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Environmental Scoping and Design Review for an
Application for Design Review, Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Variance
for Height for a new two -story single family dwelling (James Chu - Chu Design
Associates, applicant and designer; Henry and Rui Chen, property owners, Henry and
Rui Chen) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor to the right and
the facing neighbor. Commissioner Gaul spoke to the neighbor at 1308 Alvarado Avenue.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
James Chu represented the applicant.
>Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for height justified because of the site condition.
>Entry from Easton.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>House is approximately same height as existing house? (Chu: Yes.)
>Any way to retain the three large pine trees? They look healthy and significant. (Chu: Can talk to
landscape architect.)
>Expects there will be some visitors from Alvarado. Consider an entry off the patio into the Great
Room as a secondary entry? The plan could still work; it would be the character of the doors. (Chu:
Could add a porch element.)
>Any thought of adding a balcony on the second floor? Lots of houses on that block have them
looking out on the views. (Chu: Can look into it.)
>Considered a window in Bedroom #2? Would look better from the outside and make the room more
functional. (Chu: Had one originally but owner did not want it.)
>Would like to save some of the trees.
Public comments:
Marco Romani, 1381 Hillside Circle, spoke on this item:
>Over past four years there has been construction at 2710, 2714, and 2718 Easton. 2718 Easton will
improve look of neighborhood and welcomes the change.
>Concern with dust mitigation. Over past four years lots of dust blowing into yard. Kitchen is full of
dust when get home.
>Dust control measures are required such as laying hay down on dirt to make sure dust is not
generated. Make sure measures are enforced.
>Southern part of Hillside Circle will be getting red curbs so no parking will be allowed. Right now
construction workers park on circle, will need to park somewhere else.
>Will have to bring construction equipment down Alvarado, may also block 2710 and 2714 Easton.
Needs to be taken into account.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Environmental review scoping:
>Look closely at construction staging. Could mitigate by conditioning that the contractors park their
vehicles on Easton to minimize impacts on Alvarado, but construction logistics will probably need to be
from Alvarado.
>Concern with neighbors' construction not following required mitigation measures. (Kane: Neighbor
should submit code enforcement complaint to City Attorney.)
>Make sure trees are protected with tree protection measures, including those on adjacent city
easement next to the stairway.
Design:
>Extenuating circumstances with the height calculation. Sloping lot justifies variance based on how
height is calculated.
>Small house on top of slope, only one story.
>Revisit patio/porch entry at top.
>Balcony looking out over Easton would help with design.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Special Permit for attached garage makes sense. Narrow entry from top, could not have a detached
garage with slope of site.
>Front of house does not seem to fit in with location. Balcony could help it fit in.
>Low slung gable over Dining Room embraces the site, hope it stays. Adds a nice scale as going
down stairs.
This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar for action on the environmental review and project
applications.
b.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Design Review for an application for
Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for
building height, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for a new 3-story
commercial building (Dimitrios Sogas, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property owner;
Toby Levy Design Partners, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant. There were
no other ex parte communications.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the project.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant.
>Need for Class A office space near transit and the airport.
>Had neighborhood meeting in July.
>Adding back more on-street parking on street by closing existing curb cuts.
>Parking puzzle stacker parking solution - integrated system, does not utilize pits.
>Burlingame has "eclectic" architecture, not homogeneous.
>Has a presence on the street.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Why so many colors? (Sogas: Architect will provide more information.)
Toby Levy, Toby Levy Design Partners, represented the architect:
>Retail is neighborhood-serving. Three parking spaces would be assigned to retail by code.
>Parking for day-to-day users, not many visitors.
>Burlingame allows a 10% reduction for car share. Would reduce to 63 spaces.
>Water table is 16 feet, so would be hard to go further below ground. Would be expensive, would
probably make project infeasible.
>Could eliminate parking to provide all required parking but considers this less desirable.
>Plaza has been redesigned to be more accessible.
>Wants building to fit in but be distinctive for this era.
>Three colors: white, warm champagne, and wooden.
>13 feet floor-to-floor, 45-foot height total. 9-foot ceiling height for offices, not excessive.
Brian Canepa, Nelson\Nygaard, represented the parking and transportation for the application.
Commissioner questons/comments:
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Parking in new submittal has 38 stalls in basement including 4 tandem stalls, 30 stalls on the ground
level including the stackers. Are tandem stalls allowed? (Barber: Yes, if they are within the boundaries of
the Downtown Specific Plan.)
>Where does notch on North facade manifest on East Lane facade? (Levy: Will be squared off, was
left over from previous design.)
>Myrtle Road corner has wood, but turns corner and is stucco. Would there be a transition? (Levy:
Should wrap around.) Metal paneling should wrap around on East Lane side. Corners should be
anchored in three dimensions.
>Are there fewer plants compared to last design? (Levy: Neighborhood wanted to incorporate more
trees and larger-scale planting onto the east elevation.)
>Is carshare being contemplated? (Levy: Being discussed. Would like to build to 63 spaces.)(Canepa:
Van share programs exist as another option.)
>What will retail be? (Sogas: Targeted to be a service for the building such as a sandwich shop or
coffee shop. Also adding parking spaces on the street.)
>Is there a logic to the variation in materials? (Levy: Breaks down the scale, then steps it up around
corner, addresses the other side of tracks. Didn't want it to be so "button-down," wanted to be a bit
"soft-shoe" with interplay and more friendly.
Public comments:
Kevin Cullinan spoke on this item:
>Has a property at 1420 Burlingame Avenue with 30 spaces for 18,000 sq ft office. Works out. Many
of the employees ride bikes or take train.
>Based on proximity to train there will be less need for parking here.
Brett Barron, Capital Realty Group:
>Tenants in downtown offices ride their bikes from the train station.
>People are not getting in their cars as much now.
Alan Durr spoke on this item:
>Has lived in neighborhood since 1953. Lives on Anita Road.
>Beautiful building.
>Surprised with variances. Believes building belongs on the other side of Bayshore.
>Sees lots of people driving to work.
>Being near transit does not decrease amount of parking, it increases it. At 8:30 am there is no
parking in front of his house.
>No time limits to parking. If bringing in more people will need to address parking in neighborhood,
whether it be 2-hour parking limit, 4-hour, etc.
>Did not get notice for outreach meeting until day later.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>(Kane: Car share is under the discretion of the Community Development Director. Commission may
provide input.)
>(Gardiner: The car share aspect of the project is a relatively recent addition and the details are still
being put together. If it is pursued, then details will be included in the Conditions of Approval.)
>"Old school" paradigm of driving to work, vs new with trains, bikes and ride share. Fearful of
combining all issues together into one project - car share, parking stackers, etc.
>Setback variance can be supported.
>Concerned with height. 35 feet is the standard preferred height. Taller requires a Conditional Use
Permit. This is 45 feet to parapet, plus another 10 feet to mechanical.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Parking is close. 1 space per 300 square feet of office space.
>Height should be a buffer to the residential district to the east. Could cut back or step down on east
side, soften the building a bit.
>Street parking in neighborhood gets taken up. Lots of auto-related uses.
>Neighborhood is not all 2-story buildings. There is a 4-5 story building nearby, and some others. Will
not be the tallest in the area.
>Have supported parking variances in other applications when supported by a well -done parking
study.
>Car share seems like a good opportunity, so applicant should put it into the proposal so it can be
formally considered.
>Variance unusual to ask for reduction in parking count only.
>Not convinced retail does not need parking, particularly if use has not been determined.
>Not big enough building for a commuter van program.
>Liked first design better. This still looks boxy, and is busy for a building that is not very big.
>Was hoping to retain the wings on front elevation and instead change blocky mass on back. Wings
made the bulk and mass go away a bit.
>Has one too many steps on the East Lane facade. One too many materials. Wants to see a building,
not an idea. Needs to resolve change of materials at corners.
>Concern with potential noise of parking stackers.
>Carshare supportable.
>Would like more landscaping.
>Retail space would be a benefit.
>Office use is good for the location. OK with height - provides a buffer to the railroad tracks.
>There are some elements of the new design that work well such as wood area on upper floor at
Howard/Myrtle corner, and roof on that section rather than vertical elements that disappear into the sky.
>Vertical fins added some interest, slenderness. However needs a roof or some kind of termination.
>Concern with parking variance within the Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan already allows
for special parking considerations.
>More continuity around building. Wings and fins could be continued on other sides.
This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar for action on the environmental review and project
applications.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner DeMartini reported that the General Plan Update CAC met on August 26th. Discussed
areas of the city that people felt would require particular attention in the future, such as the Bayfront, El
Camino Real North, and the Rollins Road area. Some developers attended and presented concepts .
Also discussion of potential of ferry service.
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee has identified a number of items that will be coming back
before the full commission. Would also like to look at the FEMA maps; if there will be more applications
coming through with requirements to be raised above the Base Flood Elevation, might want to consider
an overlay that makes considerations for height and declining height envelope.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 1517 Chapin Avenue - Review of as-built changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
b.FYI: 860 Paloma Avenue - Review of as-built changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015
September 14, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.FYI: 305 Primrose Road - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Commercial Design Review project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:51 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 September 14, 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 September 24, 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 $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 17City of Burlingame Printed on 10/15/2015