Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.01.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 28, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent5 - Sargent, and LoftisAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development Staff Report Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Exhibit A Seifel Consulting Report Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages Public Notice Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting. b.1020 Toyon Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and 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. (Genesis King Hwa LLC, applicant and property owner; Christian Ruffat, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1020 Toyon Dr - Staff Report 1020 Toyon Dr - Attachments 1020 Toyon Drive - Plans 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. Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant, with the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >The notes specify two different window manufacturers. Has a manufacturer been determined? (Ruffat: Had originally planned on an Andersen product, but more recently changed to another manufacturer. Had not updated the notes accordingly.) Does not matter which manufacturer is selected, but should make sure the windows have simulated true-divided lites. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Has come a long way. The process has worked well, and likes the end result. >Add a condition specifying that the windows shall have simulated true divided lites. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >All of the new windows shall be either true divided lite windows or simulated true divided lite windows; The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.2721 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (accessory dwelling unit permit has been eliminated from project). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 153031 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, Inc., applicant and architect; Lin Yun Ping, property owner) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2721 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2721 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2721 Martinez Dr - Plans 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. Bill Guan, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was the size of the deck reduced, or just the usable space? (Guan: The overall size is the same, but the usable area has been reduced.) Public Comments: Martha Valle, 2715 Martinez Drive: Concern with privacy and noise from the patio, as it is adjacent to the bedrooms of the neighboring house. Not sure what a planter will do, whether it will be maintained. Cannot tell where the entrance to the downstairs family room is; if it is from the side it would be directly next to the bedrooms of the neighboring house. Would prefer an entrance be from the back or from the garage. Commission question to the applicant: >Would it be possible to have the door open through the bedroom and rear yard instead? (Guan: Does not understand the concern. There is an 8-foot setback from the property line, and a 7- to 8-foot fence, then another 8 feet to the next house. It is probably 16 feet to the neighboring house.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Applicant and designer have made changes, and has benefited from the design review process. The architecture has been simplified and fits more into the context of the neighborhood. >Removing the stone veneer and changing the materials of the banisters in the rear are improvements. >Side doors are not unusual and should not be an issue in this instance. >Deck has been reduced to a reasonable size, and there is privacy screening. The size of the deck is within the range of what is ordinarily approved. >Design review consultant has suggested a condition to require installation of irrigation in the deck planter and install screening. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >The building permit shall include a planting and irrigation plan for the planter located on the left side of the deck at the rear of the second floor; the deck planter landscaping and irrigation shall be maintained and in proper working order to sustain the privacy screening. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1448 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope and for a basement with a direct exit, for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Eric Bluestein, applicant and property owner; RDS-Residential Design Solutions, designer) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1448 Drake Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1448 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Plannner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant, with property owners Eric and Allison Bluestein. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a reason why there is not a clay tile roof given the Spanish /Mediterranean style? (A. Bluestein: Likes the style of a gray shingle roof. Based the selection on an inspiration photo.) >If this were a level lot would there still be an encroachment into the declining height envelope? (Ruffat: Does not believe there would be. It is a sloping lot, the measurement is taken from the top of curb, and the two story element on the left prompts the exception.) >Was there thought to embellishing the front porch area with an element such as a portico? (Ruffat: It reflects the design intent from the owners.) >There is a delicate quality to the front, except for the large front window. Was there consideration of sculpting at all, or perhaps scalloped corners? (A. Bluestein: It's a design preference, and has seen other examples in the neighborhood. There is a house across the street with a similar large window.) There are ways to still have a large window but break down the scale a bit, such as a turned mullion that would reference the scale of the other windows. >The fireplace box does not have a chimney. Any thought to having a chimney? (Ruffat: There was a chimney in an earlier rendition, but to save money and simplify the construction it was removed.) >The fireplace can be a nice architectural element. Right now it just looks like a bump. >How will the windows be recessed? (Ruffat: 2 x 6 walls with a 2 x 4 window jam.) >Will the plaster wrap header trim be similar to the photo that has been provided? (Ruffat: Correct.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There do not appear to have overhangs on the gable ends. Looks like it is missing something, perhaps the cove at the bottom of the gable ends could wrap around under the rake. It would provide relief and not look so flat. (Ruffat: Will probably be an exposed rafter tail. Will provide additional refinement .) Looks like thin edge of roofing on the top of a flat wall. >Given the slope of the lot, expects the basement will be exposed on the back side, not sure the exterior stair will actually happen. Not a proponent of the stair exiting from the basement, as it brings activity to the side yard rather than rear yard. That can be a potential nuisance with neighbors given how close houses are to the fences and to each other. Should prepare a site section from the front to the back and see if an entrance can be from the back instead. (A. Bluestein: Has met with the adjacent neighbor and he is aware of the stairs. He has written a letter of support.) >Landscape plan shows an A /C condenser unit in the side yard, obstructing the side stair. (Ruffat: There will be 3 feet clearance between the unit and the side.) >What is the horizontal line on the elevations between the first and second stories? (Ruffat: Meant to be smooth.) >Is the declining height envelope encroachment about 3 1/2 feet? (Ruffat: That sounds about right. It is mostly from the stair gable incursion, and a portion of the gable element on the front elevation. It's about 1 1/2 feet in each horizontal and vertical directions.) >Would it be possible to reduce the dimensions of some of the room sizes to avoid the declining height envelope encroachment? (Ruffat: Prefers to keep it as it is in the front and the stair, but can consider it.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concept is appealing. However some aspects are too two -dimensional, for example from the top of the second floor windows up it looks too flat. Seems like a lot of flat wall. >The choice of the roofing material adds to the flatness. Tile would provide more relief >For new homes, declining height exceptions have been approved to accommodate distinct, prescribed architectural styles. This house has elements of simple plantation style, but there are other elements such as the gable ends with the curved corbel that has a Spanish Revival or Mediterranean quality. >The flat front is lacking a single -story or first floor element like a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. Other two-stroy houses in the neighborhood have single -story elements that provide scale . Otherwise it creates a flat front or flat box, which makes it hard to justify a special permit for the declining height envelope encroachment. >Concern with side entrance from the basement, in potential to create a nuisance. >Fireplace would look better with a chimney element. >It looks like there is a grade differential of 9 feet. If the family room in the basement were to be moved further back, it might be possible to have access directly into the backyard. However it might no longer be considered a basement. (Keylon: Portions with 2 feet or more above grade would be counted towards floor area. As currently proposed, all of the basement is below grade so is not counted towards floor area.) >Window at the front could be OK if there is relief elsewhere. Needs to be consistent with the detailing of the rest of the house. During Commission Discussion, Commissioner Tse stepped away from the dais and did not return in time to participate in the voting on this item. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones4 - Absent:Sargent, Loftis, and Tse3 - b.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1629 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1629 Howard Ave - Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study 1629 Howard Ave - Plans 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. Questions of staff: >There is a new parking area shown on the site plan where the driveway is being widened in front of the house. Is that allowed? (Keylon: It is allowed for accessory dwelling units. If project does not contain an ADU, it is not allowed unless it's leading to a garage. Would not be allowed in this case since an ADU is not proposed.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you talked to the neighbor on the right on the corner of Howard Avenue and Occidental Avenue? Their back yard backs up against your right side of the property. (Bittle: Their side yard where the garage is really their yard, so we tried to open up also in flipping the garage to the opposite corner; creates an open space that the two properties can share. Have not talked to this neighbor.) >Have you decided on the type of stone cladding? Encourage you to choose something in the vernacular that fits the neighborhood, should not choose river rock. (Bittle: Thinking to use a natural stone, but don't have that detail yet.) >Plans call out aluminum clad windows and doors. Are you familiar with the simulated true divided lite muntins that we look for? Please add note to plans specifying type of muntins. (Bittle: Yes.) >Understand explanation of massing and trying to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Think there is support for it in looking at the massing of the houses on either side. Plate heights are 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. House is within the limit allowed. Second floor windows are tall, and there is a lot of freeboard of shingles that makes the second floor feel heavy. Will the second floor ceilings be vaulted and have volume? (Bittle: Yes, there will be sloped ceilings. Did look at lower plate heights on both floors, but it looked out of scale compared to the house on Occidental Avenue. Also used trim on the gable ends to break down the face of the house.) Should revisit reducing the second floor plate height, perhaps bringing it down to 8'-6", would help with scale as you work from freeboard below window sills to the tall windows. (Bittle: Will take a look at it.) >Like style of existing bungalow with low slung roof and wood brackets. >Existing house has tapered front columns, new house has simple square columns that look light for this design. Could you consider tapered columns with a solid base? Would make the front of the house Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pop. >Are trim boards on gable ends flat against the wall with shingle in between them or pulled out under the barge rafter? (Bittle: They are flat against the wall. Probably should transition to a clapboard between something different material.) Could look really nice if the trim was pulled out, would help the design, should consider it to make things jump out more. (Bittle: We're not too deep on the rake as shown, not enough to get the emphasis you're looking for.) >Agree that plate height should be reduced, would help bring back the Craftsman design we are losing in the existing house. >There doesn't appear to be an weather protection over the rear patio doors. Should consider an eave overhang or other detail to protect those doors from weather. (Bittle: With current waterproofing methods, it should work. Looked at adding a trellis, but decided against it because the yard is so small and want to bring light into the house. Can look at recessing it a bit, but not looking to do a full covered roof.) Public Comments: Neighbor on Occidental Avenue (name not provided): Did not review proposed plans until today. Concerned about window placement and privacy on side of house facing my home. Appreciate thoughtfulness of the size of windows and them not being located directly from my office. Would like owner to consider adding privacy hedges between houses. Less worried about first floor windows except at the rear of the house, where my kitchen sink window is located. Concerned with second floor facing daughter's bedroom. More than likely lines up with the stairwell window, which will always produce light at nighttime. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Landscape plan should be developed further. Suggestion to add landscape screening along the driveway would be helpful. >Delineate size of patio in back yard on the site plan, floor plan and landscape plan. >Should check with staff if pull-out area in driveway is allowed by code. >Revisit plate heights, particularly on second floor. Would help with overall scale; adjusting by six inches or so would help with the overall context of this house fitting in with the neighbors. >Revisit front porch columns as discussed. >Indicate size of wood trims, brackets, and corbels on building elevations. >Indicate simulated true divided lite windows on building elevations. >Encourage applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss details of the project, including adding landscape screening along both side yards of the house. >Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor on right to review alignment of the windows. Could consider making stairwell window frosted glass to reduce light impact. >Would be helpful to see alignment of windows with neighboring house to right on plans. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - c.1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1350 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1350 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1350 Columbus Ave - Plans 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. Questions of staff: >Is there a maximum a variance can exceed over the 40% limit? (Keylon: No limit. Anything from 40% to 41% can be processed as a minor modification, otherwise it would be a variance and there is no limit.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant, with property owner Rich Schoustra. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are both windows on the front being replaced? (Diebel: They are close to the existing but are being replaced.) Should be indicated as new on the plans, with specification that they have simulated true divided lites. >There is an alcove just outside the kitchen. Was there thought of having a door leading out? (Diebel: There was an existing door but there was privacy concern from the adjacent neighbor. Thinking of it more as a garden area.)(Schoustra: That side of the house is dark.) >Has there been discussion of an elevator instead of expanding the first floor? (Schoustra: Does not feel safe with an elevator with the wheelchair. Original plan did not have the deck, but the variance is driven by the deck and need for access from the wheelchair.) >Size of variance seems large. Could tighten up the ground floor a bit. (Schoustra: If the lot was flat there would not need to be a variance. The slope of the lot causes the deck to be counted towards lot coverage.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Can support the variance. The slope of the lot creates a unique condition, requiring a lot coverage variance that would not be required if the site was flat. >Second floor has been added in very cleverly, fits with the context and detailing of the existing house . It looks like it was original, including the clipped gable. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1095 Rollins Road, zoned C-1 - Application for Enviromental Scoping, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Density Bonus, and Vesting tentative and final map for a new 6-story, 150-unit apartment building. (The Hanover Company, Scott Youdall, applicant; SA Properties Company L .P., property owner) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1095 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1095 Rollins Rd - Application 1095 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1095 Rollins Rd- Renderings- 1.28.19 1095 Rollins Rd - Plans- 1.28.19 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had met with the applicant for a pre-application meeting, and Commissioner Comaroto had met with the applicant to review the project. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the percent of soft landscaping figure based on the proposed front setback or the required front setback? (Keylon: The proposed setback.) >What is new General Plan designation and zoning? (Keylon: General Commercial with a Multifamily Residential overlay allowing between 8 and 80 dwelling units per acre.) >What about the adjacent properties? (Keylon: Same.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Youdall, Hanover Company, represented the applicant, with Jonathan Ennis, BDE Architects. Commission Questions/Comments: Environmental Scoping: >What is the elevation of the site currently? (Youdall: 6 or 7 feet above sea level.) >Has there been a geotech report? (Youdall: Yes.) Are you assuming you'll be driving piles? (Youdall: No, will not be driving piles. It will have a mat foundation. Will excavate 10 feet down to where the drive aisles will be, and a bit further down for pits. Most recent consultation with the geotech and structural engineer specified a 10-foot mat slab with folds in the mat for the pit.) >Will dewatering be required once the building is completed? (Youdall: Assumes dewatering during construction, but not waterproof post -construction. Does not assume an active dewatering system once construction is completed.) >Will there be a traffic study? (Youdall: Conducted a feasibility traffic study earlier; it showed traffic going straight out to Rollins Road and Broadway up to the freeway. It will be further studied in the environmental review.) General Plan Amendment and Design Review: >The zoning change would be supported if this was determined to be an appropriate location for this type of project. Believes it is; it would be a great use for this area. Adding additional housing units next to Northpark makes sense, and will add vitality to the area. There is a logic with it being adjacent to the same zoning. >Has the window manufacturer been identified? (Youdall: VPI.) Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Are there unit plans for ground floor stoop units? (Ennis: Would be similar to the units on the upper floors, except for the doors to the stoops. They stack up with the same layouts.) Would like to delineate the ground floor units on the plan, to show how the stoops integrate with landscaping. >Is there a tree planting schedule yet? (Youdall: It's not in the presentation but it's in the packet. There is a planting plan and a legend. London Plane street trees accented with Maples and Junipers to create a layered effect.) >Has there been any consideration to enhancing the design of the rear wall? Right now there is an open metal picket fence at the back of Northpark. Can the wall be articulated somehow? (Ennis: Can look at it. It is a concrete wall, could have some reveals.) Something to give it some texture, a visual camouflage perhaps with some colors and relief. >Has there been further thought on what options are being considered for the amenity space on second floor? It looks like a great space, adjacent to the courtyard. (Ennis: Probably fitness, and gathering room/club room.) >Is the loading area for tenant move -in and move-out? (Ennis: Yes. There is an elevator with direct access.) >What are the square footages of the roof decks? (Ennis: The plans have a special page with yellow and green shown the various areas.) If the roof decks were included as open space, would that meet the 50% open space requirement? (Youdall: Yes.) >Has there been engagement with Northpark? (Youdall: Equity Residential manages Northpark. A fence and landscape treatment will be coordinated with Northpark.) >How will guest parking be accommodated? Street parking? (Youdall: Some guest parking can be on the ground level in the front, and existing street parking along Rollins Road will be maintained. It is quite a ways away from the single family neighborhood to the south, so there is quite a bit of street parking available.) Expects the residents of the units with stoops will want to park in front of their units; will there be time restrictions on the street parking? (Youdall: Typically reserves a white curb near the lobby for ride share. Has not proposed any street parking restrictions in coordination with Public Works.) >Is there bicycle storage? (Youdall: Yes, there will be secured bike storage for residents in the area shown in gray in the garage level.) >Are electrical car chargers compatible with the lift system, and will there be chargers for every space? (Youdall: Yes, they are compatible with the lift system. There will not be chargers for every space, but typically installs a higher number than required by code. Additional spaces can be wired for the future if demand were to increase.) >Will the move-ins and move-outs need to be coordinated? (Youdall: Yes, there is a dedicated loading dock space, and it will be managed with reservations. Has had lots of experience with managing this on other projects.) >How does the trash get picked up? Can the trucks get to the trash room? (Youdall: Property management will take the bins out to the street on pickup days. Typically coordinate with the trash service and bring the bins back in once the trash has been collected.) >Why do some of the units not have balconies? Does not look as much residential as might be expected.(Youdall: Rollins faces the freeway, did not expect people would want to be out on balconies there. There are some balconies facing the courtyard. Considers balconies together with the other open spaces offered in the project, and finds people will often use the balconies only for storage and then use the common open spaces anyway.) >Have you reviewed the letter from Jennifer Pfaff about the landscaping? (Youdall: Yes. The landscape team talked with the City Arborist, who suggested the tree selection. The secondary layer of trees has smaller evergreen trees.) Has there been consideration of the room needed for the tree root structure in relation to the underground garage? (Youdall: Works very closely with the arborist and landscape team to ensure there is room for the bulbs and canopies. Takes this into account when choosing the trees, and sizing and spacing them.) Public Comments: James Cutsinger, building owner of 1011 Cadillac Way: Adjacent to the property, has concerns with the project. The proposed building is 74 feet high compared to smaller single -story building at 1011 Cadillac, Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes will block the morning light. Had skylights installed recently, concerned the proposed building will block the light. Concerned with construction noise over a 12- to 18-month project, the truck traffic, dust and debris. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The use is probably where the site is heading anyways, but has trouble with all the exceptions being requested. >Concerned with the height in relation to surroundings, will dwarf other buildings in the area and will not fit in with the scale, including the Northpark apartments. At Northpark the open space is on the ground and provides a buffer between the buildings. The rooftop gardens do not not work the same way, and the building is so close to the rear property line. >Would rather see the building scaled down to fit with the other buildings in the area. >Wants to see the traffic study. >Can't find arguments against the rezoning, but expects there will be a large contrast with the surroundings. >Would like to see a dedicated space for bikes and bike lockers, rather than just a room that may or may not be able to accommodate them. Could be helpful in reducing concerns with traffic, and would dovetail with the Broadway Caltrain opening in the future. Would provide an argument for reduced traffic impacts. >Would not have an issue with the height if there was more green space. Would like to see more relief somewhere else on the ground so it does not feel right on the street. Maybe the office could be pushed back a bit. >Looks like it is busting at the seams. >The parcels are smaller than the adjacent properties. Nicely designed complex, and a lot of thought has been put into how to utilize the spaces on the different levels. But concerned with the reduced front setback on such a busy street, but there is no buffer zone between the sidewalk and the stoops. Likes the project overall and supports the program but concerned with the Rollins Road frontage. >The project provides additional housing units in an area where units are desperately needed. This site is comprised of a unique combination of lots, very narrow, so there need to be concessions for achieving a project like this. >Understands why there are not balconies facing Rollins Road, they will be filled with noise and dust . The building itself serves as a buffer to the rest of the community, including Northpark. >It's impossible to compare to other buildings in the area, since they include a number of single -story buildings. The proposed building is tall but the carve -outs creating additional open space on the roof works based on that articulation. >As part of the environmental assessment, it would be helpful to see a shade and shadow study. The north direction is towards the freeway, so much of the shade and shadow will be towards the freeway . However wants to be able to see what happens in the morning towards the properties to the west. >Is in favor of the project in terms of the massing, style, and concessions being requested because they are in step with other provisions in the code, such as the density bonus and below market rate units . The project offers great community benefit. >There is a need for more housing, and this is a good location for more housing, but 140 units per acre seems very high compared to new General Plan designation of 80 units per acre. >The below market rate units in the Moderate category are not as affordable as one would expect. The rents will be very high; not sure how cutting back would hurt the project. >If the lot was bigger it would make sense to bring it down in scale and spread it out more, but since the lot is small and the development is being maximized it makes it feel like it is too much for the lot. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee be reconvened to discuss current issues of interest, such as metal roofs. Commission Comaroto reminded the Commission of an upcoming Planning Commissioners training being provided by 21 Elements on January 31st. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the January 22nd City Council meeting, the small cell applications from AT&T were approved. He noted that the final design that was approved was more streamlined and refined than the earlier design that the Planning Commission had considered, and that the applicant provided additional information on the site selection criteria. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 28, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2019, 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, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019