HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.01.088/29/2019 burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588
burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588 1/3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING
COMMISSION
A G E N D A
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, January 8, 2018
07:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.17-903 November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Legislation Text
November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5.PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
6.STUDY ITEMS
7.CONSENT CALENDAR
a.17-933 624 Lexington Way, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review and
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and first
and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2).(Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer
Design, applicant and designer; Dave and Kelsey Armstrong, property
owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
Legislation Text
624 Lexington Way - Staff Report
624 Lexington Way - Attachments
624 Lexington Revised Front Rendering
8/29/2019 burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588
burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588 2/3
624 Lexington Way - revised plans - 01.08.18
8.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.17-919 2965 Trousdale Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for addition of an uncovered deck to the
second story of an existing single-family dwelling. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(1). (Bay Builders & Remodeling, Inc., applicant; JF Design &
Engineering, Inc., designer; John Iyanrick, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff
Contact: ’Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Legislation Text
2965 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report & Attachments
2965 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 01.08.18
b.17-930 821 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached
garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (e)(1). (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technoogy, Inc, designer;
Craig Mercer and Gina Corsetti, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Legislation Text
821 Maple Ave - Staff Report
821 Maple Ave - Attachments
821 Maple Avenue - Plans - 01.08.18
9.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.17-931 705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design review for a
new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (James Chu,
Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC,
property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: ’Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Legislation Text
705 Walnut Ave - Staff Report & Attachments
705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 01.08.18
b.17-938 740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R-3 - Application for Design
Review to remove and replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing
condominium unit. (Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan
8/29/2019 burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588
burlingameca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=588 3/3
Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: ’Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
Legislation Text
740 El Camino Real - Staff Report & Attachments
740 El Camino Real - Plans - 01.08.18
10.COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11.DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.17-924 1548 Balboa Way - FYI for changes to the front porch of a previously
approved Design Review project
Legislation Text
1548 Balboa Way - FYI
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 8,
2018. If the Planning Commission’s action has not been appealed or called
up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 18, 2018, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City
Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes
noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning
Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the Community
Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
California.
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.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 27, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and ComarotoPresent6 -
KellyAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to be approved.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse herself
from the discussions regarding Items 8a (1355 Laguna Avenue) and 11 (729 Walnut Avenue).
Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 8b (305
Burlingame Avenue).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1355 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Joann Gann, applicant and designer; Ryan and
Wendy Vance, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
1355 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1355 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1355 Laguna Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto left the chambers as she
recused herself from the discussion of this item. Commissioner Loftis noted that though he did not review
the recording from the last discussion of this item, he had visited the site and reviewed the project plans.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Joann Gann represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was hoping that the direct vent of the fireplace could be routed up the chimney. (Gann: will make this
revision.)
Public Comments:
John Chauis, neighbor to the proposed project: concerned that the proposed home will shine light into his
child's bedroom.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Doesn't feel that the home will affect light to the neighboring property.
>The home falls under the maximum permitted height by two feet. Well-scaled project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the application
with the additional condition that the project design shall be revised to route the direct vent
fireplace up through the chimney. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).
(Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design
Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Commissioner Gaul noted that he had submitted a bid on the project previously, but has no involvement in
the project at this time. Commissioner Sargent left the chambers as he was recused from the discussion
for non-statutory reasons.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Danny Meredith and Helen Cook represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Noted that comments regarding the floor plan were not intended to presume the conversion of space
to an additional bedroom; was concerned about where the media wall would be placed.
>Why was the dialog cut off with the design review consultant? (Meredith: felt that every problem raised
by the Commission had been addressed. Are in a time crunch.)
>Noted that the intent of the design review process is to streamline the process by gaining the
experience of the consultant in assisting with refining designs.
>Doesn't understand why there are two larger, inboard gables on the left elevation? Doesn't appear that
these elements are necessary. Also, isn't clear how the center gable resolves into the main roof on the left
elevation. (Meredith: stated that they are clearly shown on the rear elevation.) The gables are not drawn
properly on the roof plan. These elements need to be resolved.
>Noted that the small bay on the left elevation shows a belly -band that doesn't appear to follow along to
the rear elevation.
>What is creating the double lines on the roof? (Meredith: had the architect remove the roof finish
pattern.)
>The massing and the drawings don't hang together.
>Feels that the architect's approach to articulating the surfaces doesn't work with the design; doesn't
belief the proposed means of articulation really addresses the concerns.
>The roof doesn't do a good job of articulating the wall surfaces.
>Likes the increased size of the porch and some of the other changes.
>Concerned that the design is a large box that relies upon an undulating roofline to articulate the
elevations. The changes don't really fully address the issues raised by the Commission previously.
>Suggested that a 3-D model would help the interpretation of the design; not clear that the person
drawing the plans really understands the concerns expressed by the Commission.
>Likes what was done with the front elevation, but has the same concerns expressed by others
regarding the left elevation.
>Appears that the primary concern of the Commission is the roofline articulation. Noted that some
details get worked out when being built. Doesn't feel that the articulation concerns have been adequately
resolved. Needs further revisions.
Public Comments:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>One more round of review by the design review consultant may have resolved the outstanding issues;
this is confirmed by the design reviewer's comments. Also noted a lack of consistency in the project
plans. The projects should have been finally reviewed by the licensed architect before being presented to
the Commission.
>Make more of an effort to improve the articulation, not just roofline changes.
>The roof drawings do not match the elevation details, particularly related to gables. The front and
right-side elevations show incorrectly drawn gables (hips are shown, rather than gables.) Have taken what
was massive and bulky and simply made changes to the roofline and added a bay. Likes the enlarged
porch. Now a matter of better articulating what is implied in the roof design as it relates to the elevations .
The most significant suggestions raised previously were to enlarge the porch and work with a design
review consultant.
>Asked other Commissioners if there were concerns regarding the window selection.
>The window selection is acceptable.
>Have made a good effort to address design concerns, but needs to work further with the design review
consultant.
>Make sure that the project designer can adequately respond to the questions raised by the design
review consultant; the drawings need to hang together.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
item and refer the matter back to a design review consultant for further evaluation. Chair Gum
called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
c.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of
the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi Hui Liu, property
owners) (42 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report
1548 Balboa Way - Attachments
1548 Balboa Way - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Commissioner Sargent noted that he had reviewed the recording of the prior discussion of the item.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Xie Guan represented the applicant.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The windows are now sized properly.
>Was it intended that the front fireplace be tucked into the corner of the room? (Guan: is an existing
condition. Will be converted to a gas-fired unit. Still want to keep it as part of the design.)
>On the proposed first floor plan, the fireplace is shown in the correct location. Looks like there is a
separate wall constructed on the outside of the fireplace. (Guan: this is correct.)
>Noted that the design review consultant mentioned a general lack of attention to detail in the drawings.
>The spacing of the exterior columns seems odd. Appears that there is a column missing. (Guan:
didn't want a column in front of the window.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The design review consultant process has helped; the changes made have helped.
>Agrees that there is a pilaster missing on one of the columns and that a column is missing.
>Window articulation with added muntins is improved.
>Feels the project is approvable.
>Massing is done well.
>Feels that adding an column on the front may be necessarily from a structural standpoint.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the application
with the additional condition that the designer revisit the installation of an additional column on
the front elevation. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
d.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review
approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment
Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (Continued from the October 23, 2017 meeting)
300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
300 Airport Blvd - Attachments
300 Airport Blvd - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commission Comaroto noted that she previously had a
business relationship with the prior owner of the property, but no longer has a connection to the property .
She was contacted by the project applicant, but did no return the call. Commissioner Gum noted that the
applicant had attempted to reach him, but he did not speak with them.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Amy Tian and Ben Tranel represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Clarified that the rooftop terraces are not accessible to the public. (Tranel: this is correct.)
>Has potential mechanical equipment been sized to fall below the roof -screening height? (Tranel: yes,
certain that all equipment will fit. Is also reflective of the plans that have been submitted to the Building
Division for review.)
>The buildings were always intended to be potential life -science spaces? (Tranel: yes. The changes are
only necessitated by use for such purpose.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The rooftop terraces were never intended to be public amenities, and all other public spaces will be
maintained.
>The project needs to achieve success, so the changes must be made to attract the desired tenant.
>This is the first project of this magnitude to be developed in Burlingame. The project as revised meets
the design criteria. Having the lab-use in the area will help to ensure project success.
>Reinforced that the project must be built as approved, or may be subject to further review by the
Planning Commission.
>This is a sophisticated developer and architect, but reminded the Commission of the instance when
changes were made to the new hospital without prior approval.
>More pedestrian activity may be brought back to the ground.
>Concerned that the rooftop decks may have limited utility due to wind conditions.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve The
application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1327 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for first and second
floor additions to an existing two -story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Eiki
Tanaka, Studio 02, Inc., designer and applicant; Celeste and Eric Leung, property
owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1327 Castillo Ave - Staff Report
1327 Castillo Ave - Attachments
1327 Castillo Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Eiki Tanaka represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the front elevation there is a shelf or something over the garage door that mimics the roof over the
entry, what is this? (Tanaka: is intended to mimic that element.)
>What are the materials for the new windows? (Tanaka: aluminum clad.)
>What will the entry stair well look like? (Tanaka: referred to the side elevation plan; will be a painted
metal railing; will be the same as what is to be provided on the landing). Show these details on the plans.
>Will the skylights be flat? (Tanaka: yes.)
>Notes that no window trim is shown; why? (Tanaka: want to make the design appear a bit more
contemporary with no window trim and with smooth stucco.)
>Will the new stucco match the existing stucco? (Tanaka: the intent is to replace the existing stucco.)
>Doesn't feel that the flat roof element above the entry and the garage door are not found elsewhere in
the neighborhood. (Tanaka: wanted to include both elements to make them consistent within the design .
Is a small element that adds to the contemporary design.)
>Noted that the new porch is a bit shallower and narrower; couldn't find a similar design approach in the
neighborhood. Is there anything that can be done to increase the prominence of the porch? (Tanaka:
working with the existing structure makes this a challenge. Want to expand the garage to make meet the
spatial requirements.)
>Is the intention to use the garage as a two car garage? (Tanaka: want to use the space for one car,
plus storage.) Was any thought given to narrowing the garage? (Tanaka: it will be up to the owner to
decide how it may be used; may attempt to fit two cars into the garage.)
Public Comments:
Beryl Lucey, 1331 Castillo Avenue: expressed concerns regarding privacy as expressed in his letter to the
Commission.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Kane noted that where a hedge is present on a property line, it is treated as a fence and
cannot exceed the maximum fence height. Staff is reviewing the materials to determine the location of the
hedge.
Commission Discussion:
>Are only asking for design review; no special considerations.
>The design is stripped of any detail and is not really contemporary; other homes on the block have
detail and character.
>Massing is handled nicely, but the windows and other details do not provide any detail or character.
>Needs another pass to make the design address the design guidelines and to fit within the
neighborhood context.
>The details are missing.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>There are a number of things that could make the design more consistent with a Modern design as
desired by the applicant.
>Is a good candidate for a design review consultant.
>Is very different from surrounding designs.
>Looking for traditional massing with more contemporary detailing to fit into the neighborhood.
>The neighbor's privacy issue needs to be addressed, though there is no guaranteed protection of
privacy, though there are things that can be done on both properties to address the concern. Encouraged
the applicant and the neighbor to work together.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant.
Discussion of Motion:
>Is an interesting house. Has some conspicuous, modernist elements already present in the
design (e.g. the corner windows). These elements are being taken away and replaced with
typical windows that would be provided in a traditional ranch design. Are taking away design
elements that actually contribute to a modernist design approach. Removal of these elements
may be undermining the design approach.
>Briefly spoke to the applicant in the lobby; noted that referral to a design review consultant
can be a positive process that streamlines the process.
Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
b.2115 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Right Side
Setback Variance for a major renovation, first and second story addition and
modifications to existing detached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect;
Christopher and Tracey Papazian, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
2115 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
2115 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones introduced himself to the property
owner, but didn't discuss project details. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor at 2109 Roosevelt Avenue.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Noted that Roosevelt Avenue is off of Vancouver Avenue, not Columbus Avenue.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Understands the argument for the variance on the right side. What is the jog shown on the roof eave
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
on the right elevation? (Grange: needed to reduce the overhang depth to meet Fire Code restrictions
regarding setback from the property line.)
>Is there anything that prevents pushing the addition back to meet the setback? (Grange: as shown
the roofline is nice and clean; pushing the addition over would create the need for a separate roofline. The
room in the addition is a minimal width for living purposes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Is a handsome design. Looks like the home was originally design as presented.
>Nice scale and articulation.
>Argument for the variance is supportable. A jog in the plan would make the addition look like it was
done later.
>The house is similar to other homes that were built at a conforming setback that was different than
that required today.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to the item on the
consent calendar when ready for action.
Discussion of Motion:
>Is not supportive of the variance request; requires exceptional circumstances. By extending
the addition at the existing, non-conforming setback are increasing the density and reducing the
space between homes. Would like to see the variance eliminated.
Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto5 -
Nay:Gum1 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
c.1333 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (fitness studio) within an existing
building at 1333 Howard Avenue (Adam Shane, BBC Inc., applicant; Shawn Anderson,
MSA Architecture + Design, architect; Michael C. and Athia M. Giotinis TRS, property
owner) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1333 Howard Ave - Staff Report
1333 Howard Ave - Attachments
1333 Howard Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>Does the applicant know what the signage constraints are? (Hurin: can reface the existing sign, but
cannot remove it. All signs are reviewed under a separate permit and are not subject to design review.)
>Have there been code enforcement complaints regarding the prior use? (Hurin: not sure, can
research.)
>What hours of operation were set for "Bootcamp" on California Drive? (Hurin: suggested having the
applicant's representative respond as he was involved in that case as well.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak, Adam Shane, Shawn Anderson, and Mark Bucarelli represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is there a reason why the cement plaster panel the conceals the fire department panel is in the same
plane as the glazing; is there a reason why the electrical panel on the opposite corner is not in the same
plane? (Bucarelli: needed clearance from the existing gas meter.)
>What is the thinking behind the cement panel fin on the facade? (Bucarelli: intended to separate the
electrical closet and the gas meter from the rest of the facade.) Otherwise the facade is very symmetrical.
>Does the interior floor plan need to be updated to show the two moment frames? (Bucarelli: yes.)
>The facade changes are not huge, but is a cleaner look. Is there any reason why the entry /exit doors
cannot be reduced in height and transom windows added above them to make them more consistent with
the pattern of other storefronts in the area? (Bucarelli: will look at this. Was initially a building owner
preference.)
>Why is the studio space walled off from the rest of the space? (Anderson: walls isolate the sound
from the rest of the area and from the exterior of the building.)
>Discussed the non-studio space uses. (Anderson: a reception desk and a juice bar.)
>Can non-members use the juice bar? (Anderson: yes.)
>Is there a residence above the UPS store next door? (Hudak: as far as he knows it has never been
residential, only office use.)
>What were the hours of "Basecamp"? (Hudak: started at either 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m. to allow two
classes before 8 a.m. Will not be any earlier than that use.)
>Would it be possible to have a glass front on the studio space so that pedestrians could see the
activity? (Shane: patrons don't like to have the public viewing them while working out.)
>Will there be sound treatment of the roof? (Shane: no.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the project.
>Will be interesting to see the steel structure behind the glazing on the front. However, doesn't like the
cement panel fin projecting from the front near the electrical room. Feels that the panels detract from the
symmetry of the facade.
>Good application. Good arguments in support of the conditional use permit; very similar to the prior
operation. No special considerations. Will bring good life to the location.
>Agrees that the fin on the front may be necessary, but consider a different type of material.
>Revisit the entry door heights as discussed earlier.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the regular action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
d.1499 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for Hotel Room Density, Building Height, and
Floor Area Ratio, and Lot Merger to construct a 12-story hotel development (HKS
Architects, Inc., architect; EKN Development Group, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she did have
ex-parte communication with the applicant.
Sheldon Ah-Sing, Contract Planner, presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Is there also an FAR variance? (Ah-Sing: a conditional use permit is required for the greater density.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ebbie Nakhjavani, Andrew Davies, and the project architect represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are the Palm trees on the site plan existing? (Architect: yes.)
>Requested clarification regarding the exterior cladding materials. (Architect: still exploring options.)
>Wants more information regarding the articulation around the windows; what are the profiles? Will
influence which exterior finishing material is selected.
>The renderings, particular the 3-D help. The renderings shows that the elevations hang together.
>Concerned regarding the design of the ground level; is there articulation at this level so that the design
does not "slam to the ground"? (Architect: will revisit this element of the design.)
>Wants to see a view of what the experience will be as you look out from the lobby to the back side of
the restaurant. How will one experience the pedestrian realm? Is it possible to revisit the design to provide
more of a presence to the corner that also promotes the Bay Trail.
>Have a large buffer of landscaping; show how pedestrians will experience this area.
>Clarified that all access is off of Bayshore Highway through a one-way driveway.
>Are requesting a variance for the parking. There is an argument that current parking requirements for
hotels are needing to be reviewed. (Meeker: noted that this is being evaluated currently. Have seen an
option for .8 space per room. This amendment will likely be processed before the project comes back for
review again.)
>Is there a requirement for hotel shuttle services? Could this be a way to justify a parking reduction?
(Meeker: would be beneficial to the hotel.)
>Is the lot combination including 1499 Bayshore Highway and 801 Mahler? (Architect: yes.)
>Any consideration to providing a walkway along Mills Creek? (Architect: required be kept clear for Fire
Department access.) Could a walkway be provided somewhere in the area? (Architect: the property line is
setback from the top of the bank, so this limits options.) Would like to see something that interacts with
the creek.
>Is there an update regarding the FAA and other agencies. (Davies: have been in meetings with various
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
agencies. Are below the FAA's maximum height limitation.)
>Is the rooftop deck open to the public? (Architect: open to the public.)
>Has the applicant looked at the possibility of providing another crossing from the front of the property
nearest the wetlands to the property? (Kane: likely hazardous given the amount of traffic in the area .
Would need considerable review by the City's Traffic Engineer.)
>Anything that can be done to blend the corner of the property with the wetland area will be
appreciated.
Public Comments:
Kristen Parks, Housing for All, Burlingame: Is the developer willing to provide affordable housing for its
workers in Burlingame. The project will increase the jobs -housing imbalance. Will the development be
subject to Commercial Linkage Fees? What are the public benefits to the community. Look at population
and housing impacts in the environmental evaluation. Union-level wage standards should be applied to all
new commercial development.
Cynthia Gomez, hotel worker union representative: agreed with comments regarding bringing low -pay jobs
into an area without addressing the housing needs. Need to ensure union -wages through an agreement .
Workers that cannot afford to live in the community must drive and will add to traffic and parking impacts .
Car-share employees can't afford to live in Burlingame, so they commute from other areas outside the city
to pick-up passengers. Concerned about building load and cladding materials - can the Bayfill support it .
Ensure no impacts to the shorebird sanctuary. The benefits of granting the variances must be weighed
against the impacts - there should be significant public benefits provided by the project in order to receive
the variances.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Does this project involve a development agreement? (Meeker: no, there is no development agreement
with this project.)
>Provide a copy of the rendering provided at this hearing. Also provide additional views and analyses of
the pedestrian-realm experience.
>Look at police/fire services impacts.
>Traffic impact looks like it will be more on Mahler and Bayshore; include in environmental analysis.
>Look at how job creation from this project fits into the projections for job growth shown in the General
Plan update; was this included, or anticipated.
>Will need to wait and see how the analysis of parking standards by staff will relate to the project.
>Look at impacts upon water and sewer infrastructure.
>Provide additional renderings, particularly for the pedestrian level.
>Provide more analysis of surrounding building heights as part of the environmental analysis.
>Look at potential view blockage from new building.
>Pay special attention to biological resources, water quality, etc.
>Provide more interesting features within the lobby areas to draw people into the interior.
>Likes the corner restaurant; could imagine opening up this space to views through the structure.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director's reports.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
729 Walnut Ave - Review of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review
project.
729 Walnut Ave - Memorandum
729 Walnut Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:17 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 November 27, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2017, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/4/2018
1
A101
A101
1 SIM
GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
CENTERLINE
WINDOW TAG
WALL TAG
DOOR TAG
KEYNOTE
ROOM TAG
GRID HEAD
LEVEL HEAD
SPOT ELEVATION
SLOPE TRIANGLE
CALLOUT HEAD
SECTION/ ELEVATION
HEAD
INTERIOR ELEVATION
HEAD
REVISION TAG
REVISION CLOUD
NORTH ARROWPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTH101
Name
ElevationElevation +0.00
1i
Elevation +0.00
Location
1
Room name
?06 11 00.D5
1i
0
A101
1
6
4
ABBREVIATIONS
&And
@ At
(E)Existing
(N)New
ADJ Adjustable
AFF Above Finished Floor
ALUM Aluminum
APPROX Approximately
ARCH Architectural
BLDG Building
BLKG Blocking
BM Beam
BSMT Basement
BDRM Bedroom
BYND Beyond
BOT Bottom
CAB Cabinet
CL Centerline
CLG Ceiling
CLR Clear
CO Cased Opening
COL Column
CONC Concrete
CONT Continuous
CPT Carpet
CLO Closet
CONST Construction
DET Detail
DEPT Department
DBL Double
DEMO Demolish
DIA Diameter
DIM Dimension
DN Down
DR Door
DWG Drawing
DS Downspout
EA Each
EL Elevation
ELEC Electrical
ENG Engineer
EQ Equal
EXT Exterior
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FL Floor
FO Face Of
FND Foundation
FPL Fireplace
GA Gauge
GC General Contractor
GALV Galvanized
GFCI Ground Fault Interrupter
GYP Gypsum
HT Height
HR Hour
HVAC Heating, Ventilating,
And Air Conditioning
ILO In Lieu Of
IN Inch
INSUL Insulation
INT Interior
LO Low
MAT Material
MAX Maximum
MECH Mechanical
MEMBR Membrane
MIN Minimum
MTL Metal
MISC Miscellaneous
N/A Not Applicable
NIC Not In Contract
NTS Not to Scale
NO Number
NOM Nominal
OC On Center
OBS Obscure
OPG Opening
PLUMB Plumbing
PLYWD Plywood
PNT Paint
PBO Provided by owner
RBR Rubber
RCP Reflected Ceiling Plan
REQD Required
RM Room
REFR Refridgerator
RD Roof Drain
SCH Schedule
SECT Section
SF Square Foot
SIM Similar
SPEC Specification
SSTL Stainless Steel
STL Steel
STRUCT Structural
STOR Storage
SSD See Structural Drawings
TBD To Be Determined
TO Top Of
TOC Top Of Curb
TOS Top of Slab
TYP Typical
UON Unless Noted Otherwise
U/S Underside
VIF Verify In Field
W/With
W/O Without
WH Water Heater
WD Wood
WDW Window
T.O. SLAB GARAGE
+101.23
FIRST FL. F.F.
+103.67
SECOND FL. F.F.
+113.67
SECOND FL. T.O.
PLATE
+121.67
AVG. TOC ON
CAMBRIDGE
+100.40
T.O. RIDGE
+128.96
15'-1 1/2"10'-2"2'-5 1/4"10"7'-1 1/2"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"3'-3 1/4"28'-6 3/4"FRONT PROPERTY
CORNER ELEVATION
+101.11
FIRST FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
+112.67
D20
W15
W45 W44 W38W43W39
9"
12"
3"
12"
2'-3 1/2"3'-3 1/2"W37 W36
6"
12"
D19
2'-3 1/2"3'-9 1/2"T.O. SLAB GARAGE
+101.23
FIRST FL. F.F.
+103.67
(E) FIRST FLOOR T.O.
PLATE
+112.00
(E) T.O. RIDGE
+118.10
AVG. TOC ON
CAMBRIDGE
+100.40
FRONT PROPERTY
CORNER ELEVATION
+101.116'-1 1/4"8'-4"2'-5 1/4"10"17'-8"D1D4
4"
12"
4"
12"
6"
12"
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address:821 Maple Avenue Meeting Date:January 8, 2018
Request:Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a
detached garage.
Applicant and Designer): Waldemar Stauchniuk, KWS United Technology Inc.APN:029-033-090
Property Owner: Craig Mercer and Gia Corsetti Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan:Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-story dwelling with a detached
garage are the rear left corner of the lot. The applicant proposes a second story for the existing, single story
house and the total proposed floor area is 3,296 SF (0.55 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum
allowed (including front covered porch exemptions).
The existing detached garage with adjacent storage area will not be altered. There is one covered parking
space (10' x 20') in the garage and an additional uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage.
The existing house has 4 bedrooms and this number will remain the same with the new second story. The 2
existing parking spaces meet the code requirement for a 4-bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements
have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Item No. 8c
Regular Action
Design Review 821 Maple Avenue
-2-
821 Maple Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: November 27, 2017
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
15'-10"
--
no change
31'-6"
16'-1" is the block average
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
12'-10"
2'-11" 2
no change
no change
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
31'-1"
--
no change
44'-8"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage:2,400 SF
40 %
No change
2,400 SF
40 %
FAR:2,038 SF
0.38 FAR
3,296 SF
0.55 FAR
3,420 SF
1
0.57 FAR
# of bedrooms:4 No change ---
Parking:
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
No change
1covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height:14'-10"23'-6"30'-0"
DH Envelope:---complies C.S. 25.26.075
¹(0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR)
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on December 11,
2017, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project andvoted to place this item
on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division
(see attached December 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped December 19, 2017, to address the
Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses
by the applicant.
1. The design should be revised to include more corbels to match those in the front elevation; this will
make for a more consistent design on every elevation.
Design Review 821 Maple Avenue
-3-
▪The designer has revised the plans to show curved corbels at the front elevations and at the gable ends
of the first floor on the right and left side elevations.
2. It appears that there is a drafting error because the proposed redwood vents are not centered under
the gables.
▪The venting design has changed. Due to the added corbels, the previously proposed square wood vents
have been replaced with a triangular under gable vent that has a solid center piece where the corbel can
rest. This vent and corbel design is proposed at the front and side elevations. The rear second story
gable will have only the triangular vent.
Staff would note that due to a printing error, the triangular vents were not printed on the half size sets of
revised plans that were submitted. The proposed vent/corbel system is shown on the example photos of
1243 Cabrillo Avenue (see staff report attachments) and on the 8.5 x 11 set of plans included along with
the half size plans and delivered to the Planning Commissioners. Staff has included a description of the
proposed vent/corbel system in the conditions of approval for the project.
3. Will the proposed new windows on the second floor have simulated true divided lites?
▪The plans have been revised to include a specification of simulated true divided lites for the new
windows.
4. Is the basement area counted in floor area?
▪The plans have been revised to note that the existing basement/utility area beneath the house is only
accessible from the exterior of the building, is 91 SF, and has a ceiling height of 6'-7". Planning staff
would note that because of the accessibility and size of this space, it is not included in floor area ratio
calculations. Any future work and/or expansion of this area will be subject to current Building and
Planning requirements.
5. The utility basement door at the right side appears to stand out. Can some exterior materials be
shown to help this door blend in with the proposed design?
▪The plans have been revised to note that the door will have a solid core, Hardie trim, and will be painted
the same shade as the proposed exterior Hardie shingles for the dwelling in order to help it blend with
the rest of the exterior.
6. There are concerns about the proposed Hardie shingles, especially as relates to how the shingles
will mesh at the corners of the house. Typically hardie materials cannot be mitered, or are very
difficult to miter. Has the applicant considered treated and painted Cedar shingles? Is there an
example of the proposed Hardie shingles that have been applied so that the Commission can view
the product in the field?
▪The designer notes that the homeowners prefer to use the Hardie shingles as opposed to cedar shingles
because of the reduced maintenance for the Hardie product. The designer has submitted photos of an
existing house at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue that show the proposed Hardie shingle material in use and show
how the corners of the shingles are integrated.
Design Review Criteria:The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1.Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2.Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Design Review 821 Maple Avenue
-4-
3.Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4.Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5.Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: At the December 11, 2017 Design Review Study meeting the
Planning Commission noted that the proposed addition was well massed and consistent with the Craftsman
bungalow style of the existing dwelling. The proposed exterior materials and added architectural details such as
the vents, corbels, and simulated true divided lite windows result in a cohesive design that will complement the
character of the neighborhood. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City’s five design review criteria.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
December 19, 2017, sheets A0.0 through A3.0; and including curved corbels at the gable ends of the
front elevation and on the first floor gables at the right and left side elevations, triangular wood attic vents
at the gables on the right and left sides and the rear elevation, and aluminum clad wood windows with
simulated true divided lite windows throughout the second floor;
2.that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3.that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4.that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 29, 2017 memo shall be met;
5.that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6.that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7.that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8.that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
Design Review 821 Maple Avenue
-5-
9.that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10.that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11.that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12.prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13.that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14.that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. Waldemar Stachniuk, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped December 19, 2017
Example Hardie shake exterior material photos (5) for 1242 Cabrillo Avenue
Minutes from December 11, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 1, 2017
Aerial Photo