HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2020.05.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineTuesday, May 26, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and City
Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 -
TerronesAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
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.818 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an
attached garage and direct exit from a basement for a new, two -story single family
dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).
(Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Karen and Eric Jue, property
owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
818 Acacia Dr - Staff Report
818 Acacia Dr - Attachments
818 Acacia Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Adam Bittle, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Have a little trouble understanding the relationship between the new trellis element, the walls and the
gate. Could you sort of walk us through that a little bit? (Bittle: On sheet A3 where the driveway gate /trellis
is currently, previously that was where our front attached garage was. It shifted the attached garage back .
The way those walls are setup is that the gates can swing open and have a return wall without impeding
the openness of the attached garage or carport. The trellis element ties in underneath the soffit and
overhang. That eave line, as you can see on the front elevation, tracks entirely around the front porch and
returns back to the carport and around the side of the carport.) There's sort of a partial height stonewall,
then there's a stone column that's against the property line, the person gate opens between those two and
the stonewall has two columns coming up, one catches the structure of the house and the other one
catches side of the trellis, is that right? (Bittle: There's no stone against the house. The stone you're
seeing there is at the foreground at the side elevation. There's a access gate that returns to the side fence
and that's for bringing trash and bikes without having to open up the driveway gates.)
>What is the material for the new driveway gate? (Bittle: We are anticipating to use a steel similar to
the rear of the carport. On the previous rendering that we had, we were trying to show a decorative steel
gate, that rendering will also reflect at the front of the property. Whereas the access gate on the side that
you're seeing on the right, that would be a stain wood.)
>Is the railing at the front porch painted? (Bittle: We're calling it painted wood. I believe in our rendering
we had transitioned it to be stained. We did not update the rendering. The changes in materials weren't
significant. It was mostly the scale, so the two dimensioned drawings reflect the changes.)
>Is the steel gate framed in steel as well or is that painted or wood? (Bittle: No. It would be something
a little more substantial. It would be steel for the durability aspect on a gate. But the railing you're
referencing would be a darker stain or a darker paint which is reflected in the trim elements around the
windows and doors. So there's a consistent material color palette we're trying to reflect to the project.)
>Where are the trellis located? (Bittle: If you refer to sheet A2, the site plan.)
>On the windows upstairs, in bedrooms one and two, they appear to be taller than the windows on the
first floor, is that correct? (Bittle: I believe they're both the same height depending on what windows. It
varies window to window. If you're referencing the ones on the front of the house they are a little taller
because we're on an end gable and wrapping around the corner above the carport. The master bedroom
windows and the rear windows are a little shorter because we have a roof coming up into them.) What is
the sill height in the front bedroom windows? (Bittle: It should be noted on the drawings, but we're at 2’-3”
or 2’-6”.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the changes that the applicant made to the design, it's cohesive. It fits into the neighborhood as
was stated in the last meeting. This is a great block of Burlingame with older craftsman homes and this
alludes to that style and that era very well. The changes both to the roof over the front porch tying it
together with the garage really work well to make it all hold together. Can support the attached garage
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
because of the other attached garages on the block and a lot of them are carports as opposed to
garages, which seems to work real well especially with the up sloping lot. Can find support for the special
permit as stated before. Like that it doesn't go directly up the side as it turns and comes on to the porch
or the patio that's on the back, which is going to help to mitigate any noise that may happen between this
house and the neighbor, can support the project as it stands.
>The changes are good changes. The scale reduction, the re -articulation of the garage and the roof
with the wrap around is a good one. Can support the project. Not a fan of the mix and match materials
that's turning the architecture and the neighborhood into mush. Don't think these kinds of materials fit
really well in our neighborhoods, but we'll see how that plays out over many years from now.
>Like the project and the changes that were made. Have no problem with any of the raised issues from
the last time, they made some great changes. It will fit nicely in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.1316 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, Xie Associate,
applicant and architect;Carolyn Bao and Hien Li, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff
Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1316 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1316 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1316 Laguna Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Sargent was recused because he has a
financial interested in a property located within 500 feet of the project. Commissioner Comaroto was
recused because she owns property located within 500 feet of the project.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>How were these changes discovered? They were made without requesting the change. How did that
happen? (Hurin: At the end of the project, the applicant /contractor called the Planning Division for a final
inspection. These changes were noted while staff was on final inspection.
>We have talked in the past on several occasions about this reoccurring for us and how it's made clear
to applicants that they are required to build what is approved. How was that information made clear to the
applicant? (Hurin: Part of it depended on the designer /architect to communicate that to the contractor. The
Planning Division doesn't have that much interface with the contractor until the end of the project. We rely
on the designer /architect to stay on top of it, and to communicate with the contractor during construction
of the project. In this case I don't know what that communication was like. The contractor may not be
familiar with Burlingame's process. We can check with the designer /architect to see how much they were
involved in the construction process.)
>As an architect, I know that I'm required to build to the code. That's not just the building code, but the
planning code and would presume that contractors know they are required to build to the code as well;
meaning planning code and building code. (Hurin: In our experience, we have had builders in Burlingame
who have done a lot of work. They're familiar with the process, they know to come to Planning if they want
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to make changes. I am not aware who the contractor is on this project. He may not be familiar with the
process. Staff has looked into possibly holding a meeting with the contractor when the permit is issued
and to meet, whether it's in person or online, to communicate that more clearly and make sure they
understand the process for asking to make changes. So staff will be looking into doing that in the future.)
>Isn't there a requirement in Burlingame for a homeowner to use a licensed contractor if the homeowner
is not building the project themselves? (Hurin: Not familiar with the building code requirements, I believe
they do have to be licensed contractors if the value of the construction exceeds a certain amount. Believe
a licensed contractor would be required to build a project such as this.)
> Actually as contractors, we're supposed to build to the plan and it's usually pretty apparent if you're
making big changes that we should go back to the Building or Planning Divisions. The State regulates all
licensed contractors and it has to do with the size of the project and hiring sub-contractors.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Xie Guan and Carolyn Bao and Hien Li represented the applicants.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>During the course of the project, did you provide construction observation? (Guan: No, this was not
included in the contract. If the contractor calls me, I do respond by phone, but I don't make decisions or
supervise the contractors.)
>Did the homeowners act as the general contractor? Did you hire subcontractors or did you have
somebody running the project or did you oversee it? (Bao: We’re the homeowners. We hired the company
called Bombay Construction as our general contractor and this is our very first time to tackle a giant
project like this. We were referred by neighbors who live in the peninsula. We have been in the peninsula
for two years, so we're putting a lot of hope in this contractor. They showed us their work in Burlingame
and Hillsborough. There seems to have been some changes along the way that we didn't realize were
significant. So as soon as I heard the comments from the Planning Department, I engaged with the
contractor and asked them to retroactively fix as much as we could according to the plan. We provided
explanations for the changes. But more importantly, after we found out, we were really in shock. Our three
kids really love the house, and they wish to move in. But the worst case is we borrowed a lot money to
build the project and contractors all became so busy. We're not sure what to do at this point.)
> Specifically looking at the eave details and the chimney that was deleted. Were those changes ideas
that you or the contractor came up with? How did you arrive to eliminate some of those architecture
details? (Bao: That's a fair question. I have to confess, I did not know to look for these things. So when
the contractor was working on the exterior of the house, they asked us if we want stucco and we said yes,
stucco. They asked us how smooth do you want it to be, so we said as close to level five. That's as much
as we know. I do admit we did not catch that.) Specifically talking about the eave details that were deleted
on the sides, at the back the gable ends, there were supposed to be rafters and beams there, and things
like the tile that was on the chimney at the base that's now just smooth stucco. Were those the
contractor’s suggestions or did you guys decide to eliminate that? (Bao: It was all done by the contractor,
we were surprised. The front porch with the stone for example, we were only asked to select the color of
the stone. But I wasn't even aware that they were not the same as the plan. The plan was with the
contractor the whole time, so unfortunately we weren't asked about much beyond the color and the choice
of the material.)
>Wanted to ask about the grids on the windows, who made the decision to remove those details? (Bao:
This was also decided by the contractor.) So he ordered the windows without your approval? (Bao: Yes, he
ordered the windows. All we understood was to check on the progress. We approved the foundation, we
approved the framing and we approved the windows. That was all what we really understood.)
Public Comments:
>Tim and Alex Sousa: We live on the opposite corner on Summer Avenue across from this project. We
just wanted to offer our support for the project. The house looks good. I think that the details the
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
commissioners are discussing here don't really impact the look of the building. I'm supportive of this
project. The house looks good, and I wanted to offer support to this couple.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Feel bad for the homeowners, but outraged that this happens in the City. If contractors and architects
are not going to build the projects that we approve, then the question arises why should we bother to
approve projects? We can go back to the things used to be prior to having design guidelines. Planning
Commissioners are put in this uncomfortable position because this is not what we approved. Asking for
the windows to be removed and replaced is an outrageous thing to do, but so is not building what you're
required to build by law. We need a better way to make clear to every homeowner that their contractor and
their architect or designer are required to build by law to build what's approved and if you want to do
anything else, you have to come back for review and approval. Hate being put in this position and it
happens two or three times a year. Feel bad for the homeowners, clearly this happened without their ability
to control it. But something has got to be done because otherwise, this makes no sense. This whole
process is completely meaningless.
>It's very frustrating to get something like this back after construction has been completed. Used to
live a couple of blocks down on Laguna Avenue so I know the neighborhood well. Projects on corners
need special attention, and specifically remember talking about the rear of the house because it was
going to be so visible due to where the house is located on the lot. So those details on the eave were
tremendously important. Know that it's expensive and it seems unfair to have to go back and change
things. There should be some accountability from the contractor that maybe the homeowner can go back
and get, but the contractor should know. If you're building just because you got a set of approved plans
and a permit. I don't think you have business being a licensed contractor.
>Specifically the gable ends are somewhat attractive. They should have potentially been scaled down a
little bit more, but not limited to the west elevation. The elevation on the side street has been stripped off
of all architectural integrity, it's just smooth stucco walls.
>Was glad to see when that little bit of tile and stone work was being left on the chimney. Don't know if
something could be added there, but something should be done because the chimney looks like it was
just added on.
>There needs to be something done under the gable ends whether it matches the front of the house or
goes back to the original design.
>Not happy about not having the grids in the windows. However, the house does look nice with the way
the windows are trimmed and the color of stucco that was used, so could probably pass on the window
grids.
>Having a real difficult time with the metal garage door. All you need is to just barely touch it or have
your kids start banging a tennis ball against it, and it's going to dent. Metal doors are not better, they're
just cheaper. Didn't see many in the neighborhood. Not 100% supportive of the metal garage doors as
opposed to the wood one. Again, this is something that may need to go back between the architect, the
contractor and the homeowner, they can decide who gets to do what. Don't see where this project, as it
stands right now, can be approved because this would have not been approved when we first looked at it.
>Also feel badly for the homeowner and want to try to find some type of compromise with all of this
being done and according to what we see. Also agree that with the corner property that the left side
elevation, at least the visible part of the elevation from the street coming up Summer Avenue, that some
of the eliminated details could be added. Seems the gable end detail and the stone cladding on the
fireplace are items that could be added easily.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners about the garage door. Hate being wasteful and it's a difficult
position to be in. The original design had a lot more character for the home.
>Don't appreciate that the porch is now taller than the approved drawings as well, and you can feel the
difference when you look at the front of the house. The front porch doesn't feel quite as cozy and inviting
as it was intended to be. Aware that it would be a harder thing to rectify.
>The gable end details, the fireplace cladding and the window muntin details can go although they add
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a lot of character to the home.
>The gable end on the left side should be made to match the front of the house so there's consistency
of architecture around the corner, that's important. It's just too much to ask the windows to be replaced,
although that's the thing that bothers me the most.
>The one positive thing that came out of the changes to the left -hand side are the additional windows
on that blank wall. Those were not great and they seem haphazard, but it's better than a large blank wall
there.
>The gable ends on the left side, the stone at the base of the chimney and the garage door should be
done, and we agree to the windows moving forward.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Gaul to approve the application with the
following added condition:
>that the gable end details to match the front of the house shall be added to North Elevation
(side of house facing Summer Avenue), that the chimney shall be built as originally approved,
and that the metal garage door shall be replaced with wooden garage door.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
c.852 Fairfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Amy Everitt, property owner) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
852 Fairfield Rd - Staff Report
852 Fairfield Rd - Attachments
852 Fairfield Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had met with the
owner.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Applicant was not present at the meeting.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>It looks like we'll have to defer this item to another meeting.
>Kane: I was going to say that is correct. It's on the agenda for tonight, so if you want to articulate that
there are issues that you want the applicant to address before it comes back, you can do that. You could
take a final action on it, but you may not want to until you have a benefit of discussion with the applicant.
>On sheet D-4 note 5, it says remove the corner boards, but on the drawings it shows corner boards on
there, so assuming that's a drafting error. But the main concern on this one is to go along with the corner
board simply because they're on the existing house. So in this case, can see those being part of the
existing design and that appears to be what's happening. The designer is trying to keep with the original
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
design. But they have all these details for window flashing and other things, but what really makes this
house is the boxed eaves and the rafter beams sticking out under the eaves. Don't see a detail for that
and don't see the rafter beams being consistent. It looks like they're trying to go around the house, but
there's some spots where they were missing a little bit. It's kind of a boxed eave and I want to make sure
that is in fact the way that that's going to go. Specifically on the left side elevation on what would be the
main or first floor, there are only three and they're not in a regular pattern, whereas on the second floor
they are. Just some of those smaller details. Suppose it could move forward, but really would be sorry if
this got approved and it was not the intention to emulate all the eaves boxed in like they are on the original
house. But overall, it's a really good design.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Don't see why we couldn't move this forward with a request for an FYI to address those items that
were brought up. In the last hearing, we agreed that this was a good project. It seems like they've
addressed almost everything that we brought up. There wouldn't be a benefit for having another discussion
on this. By requiring an FYI, we can make sure those details get addressed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application with the following added conditions:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI to clarify the
following:
- correct the building elevations and keynotes to reflect the use of corner board trim to be
consistent with the existing house.
- correct the building elevations so that the spacing for the rafter beams is shown correctly on all
building elevations.
- provide details for the boxed eaves and rafter beams.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
d.A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame Recommending to
the City Council an Extension of Existing Development Entitlements. Staff Contact: Kevin
Gardiner
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Do you have an idea of how many permits this is going to affect? (Hurin: In 2019 the Planning
Commission approved seven entitlements in March, four entitlements in April, and seven entitlements in
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May. It could be that some of those are already planned for and received building permits so they could be
under construction already. To give you an idea, there are 18 entitlements approved during that time
period.)
>Do we have an idea of any projects that may be expiring around June or July that may be affected by
the temporary closer during the shelter -in-place? (Hurin: In June we show approximately five entitlements
expiring. In July, we only have one because a meeting was cancelled. In June there are five, in July there
is one, in August there are five, in September there are ten, in October there are twelve, in November
there are six and in December there are four. Post August, there are quite a few entitlements that would
be expiring.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>None.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Don't see any reason why we wouldn't do this. This was an unfair burden put on a lot of people who
put a lot of time and energy into their projects.
> Wondering if September 30th is long enough. Whether we simply just go to the end of the year for
these projects and let them extend through December 31st.
>Kane: Remember they do still have the regular extension mechanism available to them. The idea is to
do a batch process for the ones that were most directly affected by the closures. The other issue we
talked about internally with staff is if there's a second wave of closures in the fall or winter, we would
probably want to do this again. But we did see some down side in doing a longer extension because we do
want to make sure things progress, and so it's an incentive for people to be mindful of their projects and
what they need to do to keep them moving in that September /October time frame. Having said that,
there's no problem with setting a different date. That's something the Commission is free to do in their
recommendation to Council. Staff had discussed that internally and arrived at these dates as being the
best stand-in for the immediate problem while keeping the regular regimen in place.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend
approval of the resolution to City Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.612 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage (Jeremy Slater, applicant and property
owner; Residential Design Solutions - Christian Ruffat, designer) (124 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
612 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
612 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
612 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How was it determined to place shutters only on three of the windows? (Ruffat: Like to add shutters
where there is space available. Felt that shutters worked well on the upper primary gable elements to
make a statement. Didn't see opportunities at other locations to add them, also didn't want to bunch them
together.)
>It appears that the window trim detail is missing, what is the proposed material? (Ruffat: Will be a
recessed window application, with a rolled stucco return. There would be no exterior trim.) Sill material
should be called out on plans; provide section of exterior of window.
>Do you have a sense of how second floor deck at rear of house will interplay with view of neighbors'
yards? (Ruffat: There is a lot of existing mature vegetation in the rear yard, as well as in neighboring
yards.)
>Design guidelines specifically address second floor decks, noting that they should not be viewing
platforms into neighboring properties. When a lot is only 50 feet wide, it's really hard to have a second
floor deck that isn't a viewing platform. Should reconsider second floor deck in light of these guidelines .
(Ruffat: Will take this into consideration.)
>The first floor plate height is 10 feet. How do you think that is going to interplay with the adjacent
houses with much lower plate heights? (Ruffat: Precedence was established by a house recently built
down the block on Burlingame Avenue, that house has a 10 foot first floor and 8 foot second floor plate
height. Felt that we had good cause to use those plate heights.)
>Concerned with first floor roof line at front of house starting at 10 feet, plus another two feet until you
reach grade. Could you consider bringing that element down? (Ruffat: Have stepped the second floor back
considerable from the main floor wall, could look at extending the eave line to bring the roof line down.)
>Noticed in section that you've got about a foot worth of structural space between the floors, concerned
how that will interact with the outside sill plates. Don't want structural engineer to drive the design. Should
include more detail in building sections so make sure building won't get taller. (Ruffat: Have tried to keep
the massing down along the perimeter of the house by not putting it on the floor diaphragm.)
>On Sheet A5, note "E" still indicates 7.5-inch wood header trim over the windows, should be deleted
since that is not what is being proposed.
>I like the size of the front entry wall and it presents the entry door well, but the tile caps on that wall
look like they were left over tiles that were added on the wall. Looks like a faux wall, not sure what the
solution is, but please take another look at that. (Ruffat: House directly across the street has this same
element, like how it is presented.)
>On Sheet A6, are the two living room windows on the left elevation deliberately a different sill and
header heights? (Ruffat: No, they should be at the same heights, will correct the plans.)
>Also concerned with proposed second floor deck at rear of house, could also look at replacing the
open railing with a solid railing.
Public Comments:
>Reynold and Michelle Harbin: We are the owners of the house located directly behind the subject
property. Have privacy concerns with the proposed second floor balcony looking into our rear yard. Will
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
existing tree in rear property, which now provides privacy, be removed or will it remain? Will the fence along
the rear property be replaced? Would like to be notified when the fence will be removed and replaced,
have a small dog.
>Comment submitted via e -mail by Jennifer Pfaff: I live a couple of blocks from this neighborhood and
find this to be a particularly lovely designed residential project. Lots of attention has been paid to the
details, in particular the substantial depth of windows and various materials without piling on too many
different elements. It just works so well. Thank you for the effort you clearly have spent studying the area
carefully so that your project will blend with and complement the surroundings. Bravo!
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the project, it's designed well and is nicely detailed, will fit in well with the neighborhood.
>10 foot plate height is too tall for this neighborhood irrespective of what one might find in the
neighborhood, these are smaller homes in this neighborhood.
>Concerned with proposed exterior light fixtures, won't comply with the exterior lighting regulations .
Should look into light fixtures that have a cone /shield preventing light from extending beyond the property
line.
>Include proposed fence details on site plan and landscape plan.
>Second floor decks can be a platform for viewing into neighbors' yards, should look more closely at
this given the direction in the design guidelines. Needs to be revisited, not sure if it can meet the design
guidelines, may not be able to have a second floor deck.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.925 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for
exterior facade changes and a second story addition to an existing commercial building
(office use proposed ), Front and Side Setback Variances and Parking Variances
(Steven Stept, Feldman Architecture, applicant and architect; 800 Airport Boulevard Lp,
property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
925 Howard Ave - Staff Report
925 Howard Ave - Attachments
925 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he met with the
neighbor next door on Howard Avenue and discussed the windows facing their direction and their concern
about parking.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The new use is asking for nine parking spaces and they are only providing two. You're saying there's a
deficit of two spaces, are we not really in a deficit of seven spaces? (Hurin: When we look at the parking
requirement, we look at the existing demand and proposed demand. So we do give a credit for the existing
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
uses that were on site. So the increase from five to nine is four spaces. The code says you have to
provide parking for the intensification of use. In this case, the intensification requires four spaces and they
are only providing two spaces onsite, therefore, the parking variance is for two spaces.)
>Was there a variance previously for this building? (Hurin: I don't believe there was a variance issued or
granted for the uses that were on the site. I believe we reviewed the file and didn't find that, but as is
provided in the zoning code, we only look at the intensification of use. Although the proposed use would
require a total of nine parking spaces, we're looking at the intensification of use and getting a credit for the
existing uses.)
>Don't see anything that would say that we understand how the parking in the neighborhood works now .
During my visit, there ’s not a lot of people around and there was plenty of parking, but there's a large scale
housing development being built down the street on Myrtle Road and it is actually relatively close to the
Caltrain station, so not sure how much Myrtle Road fills up regularly. (Hurin: A lot of the uses or buildings
that were along Myrtle Road before construction of the multi -family residential project started did not have
the required parking on the site. Now with those uses those uses will eliminated and replaced with the 920
Bayswater Avenue project, which will be providing the required parking onsite. Therefore in general, you will
see that parking spaces may be more available on the street; the train station is also nearby. In addition,
the public parking garage is currently being built on the west side of California Drive it's within a few
blocks of this site.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Steven Stept and Anjali Iyer, and Eric Koppl represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Like the project. It’s really going to be a nice addition to the changing area there. Having some
discomfort with the variance for the parking spaces. Wondering if you looked at any alternative parking
methods like parking stackers? (Stept: We have, actually. It is a bit complex, we're required to have a
certain amount of accessible parking and we're providing accessible parking. There is limited amount of
space for the stackable parking. Basically that's the conflict to some degree. We have a lot of space,
40% of the building is taking up two parking spaces.) So basically stackers won't fit because you need to
have an accessible space? (Iyer: It's interesting you bring that up. We had two to three rounds of back
and forth discussions with the Building and Planning Divisions about how we accommodate the cars in
this garage space. We did originally do research and proposed a stack and lift system. So we do have
enough head room in that existing shell with the trusses above to stack two tiers of cars. But unfortunately
there's no way that we can provide an accessible parking space right next to the stackable system. That
doesn't work and it wasn't something the Building Division was willing to give us a concession on, which
ended up with us providing just two parking spaces.)
>That garage area is taking up a large amount of the first floor. The building is roughly 50 feet wide.
Aware that it wouldn't qualify, but conceivably you could put more cars in there, is that correct? (Stept:
Conceivably, yes.) Assuming that's what's going to happen, you would have more parking than you're
showing in your application. (Iyer: It's a fair assessment. We wanted to note the fact that there really won't
be any visitors to the building and none of the people using the building are disabled -accessible at this
point. So we need to navigate this issue one way or the other. We're not sure how that plays with current
code.) (Stept: In our application you see renderings. We had proposed and initially had envisioned to have
two garages so we can maximize the amount of parking we can get in there. Then we got into the whole
conversation about the disabled -accessible parking spaces and the curb cuts, so we ended up with one
garage.)
>Comparing your Site/Roof Plan on A1.2 and your renderings, the renderings are showing two street
trees along Howard Avenue and three along Myrtle Road which looks really nice, is that your intent to get
more street trees there? (Iyer: We did originally have a good balance of trees. Unfortunately, we had to
eliminate the street trees along Howard Avenue because there is a storm drain line that runs right into the
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
sidewalk there and that would be problematic for the trees. But yes, the intent really was for all of these
windows from the buildings to look onto trees, but we're doing it where we can.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really like the project. A little bothered by the fact that it ’s a simple stack of a box on top of another
box and not taking advantage of the opportunity to give it more character. It seems like something other
than a simple stacking of boxes is in order here. It is not a deal killer. It's a good project, but it feels like
a missed opportunity. The box on top feels a little bit tall as well. We're talking about a 15’ x 12’ room with
a 10’ ceiling. It's rare to find a 10’ ceiling in an office space in a 25,000 square feet office building, more
often you would see 9’-0” or 9’-6” ceiling heights in a large building. The box on top deserves another look,
other than that, it is a very nice project.
>It is a nice project and this neighborhood is transforming with both office building across the street
and the new apartments down the street. Don’t see a problem making a finding in the setback variance
since they addressed the second floor setback and it's an existing condition, it ’s burdensome to move
those walls back. A little less comfortable with the parking variance, particularly the reduction in parking
spaces. Understand the limitations placed with the accessible parking stall that's required, but hoping the
applicant can take a look at what my fellow commissioner brought up about the width of the building. It
seems like that's a possibility for a tandem parking configuration, perhaps in combination with parking
stackers. Actually, the tandem sites are something that we have approved by a variance on another
project on Myrtle Road a couple of years ago. So that's something that might work here. Don't think the
MMU zoning guidelines specifically encourage looking at alternative parking methods, but this is a
neighborhood that would work for that.
>Regarding the second variance of backing up onto the street, maybe the applicant can revisit the
variance application. There's a need to understand why it is in the code that it shouldn't happen, or is it
enough of a safety risk that it's not allowed in the code, and maybe they could address that because it
seems like that's a possibility here since Myrtle Road is a side street. It wouldn't be the same as backing
onto Howard Avenue. That could be something that can be addressed.
>The biggest question really is the second floor, if you could take a look at that. The second floor feels
a little too large.
>Like the project too, it looks good. Don't see how we're going to be able to change all the setbacks
given that it's already built out. It's a shame that so much of the space is trying to make the parking work .
But it will be a nice project, the use is pretty low intensity and that will be good. But the parking is a little
bit of a concern just not knowing the impacts in that area. Otherwise, it's a good project.
>Back to the parking, it seems that you might need to rework the garage. You may get five cars in
there if you put three spaces towards the rear and the ADA parking space toward the door, and that would
comply. We have approved tandem parking in the past, but it will give you more room. Agree that the
building need not be a rectangle. Maybe a change of the floor area up there. Maybe if it popped out more
on one side or something, not just a big square. But overall, it works for the building. Like the big
overhang in the shaded area. It will be a good place in the afternoon. Maybe if you did something to dress
that up on top so it wasn't just a box that will help. Overall, like the project.
>Since we now know that the street trees on Howard Avenue can't be planted due to the storm drain
lines below. Wondering if there's an opportunity to the left of the entry where you have a little bit of an
angled inlet, for some planters along that window wall. You might lose a little space on the interior, but it
could add some warmth to the entrance and a little bit more character on Howard Avenue. This is to add a
bit of landscaping and make up for the loss of the landscape requirement that you are asking to be
excused for. If you take a look at that if possible.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded Vice Chair Tse, to place the item on the
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020
May 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
>Planning Manager Hurin noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will be meeting next
week to discuss several issues, including some of which were brought up this evening. We'll discuss
those items and then report back to the Planning Commission.
>Planning Manager Hurin noted that the City Council reviewed the Draft ADU Ordinance and had
scheduled it for adoption on June 1st. However, prior to that meeting, we received a letter from
Californians for Homeownership, in which they brought up concerns regarding parts of the Draft ADU
Ordinance. Therefore, we have decided to send the Draft Ordinance to HCD for review prior to bringing it
back to City Council for either reintroduction or adoption.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on May 26, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or
called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2020, 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
$1,045.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/24/2020