HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.06.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 22, 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, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 -
ComarotoAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft April 27, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft April 27, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft May 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft May 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the April 27, 2020
and May 11, 2020 minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
c.Draft May 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft May 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he did not attend the May 26, 2020 meeting.
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the May 26, 2020
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
Abstain:Terrones1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/14/2020
June 22, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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.523 Francisco Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits to convert
storage space in an existing detached accessory structure to a recreation room and
home office use and for glazed openings within 10 feet of property line. This project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)). (Brooks McDonald, applicant and designer;
Abhishek Sharma, property owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
523 Francisco Dr - Staff Report
523 Francisco Dr - Attachments
523 Francisco Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he accessed the rear
yard to review the area of the application, but did not discuss the project.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Was the structure built with the current ownership or past ownership? (Hurin: Staff does not have that
information. Perhaps the applicant can respond to that question.)
>Is there something in the building or planning code that states structures under 120 square feet don't
need permits? (Hurin: Correct. A building permit is not required for structures that are 120 square feet or
less and that don't contain any electrical, or if it's used as a storage shed. In this case, there is electrical
in the structure, the structure contains windows, and they're proposing to change the use to a recreation
room/ home office. Therefore, a conditional use permit is required. Building permits, for example, would be
required for the electrical work and to install windows.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Glen Evans, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>How was the structure built? Does it have a permanent concrete foundation or is it on piers? (Evans:
It was built on a concrete foundation, believe it's a slab foundation.)
>Do you know if there have been any comments or any interactions with the neighbors regarding the
structure? (Evans: Never, not since we moved in and bought the house in April of 2014. As previously
mentioned, we sold it in December 2019 and the neighbors on the closer side of the structure, if you are
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/14/2020
June 22, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
facing the house on the right never said anything. We had a fence dispute at one time with the neighbors
to the rear, but we resolved that. There were some old issues I inherited when I bought the house, and we
ended up cleaning that up and putting the fence in the right place. They saw it and never said anything
either.)
>Just to be clear, you built it and it had the utilities that it has now? (Evans: Yes. We confirmed that
the electrical was deep enough in the ground, we had someone inspect that. Everything was checked as
far as I know with the City and the Planning Division.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It sounds like this is somewhat administrative between the prior owner and current owner as a part of
the sale of the house. If it was operating as such previously and there haven't been any complaints by the
neighbors, the first order of a conditional use permit is whether or not it would be detrimental to
neighboring properties. No other neighbors are coming forward and it doesn't sound like there's been any
complaints. In visiting the property, it looks like it's a well -built structure and nicely set in the rear yard. It
has a gorgeous tree in front of it, so it's a nice setting. Don't see any reason why the project shouldn't
move forward with approval.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.887 Mitten Road, zoned I/I - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to
the facade of an existing commercial building, Conditional Use Permit for floor area ratio,
and Parking Variance. (D. Michael Kastrop, AIA, The Kastrop Group, Inc. Architects,
applicant and architect; Steve Porter, property owner) (27 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
887 Mitten Rd - Staff Report
887 Mitten Rd - Attachments
887 Mitten Rd - 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.
Questions of staff:
> To clarify, the use is not being intensified even though there's a technical increase to FAR, and
that's primarily due to the fact that most of the second floor ceiling height is over 12 feet which gets
counted twice towards the FAR? (Hurin: That's correct. In terms of parking, it's actually not being
intensified. The current uses on this site are more intense. The site actually meets the parking
requirement. Staff looked at the proposed uses in the building which require 31 spaces and 31 spaces are
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/14/2020
June 22, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
being proposed. In terms of the FAR, much of that on the second floor is because of the open space
within the building.)
>We have an FAR of 1.49 versus the 0.75 that's allowed but it's because the second floor volume, not
that it's another floor of useable space, it has to be counted twice? (Hurin: That’s correct. If you took
away that additional 12,500 square feet of floor area due to the open ceiling area, the FAR drops down to
0.9 so it's just slightly over the 0.75.)
>Understand the height is dictated by FAA, do we know what that height is or is it subjective? (Hurin: It
depends on where in Burlingame you are. For example, on the bayfront, believe it's 141 feet above sea
level. It can accommodate about a 10 or 11-story building. This is clearly under that.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Mike Kastrop, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the existing height of the building that's there now, do we know? (Kastrop: It's 21’-6“ based
on the drawings.)
>Please clarify what are called “ceramic panels” at the facade, which is rendered in white on your
drawings. By ceramic panels, do you mean tiles or are they ceramic coated metal panels reminiscent of
Richard Meyer architecture? (Kastrop: Exactly. Ceramic coated metal panels.)
>If this moves forward, would like to see if we can get copies of the colored elevations. It's going to be
a handsome building and positive that it will be an improvement over what's existing in the area. It is hard
to read with the black and white drawings as presented. Please provide plans in color when this comes
back for action.
>Was at the rear of the building and noticed you have windows scheduled for the back of the building
as well. How close are you to the property line at the rear? (Kastrop: We’re ten feet away from the property
line.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like what is shown on the colored rendering. It seems like an organized building and it's
well-articulated. It's a handsome project and highly legible.
>The existing building is dated, it's looking rather tired. Appreciate the fact that the owners are willing to
make this investment. It's a handsome design.
>Provide plans in color when this application returns for action.
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Comaroto1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/14/2020
June 22, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Hurin noted that on June 15, 2020 the City Council reviewed the Reach Code and
provided direction to scale it back. In particular, they directed that single family homes shall continue to
be allowed to have natural gas cooking, fireplaces, and fire pits. Also, that restaurants should be allowed
to have natural gas for cooking without requesting a waiver or exception.
The Council further directed that the ordinance be split into three pieces (single family residential,
multifamily, and commercial) to allow portions that are ready to be adopted to be adopted, and allow more
controversial items to move at their own pace.
a.717 Neuchatel Avenue - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
717 Neuchatel Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on June 22, 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 July 2, 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 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/14/2020