Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.07.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, July 13, 2020 CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Online a.Public Comment (open session) – Members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding the closed session agenda. There were no public comments. b.Conference with Legal Counsel (closed session) – Planning Commission, Commission staff, and counsel only Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code s. 54956.9(b): one case 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:07 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Chair Tse, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Gaul1 - a.Draft June 8, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 8, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft June 22, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 22, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 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 Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1536 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a)). (Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Michael Glynn, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1536 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1536 Howard Ave - Attachments 1536 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 1536 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Barry Brown and Jack Chu, represented the applicant with property owner Michael Glynn. Commission Questions/Comments: >Do you have an updated rendering to share with us? (Brown: No, we eliminated the renderings from the design package. We felt that was just an initial design to get the project started and the detailed design and elevation drawings tell the story pretty well at this time.) >This was brought up at the last meeting, there's an extensive amount of upper cabinetry and a large size cabinet at the kitchen, wondering if there was a consideration for windows along the right elevation where that portion is fairly blank? (Glynn: We did take that into consideration, but the desire to have cabinet storage dictated the design.) >Can you explain why the chimney at the living room in the main house is not going all the way up, is it because it's going to hit the second floor? Seems odd that it's kind of shortened. (Chu: The chimney is fake because we're using a gas fireplace. It's a direct -vent fireplace.) Have you looked at a rendition of not having a chimney there? It looks a little out of scale and was wondering if there was some other option that you might have there? (Chu: Believe it is proportioned.) (Brown: The chimney is attached to the living room which is a one-story portion of the house. The designer might be a little concerned of pushing the height of the chimney to the eave of the second story and it will look a bit out of place. It's a delicate Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes balance there.) > The kitchen wall just appears so blank. Not sure if you could put a smaller window up at the top, maybe let some natural light into the kitchen as well and still not lose a lot of the cabinet space. (Chu: We can always add a window in between the countertop and the upper cabinetry.) Public Comments: >Comment sent via chat by Audrey Gostafson: Was the window alignment looked into? (Brown: The owner and the designer did reach out to the neighbor.) (Glynn: A month ago I printed out a full set of drawings and dropped them to my neighbors to my left. I gave my e -mail address and phone number and suggested to call me if there were any issues with an alignment or a screening of a window. I didn't hear anything back and I figured he would let me know if he had an issue. But if there is one, and it's something that needs to be obscured, I'm open to that. I have no problem with addressing any particular window that might be an issue.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The consultation with the design consultant has led to significant improvements on this project . There's a lot of good things going on here, the legibility of the architecture is much better than it was. It's clearer where there's board and batten. >My reading of the chimney was the same as the one offered by the designer, it's attached to a one-story piece of building. You either have to make it much more massive to attach it to the second floor or you would have to push the second floor out to grab it. It would look very strange to have a long, skinny chimney extending out too far over the one-story element. >To make it look more like a wood -burning fireplace chimney, the chimney would have to be two feet above the upper roof or anything within 10 feet. Interpreted it as an old style one -story chimney over that element of the architecture. >In regards to the windows, with the increasing popularity of the open plan of kitchen to family room, you eliminate a lot of walls where you could put cabinetry. Can't totally fault the designer on the project because it's a lot of what's being done today. What it then leads to are walls that don't have a lot of windows to accommodate cabinetry. That blank wall at the right side elevation is down on the first floor and it's up against the fence. >They've done what we've asked. It's a lot clearer than what it was last time. Same thing with the chimney, the kitchen window idea along the driveway, understand exactly why those cabinets are there . Maybe it's just an opportunity with some landscaping to make that a little more attractive for themselves, but that's something we should not be dictating. In favor of the project. >The only question was the issue raised again by the neighbor, it doesn ’t seem like it’s been resolved . Don't want to hold the project up, but would like to see something come back from the applicant that they've addressed this or at least made a good faith attempt to address the window placement. Based on the public comment we received, it's still unclear which neighbor exactly it is, and whether or not they've gotten the information that was requested. >Like all the changes that they made and appreciate the explanation of the chimney placement. >Not opposed to not having windows on that side. Agree about putting some landscaping on that wall, it might be nice. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >Prior to the submittal of a Building permit, the applicant shall apply for an FYI to the Planning Commission to show how the window alignment with neighbor was resolved. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R -4 Incentive District Subarea - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Density Bonus Concessions and Waivers/Modifications for a new 5-story, 19-unit residential condominium building with at-grade parking. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; WHA Architects, Inc ., architect; Thomas Cady, property owner) (202 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 128 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 128 Lorton Ave - Attachments 128 Lorton Ave - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 128 Lorton Ave - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption - Appendices 128 Lorton Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an opportunity to meet with the architect and the developer a while back to get a preview of what they were preparing for this meeting . Commissioner Comaroto had a conversation with the property owner last week. Commissioner Tse had a brief phone conversation with the property owners. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff: Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Chris Grant and Peter Gabrich, represented the applicant with the property owner Stephanie Giddrid. Commission Questions/Comments: >You're not proposing to install blue glass, this is just a conceptual rendering of glass, right? (Gabrich: Correct.) > There are several brown colors shown, suspect they're not all the same thing. The front entry has reclaimed wood. The louvers to the parking garage are almost undoubtedly steel and painting it dark brown is to simulate wood, is that right? (Gabrich: Not necessarily of wood, but trying to tie the color to the other brown portions of the building. It would be steel for longevity and durability for sure.) > In the other areas of the building, plaster is never called out. We're left to assume because the white is called out as cement plaster. Could not find a note that pointed to the brown spandrel or the top floor of the front, is that cement plaster? (Gabrich: It is. It's going to be the 2030 sand.) So all of those things are the same colors? (Grant: They are. We've got a couple of different color spans, but for some of the trim bands it's a little bit darker. But the accent stucco colors, the intent is for them to be the same so they tie together.) >Are the window systems operable? (Gabrich: They are going to be operable but not all of them. I haven't quite designated which ones were operable and which ones are not.) >On your prior rendition of the northwest side elevation, it showed you had greenery. Are you planning on doing anything with that lower horizontal wall there? (Gabrich: Currently what we're showing is what we're proposing. Looking at the previous iterations, they were kind of like a green wall. We're challenged on that side because of our adjacency to the neighboring property and the property line. So, if we do add Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes something, it would have to be pretty narrow. Currently we don't have anything shown.) >On this same elevation, if you were on the balcony at the second floor, are you looking at the inside face of this gray screening wall? (Gabrich: It’s a low wall. Essentially it acts as a guardrail. When you walk out onto that balcony area it would be about 42 inches above that deck floor. It's to prevent people from falling off, but it's not full height.) Does it carry all the way across the second floor in the other two sets of windows in its elevation? (Gabrich: Yes.) > How would you envision one would utilize the open space at the rear of the property? (Gabrich: That would be accessed through the back stairs. We have a door leading directly from that stairway to the open space there. So that open space we're utilizing is for open space for the residents. It provides exterior open space, and we're also using it for drainage and filtering onsite runoff. And we have permeable pavers called out by the landscape architect and we have an informal seating area. We also have some bike racks, which were a concern of the commission in previous meetings, so that is one of our proposed locations for bicycle racks.) >On your right elevation, the garage ventilation protrudes out from the face of the building. The side setback is five feet, correct? (Gabrich: Correct.) It looked like these ventilation segments protrude out about 12 inches or so, how much are they protruding out? (Gabrich: The way we're envisioning this is trim . It would probably stick out about four to six inches. The renderings make it look a bit more dramatic than they really are. We wanted to do something rather than just holes and louvers. We wanted to tie those to some of the elements we have on the upper floors. We don't want to get too far down because as you mentioned, we have five feet, so I'm looking at realistically four to six inches to give it a little bit of a shadow and a little bit of interest.) In plan, it looks like it protrudes 12 inches or so as well. Wondering if there's necessity for it to protrude since that side alley is fairly narrow as it is. >The tree that's right in front of the paseo on the front elevation, is that an existing tree to remain? (Gabrich: Yes, and the landscape architect Tom Phelps has identified that it's an existing tree to remain .) Wondering about pedestrian travel in and around that area. Appreciate the tree preservation, but wondering what it's doing to pedestrian travel as well as the visibility of the paseo. (Gabrich: We're just trying to preserve as many things as possible.) >Gardiner: I received a message from the project planner letting me know that the City Arborist is requiring that the street tree is replaced with two new street trees, so this particular issue may go a different direction just because of the replacement of that tree with two new ones. >You previously had signage located on the front of the building on the face and don't see signage location under your current proposed elevation. Would it be in a similar location or somewhere else? (Grant: We were asked to remove it from the drawings. We can either put it at the front base of the stair column on the building, or over the front entry on one member there, or the mid -level by the building facade between the first and second levels of the porches. Certainly something to be studied.) >Looking at that elevation or this rendering, have you thought about where rideshare pickup may take place at this building? There's a row of hedges in your landscape plan that's right along the street, right on the sidewalk which would prevent someone from being able to come out and hop into a car. Have you thought about how that might occur? (Grant: One of the things we looked at when we did the revisions on the front entry to the building is the open space through there. The idea is you would be in your building, it literately is showing the location of the vehicle and as it approaches, you'll walk out and there's a vehicle at the curb. More than likely not, you're inside the building or at that front entry area. Rather than entering a vehicle at the landscape portion, you would be entering at the drive.) >If we can go back to the northwest elevation looking at that gray swath along the bottom, is that cement plaster? (Gabrich: That’s correct.) Would there be some control joints or something in that facade or is it some other technique? (Gabrich: We would definitely do control joints because we want to control the plaster and cracking. If we do a large swath of plaster like that without control joint, it would most likely crack, so we could break that up with control joints. > What is meant by the keynote number six on that same elevation calls for plastered trim with 2030 sand finish. What's that trim along that guardrail? (Gabrich: We would most likely frame it, but it was a stucco trim to allow us to do a little bit of change of color and get a little shadow line. We have a couple of different pieces of trim and cornice. The trim there would be the same as the field. We do have a couple of areas where we identified smooth plaster. So it would be smooth grout. That's the intent there.) > Just to understand the design intent, you've got the two bookends at each end of this facade, the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes stairwells. One on the far right where you can get a window in, and that comes all the way to the ground and the far left, that comes all the way to the ground. But then the area that's the trash enclosure and the elevator which is the large white rectangle, that doesn't come all the way down. You're interrupting that with this gray wall or the guardrail wall. Is that intentional? (Gabrich: Yes.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Agree with the developer that the project has come a long way. The architecture has greatly improved from what we saw previously. It's a more sophisticated design. As he said, it has a certain calm to it. >Being that this is the R-4 incentive district, we're being asked to consider the density bonuses as well as the development standard waivers. And all the while, there's a lot being asked. Looking at the site and the potential for development, in terms of the location for something of this intensity and density, there's not much better of a place. On one side it's up against a large new parking structure that's under construction. On the backside, it's up against surface parking. On the other side, it's surrounded by apartment buildings, granted they are a little bit smaller in scale, but can see this area evolving over time . This is a good location for a project like this. >Without getting into fully applying some architecture and design to all of what's possible, personally accepting of the arguments made by the developer in terms of the application and the request for the waiver of the development standards. Can make those findings and allow for a project of this intensity to move forward. It's a good project. >Like where the project has gone from the early stages. One concern is that horizontal wall, it's a big concrete wall. The architects could look at doing something at that side. >Like the architecture of the project and this is a good location for it. It has a parking garage on one side and a parking lot on a second side. When we looked at this the last time, there was some concern about the number of waivers and concessions that we're asking for and the applicants made a good case there. Basically if they weren't to get the waivers, they would lose one unit per floor which is about four units. So in effect, we're getting two below market rate units for two additional market rate units, and when you look at it in that context, that's something that's supportable. >Have some concerns about the architecture and it might be in part because of the cartoon nature in the presentation, the drawings themselves. Having a little bit of trouble getting past the blue windows and the brown stucco. It could be a nice project, but depending on how this is rendered into architecture, it could end up being a cheap looking project and that is worrisome. For example the stone veneer, if it looks like glued on stone veneer, that's going to look really cheap. Not being able to tell what exactly is going on there and worry about the tendency of colorized projects. A lot depends on how this thing goes from a cartoon to a building. >We need the housing. It's a great spot for a development like this. Hoping that it will turn into a really good building. It's really hard to not be in the same room and not see a mock -up of the stone and the stucco and understand exactly how this gets translated into building from drawing. >One question brought up was the windows. Don't know if we can ask the developer to come back as an FYI just to understand which windows will be operable and which will not be operable and how they play out. > The windows in the rendering look somewhat commercial rather than residential and it might be a rendering technique. Being able to see a little bit more of what that submittal is going to look like and how they're going to operate so they have a good residential feel for the people is a good thing. >A couple of areas that need clarifications are some of the larger wall spans. The one on the left side facing a garage, there ’s a walkway between this garage and building, and people will be there. Would like a better understanding how those control joints are going to work because there's also the large white wall that's coming down to it that doesn't have any detail in it at this point. It's probably going to need control joints as well that's going to show up and are a pattern. There's a bit more texture on this side that hasn't been put in or incorporated to where some of the other sides may have been a little bit more developed . Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The materials are going to be a big deal on the success of how these surfaces turn out. >It's the right density and the heights work. The only drawback on some of it is the open space that we are not going to have in proportion to the number of units that are there, but this may be the spot to do that anyway. > The architecture and the design improvements are appreciated and like how it's developed since the last meeting. The location is good, and can agree with the concessions and the waivers being requested for this project. >Have a few concerns as well about the animated nature of the renderings and being able to see how the finishes will come to play. One of the down sides of meeting online is we aren't able to pass the materials across the dais to take a look at what those finishes may be. If there is some way we could, whether it's an FYI or some other means that we can get an opportunity to view those finishes, that would be appreciated. >Saddened by the lack of outdoor space for the tenants but do realize that this setting in the downtown area and some of the future developments that are coming soon would help to offset those shortfalls. >Would like to put a little bit more attention at the paseo, that massive gray wall which once was green, it seems like a nice opportunity for a mural or some type of creative tile installation or material installation . Something to give a little bit better passage for those pedestrians going through that area. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >Prior to the submittal of a Building permit, the applicant shall apply for an FYI that includes a materials board, window specifications, clarifies which windows will be operable, and further defines the detailing and articulation of the northwest elevation. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.912 Park Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Elaine Lee, applicant and architect; Erik Chi Hein Chan, property owner) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 912 Park Ave - Staff Report 912 Park Ave - Attachments 912 Park Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff: Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Elaine Lee, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could you expand on the issue of not wanting to disrupt or affect any of the existing house with the addition? (Lee: Given the symmetry of the existing house, I felt as though really the only way to design a really wholly integrated addition to the house that involved a second story would require that we center the addition over the existing house. We wanted to avoid having to open up and tear up large portions of the center of the house to provide the support for the new second story. There's a cellar in the house that would also limit and constrain or alternately increase the costs of having to support a second story over the existing house. The least disruptive and most economical solution would be to hide an addition toward the rear that also at the same time wouldn't require the bathroom and the kitchen and the house need to be touched.) >Do you think that your proposal to put the addition over the center of the house integrates at all based on the design review criteria? (Lee: I think that in style, it integrates. But in massing, from the sides of the property, it's not the ideal situation. We're trying to walk a fine line between not wanting to peel open lots of the existing house and just the constraints of budget for this project. Trying to avoid remodeling most of the original part of the house.) >It seems like the windows on the left side elevation are not as well aligned as on some of the other elevations, was that deliberate? (Lee: Concerns are for privacy. At the lower level, we have a bathroom and office that faces the neighbor. I was trying to set the windows higher so the privacy of both the neighbor and the homeowner were a little bit more contained. On the second floor, they correspond to areas that are best for us in plan. Furthermore, just the roof line creates a disruption in the massing of the building, so I didn't feel that there is a similar alignment required on that facade.) >Should check with the City Arborist regarding replacing the pear trees, if the replacement trees need to be fruitless or not and the appropriate location. (Lee: That was a suggestion from the City Arborist.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We are being asked to consider design review and a special permit for declining height. Could be compelled to make a finding for declining height envelope. >Perhaps if it were an architecture that were a little bit more integrated and crafted into the existing house, we have to make findings in terms of the compatibility of the architecture style with that of the neighborhood. In visiting the neighborhood, there are houses across the street that are two story and may not be as well-crafted as they fall to the back of their properties, but at least the second story and what's happening in the upper floors is integrated for the most part with roofs that spring from first floor heights . This is encouraged in the guidelines. >The design we're being asked to consider looks like a two -story house that's rammed into the back of a one story house. Understand the issues of costs and budget, but we have to make the findings for the design review based on the design review criteria. Can't make those findings for the compatibility of the architecture style and the mass and bulk of the structure and interface of adjacent properties as presented so far. >Feels like this is just another house built behind the original house. >This could be a good candidate for design review consultant. The back half just doesn't really fit into the neighborhood very well. >It makes some sense in plan when you look at how they tried to organize it, and that has some workability to it. But it doesn't integrate with the existing house, and it looks like it's something behind . Agree it could be done in the roof lines or something like that to integrate better so it looks like one project instead of two or three. >Understood the designers’ assessment of the challenges of integrating it to the existing house. But also note that it's the back bedroom that's being reconfigured there into a kitchen, so there is some opportunity even with the existing plan to integrate it better. >The design review consultant is a good idea. It would help streamline the work flow of the project for the applicant and more likely result in a revised application that would be approvable when it comes back. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.100 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a new accessory structure. (Gleason & Gleason Design Partners, applicant and designer; Kristine Furrer, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 100 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report 100 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments 100 Costa Rica Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 100 Costa Rica Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused because she lives within 500 feet from the property. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones while visiting the site was visited by neighbors asking questions about what was being requested, and did not get addresses for those neighbors. Commissioner Schmid had a brief visit with the neighbor across the street on Costa Rica during the site visit, but did not talk about anything substantial. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Need to receive the plans as half size sets so they can be measured - not 11" x 17". >Where the new proposed driveway is being slid to the back of the property, there's an existing utility pole with a tension support which extends about 8 feet from the pole which would obstruct the garage approach. Don't know how that will be addressed as an issue of constructability. (Gardiner: We could ask the applicant that when we get to the questions for the applicant.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Don and Rela Gleason, represented the applicant with the property owner Kristine Furrer Crouch. Commission Questions/Comments: >(Gleason: We have looked at the electrical pole that you spoke of, and there is a way to maneuver the driveway so it doesn't have to impede on the pole. That has to do with the landscape design and how the driveway is going to bend in to reach the garage.) > This can be a handsome design and nice project, but not sure because of some clarifications we need in the drawings. In looking at the west elevation, the items that are shown next to the windows, are those shutters of some sort? They're not called out on the drawing, so if we could get that noted . (Gleason: Yes they are shutters.) > On the same elevation towards the rear of the house, we're seeing what looks to be a dormer with your keynote number 7 - double pane aluminum sash window. That dormer doesn't show up on the roof plan like the other dormers. Not sure how that dormer aligns with the window that's in the master suite, but the window looks like its shown wall -to-wall on that exterior. It's not drawn like that on the other dormers . Also, what is the scale of that dormer? (Gleason: Correct. It will look exactly like the others. Thank you for Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes calling that out.) >On the south elevation, you're showing what looks to be a large acorn -shaped light fixture next to the larger doors and french doors, is it really intended to be that size? It looks like it would be three or four feet tall. (Gleason: It's not three or four feet tall. It's about 28 inches tall. It's is supposed to be a gas lantern.) >If you're not familiar already, there's a requirement for the exterior light fixtures that they have to be downcast and they don't shine at the other properties and maximum wattage, etcetera. (Gleason: There's no neighbor on that side. Also we can drop the height of that fixture because it's on a hook, and we can make it any height we want. It's shielded to the other neighbor by the roof of the new entry and there is very mature landscaping there, so it would not be visible from the street.) >On the north elevation facing the backyard, the dormer on the front of the house is not shown . (Gleason: Correct.) On the east elevation where dormers are shown, they don't appear to align with where the windows are occurring on the plan. So if you could check that, you have one on the window into the master bath and one in the master bedroom area. These dormers don't seem to align. The dormer on the left is going to benefit by being further into the roof area if the plan is correct with where you want that window into the master bedroom. (Gleason: Yes.) >You said that the mature trees are going to remain. It seems like there's a lot of hedge going on the sidewalk along Barroilhet Avenue and Costa Rica Avenue. It's out quite a ways. Is there a plan to trim them? (Gleason: Yes, we're going to be cleaning them up, pruning them, and trimming them down because there's a lot of ivy that's grown into them and we need them to get sunlight and fill out. We plan on doing that early in construction so they have time to fill out again and look good.) (Crouch: I could cut those back as well. I cut those back last month because it was hard to walk on the sidewalk, so they're trimmed back from two weeks ago.) >What is the height of the building? (Gleason: The top of the ridge from the finished floor is 25’-3”. The top of the ridge to the average top of curb is 28’-6”. The lot slopes slightly from south to north and also from east to west.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This has the potential for being a well -crafted design. Some of the inconsistencies in the drawings makes it difficult. Like the direction this is going. >Have the concerns with the utility pole and the guy wire. The comment was made by the design team that the driveway in the landscaping can are curved around it, but that's not shown on the landscape plan . What's shown on the landscape plan is a straight shot driveway that comes in right at the corner of the property. So as the driveway is going to come around off the existing curb -cut, then those raised planters have to get revised. The hedge infill will have to get revised and some of the drawing issues with the inconsistency with the floor plan needs to get updated. Would benefit from design review consulting. >Can make the findings In terms of the application for design review and conditional use permit for the bathroom, the new detached garage and the pool equipment in the accessory structure. They’re relatively straight forward and we've approved similar requests in the past. >Has the potential to be a good project. It was just hard to read from the drawings. Also would agree with the design review consultant, it would just streamline the application process here for the applicant and it would get us to approval of drawings more quickly. >The roof plan was very confusing and can't make sense of it. It's a very odd design. It might be nice, but it sort of looks like it wants to have a flat roof. It's so unusual, it looks like an Irish thatched -roof cottage. Not sure that it fits into the neighborhood. Don't want to get into making decisions about the style, there’s so much about the project that just doesn't make sense. The drawings have to be much more refined to be approved. >The elevations and the design are handsome. It has the possibility of going a really nice direction. The split levels are fun, it creates an exciting dynamic to a project but it's different. The design consultant Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes could help with the format of this presentation so the drawings work well and they're a bit more consistent with the way we see other kinds of projects come through. It would make it a lot easier for us to make it approvable because then the information that we're looking for and expecting would be there. > There's some very interesting design elements to this home and it has some great potential. Had a hard time reading the drawings, and want to suggest that in the next go around that there will be better utilization of the white space on the sheet, maybe an enlarged plan and maximize the drawing on each sheet. Also maybe better differentiate some of the line weights on each of the drawings, that would help us to understand and read the context of the plans and drawings better. (Gleason: Is it possible to make one clarification, comment?) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. (Gleason: I’m not sure from the comments that this was clear. It is an existing split level house. The second floor addition that's referenced is only the size of the boxed out window. It's about 12 square feet.) (Crouch: It is only one room. I currently have an upstairs bedroom and bath.) (Gleason: The staff report suggested to me when I read it that the second story addition was a major deal. It’s not. The plate height has been raised to allow us to expand the living space. So anyway. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >It seems like all commissioners are in agreement that some more attention to the drafting of the set of drawings can help us understand your proposed plans better, and so we hope that you can take that opportunity to do that in this next go around. >Do want to follow up on the comment made by the applicant that the second story doesn't amount to much. There's something odd about the building and it's claiming a lot of vertical space for not having much going on upstairs. If the second floor is not that important, this building is saying something completely different. It's saying the second floor of this building and everything up high is really important because you've got this 11-1/2:12 roof. There's a lot of space being claimed for a building. Don’t care whether you use the space or not, but it's making a statement that's not in agreement with what we just heard about this building. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.10 Bancroft Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; GTI Properties LLC, property owner) (1,998) noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 10 Bancroft Rd - Staff Report 10 Bancroft Rd - Attachments 10 Bancroft Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff: Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are all the concrete curbing in the front of the property intended to be built like what was shown in the rendering? Because it's not on the landscaped plan. (Chu: No. It’s just an illustration in the rendering but would not be built that way.) Public Comments: >Comment sent via e-mail by Jennifer Pfaff: With the use of horizontal siding, stucco, composition shingle and metal roofing materials, there are too many different materials being used on this attractive design. It looks busy and somewhat cohesive. It would look better with fewer materials, and less is more. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the design and the combinations of materials work. The scale looks nice. So often we're talking about front porches and things that are too tall, which is challenging in some of these smaller -scale neighborhoods. This does a great job with the scale. >Like the project as well. Agree with the designer that this was a straightforward project. Agree with Ms . Pfaff's comment that there are too many materials. Hadn’t thought so, but after looking at the rendering which appeared to show one color of clapboard siding in the front and another color of clapboard siding in the back. If it was going to get broken up by making the clapboard boxes different colors, that would be an issue. Don't think that is what’s going on. >It's a very straightforward project. Like the materials, it works well. Don't have a problem with the materials. >In looking at the rendering, had a similar reaction in terms of the material, don ’t know if it's an issue of the palette. Don't know if it's necessary to change from the asphalt shingle that's predominant to the metal on the left. The renderings show a dark charcoal color. Don't think that's necessary, but would leave it to the applicant. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Gaul1 - d.220 Park Road (Post Office) and below grade portion of City Parking Lot E, zoned HMU - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Historic Variance for Height (Title 21) and Parking, and Request for a Parking Easement (below grade under Lot E) for the redevelopment and restoration of portions of the existing Post Office building and construction of a New 6-story Office Project with Ground Floor Retail and two Levels of Underground Parking. (220 Park - Burlingame LLC, applicant; KSH Architects, architect; Burlingame Park Square LLC, property owners) (222 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 220 Park Rd - Staff Report 220 Park Rd - Attachments - Part 1 220 Park Rd - Attachments - Part 2 220 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an opportunity to have a Zoom meeting with the developer and the architect to get a preview of what is being discussed tonight . Commissioner Loftis had a similar Zoom meeting or preview. Commissioner Schmid had the same meeting with the developer. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff: Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Andrew Turco, Dave Hopkins, and Ted Korth, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the southeast elevation it is sort of a lost opportunity for windows facing out in that direction looking out to those views, but the ground floor kind of makes sense. Is it correct to presume that the existing building ’s mass kind of cuts you off from Park Road which makes the core, the elevators and restrooms, located more toward the center of the building and allow for exterior windows? In reading the plan, it looks like you want to get a lobby off Park Road which is a good endeavor and it causes the core to want to be there, correct? (Turco: Those are the reasons. To tuck that office entry to the side, it's suggested putting the core on that location so there's easy access. Two other reasons, one is the neighboring building immediately to the southeast of the site is pushed up to the property line as a blank wall on those first floors. Whatever we put there would not have any view from our building but also be the blocked in view from the pedestrian scale on Howard Avenue or further back. We saw that as an opportunity with the priority to activate Park Road, the plaza and Lorton Avenue to put that space there and keep that open floor plan that would attract top level tenants and take advantage of what would be a compromised condition, and instead introduce windows in a couple of locations where it may be needed.) >We understand that a different team is designing the plaza. But it was expected that there's some good articulation and coordination particularly in the edges because it is the key to the success of some of these projects. Want to commend your coordination with the other teams working on the plaza. (Turco: Staff has been great in coordinating the teams and understanding they're moving to a different track because there is community outreach, but we're excited to continue to collaborate because we're on the same page in thinking each is essential for each other's success.) There were no public comments: Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's a well-crafted, nice urban project. It's handsome and it's well designed. Especially like the way that the architecture steps back and pays homage to the post office. Love how the top floor resolves itself and tries to remain humble. >The success of the project is going to be in the seam areas. We would miss an opportunity if that raised patio area to the side of the post office became a flat wall with landscaping on the downward side . There's an opportunity with those steps coming around and the steps coming from that patio down to the town square becoming a place in and of itself. Those spaces are critical. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Appreciate making that public entry to the garage area more than just a door that you come out of a parking garage. It will help people with wayfinding. >Having the frieze as a piece of that artwork in the lobby is a nice touch. It's the edges that needs more attention so you don't come out of the lobby and you fall into a town square. Appreciate the effort to coordinate. >The project has good pedestrian scale along Lorton Avenue, it resolves itself nicely, but doesn't become schizophrenic. One question previously asked is whether or not the building comes down from the upper floors and touches Lorton Avenue at all. Being that it doesn't, it's okay that there's a podium along that street. It's really off the Lorton Avenue realm and the office spaces are up above and could do their thing. >Impressed with how the design has evolved and the sensitivity that ’s been put in. This new round of renderings really helped explain the handsome design. The added materials and the lighting that goes into this really helps us and it will help the public appreciate the nice design. >Seeing the rendering on Lorton Avenue, it was a pleasant surprise to see the brick on the corner engaging the retail aspect of it, but then the change to the other material for the entrance to the garage and still having that podium, that two story street level look and not having this gigantic building there works great. Compared to the previous scale, adding the materials really enriched it quite a bit. >Likes the upper floor contemporary look, the waterfalls coming down on the two different sides, that really adds some nice texture and design to the project. >Like the direction the project is going. It's taking its urban design job very seriously, and that is the single most important thing with this project can do. Love the top and how it announces itself to the distance. >Love the corner tower sitting on the public space. You haven't pushed the public tower far enough, though – the top could be brought down through the tower to the corner. You brought the top down at the center of that facade, that may be the wrong place to do it. It seems it should come down at the corner . The corner is not special enough. On the other hand, what's a bit odd is that it ’s trending towards becoming very special as an urban design element. When you get there, it's a parking garage entry and bicycle storage. You have this prominent architectural element and it ’s coming down on a prominent location and it's fantastic that you can find your way back, but it leaves something to be desired as an experience. It's nice that the freeze is there. >The southeast facade is not doing a great thing for the city. Not sure why the core can't be reworked, but now is not the time to get into that. Love the top, that corner tower coming down, it's engaging with the primary space within the city at this point, the primarily non-street space in the city. >It looks great. The center where the promenade is could be much more prominent. We're losing an opportunity there. Love what you've done on the Lorton Avenue side. Love the mixture of materials, the brick and everything. > Really appreciate this design and this has come a long way, and it's so beautiful. In particular, really like what you did on Lorton Avenue. It's easy to ignore the backside of the building, and take care of it in however way you need to, but you give it some special presence on the backside, and really gives it a good human element as you walk down that street. >Love the brick on the retail face and the change over to a different material for the garage, that ’s very clever. >The garage entrance or that corner element could be pushed a little bit further and enhanced more. >The office lobby being a little bit tucked away on that southeast side is a little concerning about how one will find their way there if they're not familiar with this complex and looking for the office entrance. It seems that you want to be drawn to the center and especially where the height of the building is. >Would like to see that dining terrace somehow have easier access from the public plaza. Aware that there's the main historic flag pole steps on Park Avenue, as well as the steps over by the garage entry . But somehow there should be some type of approach near the center of this dining terrace to make it more approachable and not make people feel like they have to walk all the way to the ramps to get access. >There are a couple of applications that we need to consider; the design review was discussed at length. There are a couple of historic variances and the case has been made by the applicant in their submittal, and don't see a problem with the parking easement Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >One thing that was noticed on one of the rendering was the monument in the front, it says Burlingame Center, sure you'll work on that. Love to see something that has some historical relevance to that, or something that is more of a Burlingame style. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the July 6, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, and it is anticipated it will be adopted at the next meeting on August 17th. At that meeting the City Council also reviewed the Building Code "Reach" Code ordinances. A reach code exceeds the requirements of the building and energy codes, and in particular emphasizes clean and renewable electric power rather than natural gas in new buildings to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. It is anticipated that the ordinances will also be adopted on August 17th, and will then move forward for approval by the State before becoming effective for new construction projects. The requirements will not apply to applications that have already been submitted to the Planning or Building Divisions. The North Rollins Road Specific Plan has been initiated, and there will be a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to serve as a steering committee. The CAC should include one Planning Commissioner, a well as one commissioner from the Transportation, Safety & Parking Commission, and the Park & Recreation Commission. Planning Commissioners who would be interested in serving on the CAC are asked to indicate their interest. The full Planning Commission will also have the opportunity to provide input on the plan. a.1509 Bernal Avenue - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1509 Bernal Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 1509 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. b.21 Park Road - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 21 Park Rd - Memorandum and Attachments 21 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Concern with wanting to understand why the windows are being changed. An explanation or reasoning was not provided in the FYI request. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020 July 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 13, 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 23, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020