HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.10.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineTuesday, October 12, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott
Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and LariosPresent5 -
Gaul, and LoftisAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Comaroto, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve
the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
a.Draft September 13, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft September 13, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff suggested that Item 9a (520 Howard Avenue) be moved further up in the agenda to just after Study
Item 6. The reason is that the Zoning Ordinance Update is the last item on the action calendar, followed
by just this one design review study item, so the hope is that then the applicant does not need to wait
through that entire Zoning Ordinance Update item.
Item 8f (567 Airport Boulevard) has been continued to a future date.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.2829 Las Piedras Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit
for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Mark and Emily Karbarz,
applicants and property owners; Deepak Pantankar, Evocoarch, architect) (92 noticed)
Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
Page 1City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2829 Las Piedras Dr - Staff Report
2829 Las Piedras Dr - Attachments
2829 Las Piedras Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site except for Commissioner Comaroto. Commissioner Tse
noted that she spoke to the neighbor are 2833 Las Piedras Drive, but was not able to enter the house to
evaluate any view impacts from inside the house. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a brief
conversation with the property owner of the project. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Deepak Patankar, designer and Mark Karbarz, property owner, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> Kim Yin Chew, 2833 Las Piedras Drive, submitted via email: Thank you for erecting up the
three-dimensional physical structure of the project. There is definitely some loss of view and city
landscape appearance from the proposed project for us. To compensate the loss, we propose removing
the pine tree in the front and replace it with a tree according to the Burlingame city tree ordinance or have
the proposed extension back by four feet. Since we are being affected adversely by the project, we would
appreciate and like to be notified which alternative the owner will take. Otherwise, we object strongly to the
project as it is proposed.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The request and addition before us is somewhat de minimis; it doesn ’t require design review based on
what is being proposed. In visiting the site and backing my way back up this street to a point where
conceivably I would be at a window level for the uphill neighbor at 2833 Las Piedras Drive, I can’t see any
substantive view blockage that we typically would consider. The only thing I could imagine or foresee
being blocked would be tree lines in the near proximity, as opposed to distant views of the bay, of even
the bay frontage, the hotels, etc. I did not see the view blockage that the neighbor is claiming. I'm not
denying it because I wasn't able to access their house. I don ’t see the need to require revisions of the
applicant. Tree removals for the sake of some neighbor ’s view is not within our purview, that is a neighbor
issue. I would ask the uphill neighbor to give us access to their home to be able to see what views they
were talking about from the uphill side. Until we can see that, specifically from their view areas, I don ’t see
denying this project.
>When speaking with the uphill neighbor, I was not able to go inside to see what implications there
may be from the proposed addition at this project. Ms. Chew noted that there was no blockage of distant
views from their home, but there is a potential view blockage of some night time light at the airport and
city down below. I did try my best to get to a position to where I could see a view that was most closely
representative of looking through their windows. Standing on a low retaining wall in the front yard looking
out towards the bay, I wasn't able to see any bay view blockage. The proposed ridgeline of the addition is
lower than the ridge height of the closest neighbor. I don ’t see any distant bay views that are being
blocked or any views that we would normally protect in the hillside area. Tree removal, as what my fellow
commissioner stated, is not within our purview. They may be thinking that a new tree will be small initially
and open up the views, but trees grow. A tree according to the Burlingame tree ordinances certainly could
be replaced with a tree that might grow bigger than what is there now partially blocking their distant view.
>I agree, I do not see any substantial view blockage. I would like to thank the owner for erecting the
story poles in advance, it is a lot easier for us to see the scope of the project. I don ’t support the idea that
there will be view blockage because the neighbor up the hill has the same addition going out of the street
Page 2City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
that the applicant is asking for, and that addition blocks the same view for the neighbor one house further
up. There is a precedent for this application. I don ’t see an actual harm being done by this addition. I
support it.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling, and Special Permit and
Front Setback Variance for an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Erik Chan, Bay 9 Architects, applicant and architect;
Thomas Lo, property owner) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1549 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site except for Commissioner Comaroto. Community
Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Erik Chan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Suggests being careful in choosing stucco colors and to keep in mind that water and dirt are going to
drip down in front of the face of the stucco window sills.
>The reduction of the deck will be an enhancement as you focus in on it and make it a comfortable
space. This is a much better solution to this site.
>The revisions are substantive relative to where the project was under the previous application. I know
the roof deck appears to be a concern for the downhill neighbor. I would ask for one minor revision that
could come back to staff. They’ve placed planters along the guardrail edge of the larger deck that's off to
the side of the master bedroom. I would ask that similar planters be placed on the side that faces toward
the downhill neighbor at 1551 Los Montes Drive. The idea of planters along that edge, not only might help
create a bit of a visual and a noise buffer, but keep people from standing at that rail.
Page 3City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I want to acknowledge the letter that we have received from the downhill neighbor who was concerned
about the possibility of this project overlooking their backyard and their property. From what I could see
from the story poles, the distance of the second story and the proposed new deck in relationship to that
downhill neighbor, there is significant distance between the two. It would be very difficult from that location
of the house and even on that deck to be able to see anything more than you can see currently today. I
appreciate the letter that came with photos demonstrating what we would see from the roof and the deck
from this proposed project.
>The house to the left of the subject property is two levels as well and goes up significantly higher .
That's just the way the turn of that hill is. The subject property is going down the hill and the neighborhood
is going down the hill. Most people have multi -level homes and we're on a hillside. I don't feel like there's a
view blockage issue here. They've reoriented this project to go the right way and take advantage of the
hills as opposed to previously the wrong way, towering over its neighbor.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
b.1617 Chapin Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
attached garage, and Front and Side Setback Variances for a new attached garage
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. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer;
Debbie and Karl Bakhtiari, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1617 Chapin Ave - Staff Report
1617 Chapin Ave - Attachments
1617 Chapin Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid was recused from this item
because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he was not
present at the study meeting, but did watch the video, visited the site and reviewed the staff report and the
plans. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she did not visit the property, but has been in the property and
has had communications with the applicant and the applicant's architect. Senior Planner Lewit provided an
overview of the staff report.
Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Make sure that the transition of the height between the garage slab and the sidewalk is addressed.
>Having watched the video and read through the staff report from the last meeting, I concur with my
fellow commissioners regarding the appropriate location for this addition. The analysis from Page &
Page 4City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Turnbull further attests to the fact that this is probably the most appropriate place to locate the garage
and make this addition. The question in regards to the variance comes down to whether or not having
access to a three-car garage is a protected right. There may be some question to that, but what I can see
is the effort to try to get cars off the street. What this property owner appears to be doing is parking the
car along the side of the existing garage, doing what they can to get the cars off of this street because it's
not the quietest of streets. So, it's a good effort to create a more appropriately sized garage as the
applicant stated in their narrative for this size house. I can make the findings for the variance based on
the historic nature of the house. I can make the findings for the special permit for the attached garage. I
like the added detail of trying to work with the existing wisteria vine and existing arbor to try to add a touch
of details to those garage entries. The project should move forward.
>I can make the findings and this project should move forward.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Larios4 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Schmid1 -
c.3 Victoria Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (James Kwan, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse
Conceptual Designs, Inc., designer) (273 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
3 Victoria Rd - Staff Report
3 Victoria Rd - Attachments
3 Victoria Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he was able to visit
the project site, was not present at the study meeting for this project, but did watch the video, reviewed the
staff report and the plans. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I appreciate you taking a look at the right side. My only point there was not so much that you need to
change anything, but as you start to do the work on that property line, there's going to be a need for some
handshaking with the neighbor so the trees and things that are there remain alive and happy for
everybody. Otherwise, the project is nice. The changes that you've made touch on the minor things that we
were looking for.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Page 5City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
d.720 Farringdon Lane, 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kaileen Yen, Winder Gibson Architects, applicant
and architect; James Whitley and Ashley Wong, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
720 Farringdon Ln - Staff Report
720 Farringdon Ln - Attachments
720 Farringdon Ln - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not able to
visit the project site, but did so the last time the application was on the agenda. Commissioner Tse noted
that she was not in attendance at the August 9, 2021 meeting but has watched the video and is current on
the discussion. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Geoffrey Gibson, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>When I first looked at this project, I thought that's a beautiful house in the front. When I visited the
site, it's a very charming house and I really like the style of it. We struggled with trying to blend the
contemporary and the traditional styles and we didn't think it worked. The change in material palette helps
make this work a lot better than it did. From that standpoint, you've done what we've challenged you to do .
At the same time, I would argue there's some opportunity to bring some contemporary back into it. Maybe
that's happening largely from an interior design point of view. Sometimes you see some of these houses
that have become more modernized and it's a choice of doors, a choice of material palette, windows and
things that can modernize the look of the house as well. So, there's still some opportunities for you to do
something a bit more contemporary. It's just a matter of finding those small areas. Overall, you've dealt
with the declining height well and sited it well. The new material palette helps tie it together and make it a
little less of a clash, it works.
>I like the changes that you've made. I appreciate that you've gone back and taken what we have said .
I can see moving this project forward.
>I have to agree with my fellow commissioner, the choice and material palette here made all of the
difference for me. I liked the prior design, but there was a clash between the two. Just that selection in
materials really tied it together well. It's a great project. I'm still a little hesitant of these so -called mullet
homes where you have "business in the front and party in the back." The reason they work so well in other
cities is because you have these very tall facades, for example in San Francisco, and you hide most of
this. But here, it's still visible from the street. Nevertheless with the material changes, it's very subtle.
Page 6City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I appreciate the revisiting by the architect and the homeowners. The design does hang together better
at this point. They’re describing the rear elevation as playful. When I look at that rear elevation, there ’s
always the risk that it's sort of the builder's solution that we saw so much in the 70s and 80s, where you
build as much volume as you can based on what's allowed. But I can go beyond that and can see what
they're saying is playful, because when you come around to the driveway side, the more contemporary
craftsman as they describe it reveals itself with the vertical windows and the play along that side. It works
in harmony with that rear elevation, it's hanging together better at this point. So, I agree it should move
forward.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
e.1204 El Camino Real, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area - Application for
Commercial Design Review for exterior facade changes to an existing commercial
building and Parking Variance for a change in use from automobile repair shop to retail
and personal service uses. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines.(1480 Broadway Properties LLC, property owner; Suheil Shatara, Shatara
Architecture Inc., architect and applicant) (150 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1204 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1204 El Camino Real - Attachments
1204 El Camino Real - Plans
1204 El Camino Real - Encroachment Permit Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item due
to a business relationship with the property owner. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not able to
visit the project site this week, but did visit it the prior time it was on the agenda. Community Development
Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Suheil Shatara, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jennifer Pfaff: I wanted to thank Mr. Shatara for the changes you made because I did hear the first
hearing and you probably did not expect to be doing all these on the project, but it made a huge
difference. I really appreciate rebuilding that curb, future proofing El Camino Real is a good goal. This will
be a planter strip for sure because it is 50 feet from that intersection at Broadway, so it's a perfect spot
where there's a long void without any trees. It's super. I appreciate Commissioner Gaul for encouraging you
to conjoin the little pieces. My comment is taking it a little further. I would like you to consider this, since
there still is space to drive a car through there. I actually went and measured a couple of weeks ago the
average planter strip width, which is between five and six feet. Five feet at a minimum, that ’s what you
need to plant a tree. Even if you aren't planting the tree, eventually, there ’s going to be a tree there. If I'm
not mistaken, your planter strip is three feet wide at the most. Maybe you can consider making it a full
standard five-foot width and taking that little edge planter away. That will close up the spot, but it will look
very consistent with the look of El Camino Real. That is what I'm hoping you will consider doing. I think it's
a really good solution, Caltrans will probably love it because they're going to be doing that eventually
Page 7City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
anyway because 3 feet is not enough for a real tree. Thank you. (Shatara: Yes. We’ll consider that .
Personally, I would rather have the wider strip and the trees in front would be a positive addition to this
planter strip. We weren't sure how to approach this. We wanted Caltrans’ feedback and so we submitted
our encroachment permit application for it. I thought our planter strip was actually four feet, but maybe it's
three feet. We're open to a 5-foot planter strip. If I can remove the perpendicular planters and put potted
plants that will deter cars from coming in, which I hope they don ’t because there's no curb cut, but I can
see them coming onto the curb cut at the gas station making their way through. I believe there's a small
wall there. Whatever we can do to deter cars from coming in, we're going to try to manage that the best
way we can. I’m open to the 5-foot planting strip and bringing it back to Caltrans with a 5-foot
modification.)
>Darrell Mathis: I just want to go over some of the issues. I've written several e -mails to the
commission on this proposal. First, the parking requirements based on square footage is 20 spaces. It's
not just 8 additional because the existing parking inside the structure is being removed. No parking is
being provided. That burden is going to fall on all the surrounding streets. Second, the proposed space is
quite large. It has a maximum occupancy of 93. Assuming that you're going to have a maximum of ten
people at any given time is questionable. Just imagine what happens when you have a sale going on or
during the holidays. I would suggest that with a 5,000 plus square feet space that's already built to handle
vehicles, that it is feasible to provide parking and still have a general space for whatever retail operation
you want to consider. It's not up to the community at -large to bear the burden of their business plan .
Finally, I'd like to consider safety. Let me paint a scenario for you. Suppose you're coming down El
Camino Real and you need to pick someone up who is getting their hair done or dropping them off. El
Camino Real is busy, but you see your destination, what are you going to do? You could stop in front of
the business, but that blocks traffic. People will get angry that you're blocking the way and trying to make
some quick maneuver to get around. It's a risky thing. You can't park in front of the building. Planters are
now going to be in the way. You could try the gas station. That's busy too. But there's a driveway right
beside your destination, that ’s perfect from your point of view. You pull in, hope no one is trying to come
out and do your business. Now, you're ready to leave. Do you try to backup into El Camino Real? Maybe
wait for traffic to clear and another traffic blockage waiting to happen. Maybe you drive into the private
parking in the back and turn around so it's easier to get back onto El Camino Real. Or maybe it's easier
to pull in front of the neighboring property on the sidewalk, there's no planter there so you can do that .
Then you can go forward on the sidewalk to the next driveway and pull back onto El Camino Real. People
actually do stuff like this. I’ve seen it many times. So, none of that is a good scenario. It's not good for
many reasons. There's a reason we don't have typical retail operations on this part of El Camino Real that
don't provide their own parking. It's just not a good idea. Thank you.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Seeing all the changes that the applicant made, including creating a new egress on the side,
developing the planter box, and providing new renditions. I would very much like to see this project move
forward. The applicant has rebutted many of the prior objections that remained from the last meeting. I
would like to see more renditions of the planter and talk more about that. I like the idea from Ms. Pfaff
about leaving room for a potential tree in the future. That may not be a possibility, but nevertheless,
everything else about this project is good to go. I would like to see the business move in and it's
consistent with our plan for this district.
>Going back on how to keep cars off of potentially the frontage and front of this building, suggests to
put in decorative bollards, if we're allowed to. Something that might look like the style that's being
proposed with this store and salon. I’m imagining some decorative bollards that might prevent cars from
going in, but still have ADA wheelchair access and people to pass as pedestrians and bicyclists. I wanted
to see this project move forward. I'm a customer of this business in the past and would love to not have to
go all the way down to Belmont to shop there, but I'm worried about how the parking will be met. I’ve been
in the store when there's a lot of customers. Currently, they have access to all of the big parking lot in
front of their current store, by the Lunardi's in Belmont and that suits them well. I'm worried about parking
Page 8City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and human nature wanting to use the adjacent properties. Everyone thinks they're going to make a quick
stop and pickup their friend or family member or stop and just pickup their dress, whatever it might be .
There may not be enough meters on Broadway to support the number of patrons that may be visiting this
business. I don't know what to say because I want to see it go forward, but I feel like the parking situation
is going to be troublesome.
>I grew up on Paloma Avenue and there are several parking structures right off of Broadway. The one
by the post office, behind the bank and every time I go, there's always ample parking there. I go to
Dolan's frequently and I always find a parking spot especially on that west side of Broadway. It gets pretty
packed in the middle of Broadway and then towards the east. But on the west side, I always find parking
and I haven't had a problem. I feel that there's enough parking for patrons if people park on Broadway .
Does staff know what are the time constraints on our parking spots? I think Burlingame Avenue is two
hours, but Broadway is one hour. I'm not sure if that has changed. But if it's two hours, people might be
walking down Broadway and have a little more of that kind of flow we want and more businesses might end
up going there. I'm not worried about the parking.
>There was a parking study not that long ago to look at the one and two -hour meter nature. Those lots
that are half a block off of Broadway are not very full and they have longer timelines. I too, park in those
parking lots, not on Broadway all the time. So, I don't find it to be a big deal. At first I was worried about
the drop-offs. Yes, it's not a convenient place for drop -off, but the actions we have requested and the
steps they're taking are an attempt to dissuade that issue. If we continue to work with them to come up
with a tasteful way to do that, then we can achieve that. I sympathize with the neighbor that has the
driveway that goes to the back and someone may want to block the driveway and park there. Perhaps an
automated gate that allows access for those that belong at the back versus those that don't. Whether or
not they come to an agreement together on that, that's not my business. But I would suggest to try and
make that a happier coexistence. My concerns when I looked at the drawings only, was the exiting
because that isn't apparent in the drawings that we have, that will need to be worked out. Doing that exit
off of the gas station side is smart. I would encourage that the tenant actually think about a little stock
staging area back there. They have a place for their electrical panels and a place to be able to drop things
off and not have it being in a nice pretty sales floor. There's logistics to think about and whether or not the
finished floor inside aligns with the asphalt of the gas station. There are definitely some things to work out
back there, but they're solvable. I would encourage they do that.
>I know that area very well. I'm a frequent patron of all businesses and know the folks who own
businesses there. Yes, there's always ample parking, great restaurants, great food and great shops. That
could be an opportunity to get more flow and more people into Broadway. Parking is not an issue here for
me and I would like to get this approved.
>Suggests that maybe the business owner could indicate on their website that drop -offs are not allowed
or to identify where to park and have them walk, something that will make it pretty clear to the patrons .
Some people are going to do whatever they want to do, but maybe if there are some signs of “please don't
drive up to the front of the door” or that they can put on their websites, their flyers or their email blast, that
would probably be a really nice idea.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Schmid, and Larios4 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
f.567 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for floor area ratio and building
height for a new, eight -story office/research and development building and parking
garage. (Peninsula Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner; DES Architects, architect )
(43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 9City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
567 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
567 Airport Blvd - Attachments
567Airport Blvd - Response to Comments
567 Airport Blvd - Revised Traffic Impact Analysis
567 Airport Blvd - IS/MND
567Airport Blvd - MMRP
567 Airport Blvd - Plans
567 Airport Blvd - Graphics Package
Attachments:
This application was continued to a future date.
g.Consideration and Recommendation of a Proposed Ordinance to Amend Title 25
(Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Providing a Comprehensive Update of Title
25 (Zoning), Adoption of the City of Burlingame Zoning Map, and Repealing Title 21
(Historic Preservation) and Title 22 (Signs). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner and Ruben
Hurin
Staff Report - Zoning Ordinance
Attachments - Zoning Ordinance
Burlingame Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Map
Attachments:
Laura Stetson with MIG, the consultant assisting the City with the Zoning Code Update, provided a
summary presentation.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: Regarding basements and underground garages in side setbacks, I appreciate
Commissioner Tse's comments about her discussion with the engineer. While there are narrow lots that
have smaller setback requirements, there are also lots that have larger side setback requirements. We
had a discussion about this a few weeks ago; purpose of keeping basements out of side setback areas
was to allow for more room for landscaping to grow, so that people can retain their privacy through
landscape screening. Would be careful to not make it a 4-foot requirement, but rather that a basement
should not extend into the side setback, and in any case should not be less than 4 feet.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Article 3, Table 25.30-1, notes that basements and underground parking garages shall not extend into
side setbacks. For the narrower lots, the minimum required side setback can be as low as 3 feet.
Recently had a discussion with a structural engineer about basement locations and how they may affect
adjoining lots; he suggested staying at least 5 feet from the property line. Wonder if we need to be more
conservative with this requirement, especially on those properties that have smaller setback requirements,
and perhaps suggest a minimum setback requirement.
>I'm assuming that the minimum required 150 square feet of work space for live /work units was
Page 10City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
determined prior to COVID -19 when we had a different concept of what working at home meant? I think
that it is rather small and should we think about increasing the size.
>Has SB9 and SB10 been factored in the Zoning Code Update? How does SB 9 get factored into the
Zoning Code now? I think with SB 9, the Low Density Zoning District and Medium Density District
descriptions in Article 2 may need to be worded differently. (Gardiner: Standards to comply with SB 9 will
be reviewed at the October 25th Planning Commission meeting.)
>Have always considered live /work project as the loft model often seen in San Francisco. The
live/work project we've recently seen in Burlingame feel more like condominiums with an open space. I
don't disagree that it's hard to define live /work space. If live/work and residential condominiums are not
the space, then there needs to be enough of a difference to then validate the advantage they're getting by
calling it a live/work unit. I like that projects are now pushing for community rooms and meeting spaces on
the ground floor that weren't there before, because if you are working remotely, where do you have a
meeting?
>Regarding the definition of Personal Services - General, in support of allowing treatments by a medical
practitioner as ancillary to the permitted primary use. Would help bring additional activity to our downtown
commercial areas. Need to consider the changing face of retail over the last couple of years. Would
much rather see a day spa with these ancillary treatments than empty storefronts.
>Opposed to medical uses as a primary use on the ground floor.
>We have large some large tenant spaces, such as the space formerly occupied by Anthropology. I
agree that we need to maintain retail storefronts, but have we considered allowing office uses at the rear of
those spaces so the retail spaces doesn't have to be so large? (Schmid: Recall discussing this in the
past; would need to figure out how to allow it without having the applicant needing to go through a lengthy
approval process). (Gardiner: It had been discussed previously; one of the questions that came up was
what should the depth of the retail space be and the timing of the leases. We can continue to study this
issue as one of our follow up items that would come back in the future. The Economic Development
Subcommittee is also discussing health service uses on the ground floor under different circumstances.)
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
item to the October 25, 2021 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.520 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (James Stavoy, designer and
applicant; David Hackos and Lauren Cony property owners) (110 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
520 Howard Ave - Staff Report
520 Howard Ave - Attachments
520 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not able to visit the site, but viewed the subject property on
Google Earth and is familiar with the neighborhood. All other Commissioners have visited the project site .
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 11City of Burlingame
October 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
James Stavoy, architect, and Lauren Cony, property owner, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> Jennifer Pfaff: This project is not too far from where I live. It's really quite lovely. The Spanish style
corner homes, there are a few of them in the neighborhood, are beautiful. The architect has done a really
nice job. There is not a lot of space or garden area on corner lots, but you've done a great job. I
appreciate the comments from Commissioner Terrones. This is a Charlie Hammer home. He developed
beautiful homes in the area and a lot of them are being torn down, so I appreciate that you can make the
addition work and retain the existing style.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Suggest that the new sculpted parapet on North Elevation be terminated at a vertical to match the
existing parapet design; will make the coping detail simpler.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Director Gardiner reported that there were no planning -related items on the October 4th City Council
meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on October 12, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 22, 2021, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 12City of Burlingame