HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.02.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
6:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 8, 2021
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online
a.North Rollins Road Specific Plan Study Session
Staff Report
Slide Presentation Excerpt
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner, Linda Gates, Cindy Ma, Rusty Case and Mike Mowery
provided an overview of the introduction and design alternative for the North Rollins Road Specific plan.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>When looking at the Central Hub versus the North Burlingame Gateway alternatives, is the idea that in
each of these areas to have different development standards for height, density and parking requirements,
et cetera? (Ma: Everything under RRMU has a baseline with the tiers right now, the idea is that within
these specific focus areas if we can even refine that a bit more. Currently, the zoning allows for up to 7
stories across the whole site. If you feel like in one area, it would be more appropriate that the height gets
limited to a different number, we can talk about that so we can better understand.)
>In my opinion, we have the benefit of an area that's bounded by Highway 101, the railroad tracks and
by the north end which will be an intensified development with the intermodal station. By right, with the
interim development standards, we have allowed the tiered development. If we're going to the seven stories
and a maximum intensity, we've had a handful of instances recently in which we put together a specific
plan for an area, maybe it's the Downtown Specific Plan, and we come across a property owner with a
property that's right on the edge of what's allowed on the other side of that line we have drawn. Then we
end up having to rethink or reconsider the possibility because we have a property owner who is energetic
and wants to do something that we want to encourage and we have to backtrack. I think we have an
opportunity here. I don't know if we need to draw these bright, restrictive lines.
>I'm excited about the Rollins Road mixed -use area for what we put in place going back to the General
Plan, et cetera with what we have already got. Rather than breaking down a district into smaller districts or
areas, I would be interested in developing form standards anywhere within this area. If someone wants to
do a tier three development and get up to seven stories, if it has the right form and architecture and
development details, it can work anywhere in this zone, because that ’s what creates the opportunity for the
property owners to see the potential in what they have. I hate to see us draw a line and somebody right
across the other side says I can't do seven stories because you drew the line here.
>I like the idea of Rollins Road being a connector. It's called the North Rollins Road district and it has
that identity that we should try to develop and encourage.
>With the park concept, I like the idea of the cluster concept better than the linear because I'm seeing
the continued emphasis on Rollins Road. The comment made with the linear park and the easement area,
it has less pedestrian emphasis on Rollins Road. I'd rather go the other way and make more emphasis on
Rollins Road.
>I like the emphasis on Rollins Road and the idea of giving it a road diet, making it pedestrian -friendly
and bike-friendly. I like what was shown to us in terms of the possibilities for the cross -sections there .
What is existing right now are four lanes with parking on either side, so we're talking about changing down
to three lanes and using that additional area to spread out in some other way. In alternatives one, two,
three, and less with alternative four because that's the bike lane that relies on it, is there anything
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
preventing us in the parking area from creating peninsulas and bulb -outs to extend out the tree row? If we
break up that parking with some peninsulas that come out, we can really neck down the overall width of
Rollins Road visually with a larger canopy of trees. So whether it's bringing the trees out a little further into
the street or even a second row of trees, like you see in Lodi and other areas, just to break down that
width and create a visual slow down along Rollins Road. (Mowery: Certainly, whether it be consistently
along the length of Rollins Road or block by block, the parking area could not be included on either block
face and that area be a larger planted area. What you're seeing generally is between five and seven feet
wide of planting, it would pick up another seven feet on the other side of the road if you allow parking on
the block face.)
>I don't know if this is in large sections, if you have the bulb -outs at the corner, if you have some
peninsulas to help define that parking and interrupting that parking a little bit. It may not be block by
block, but just certain areas, and visually break down Rollins Road and create a larger tree canopy, that
would be a nice alternative. It's difficult with alternative four because any bulb -out on that west side is
blocking off that bike lane. Those are some of the things that I was excited for when we were seeing it
before.
>I'm excited for where you have taken this and the possibilities. I like the idea of zeroing in or landing
on a solution that allows for this development anywhere in the Rollins Road area because we don't know
where the property owners are going to come from, which ones are going to be excited to take advantage
of it, whatever it is, and if we draw the lines, we can shoot ourselves in the foot.
>There is a concern about tree plantings in the open space in the easement area conflicting with pipes .
(Gates: That’s something that the team is looking into the limitations you would have to work there.) Liking
the idea of more trees along the street in Rollins Road. (Gates: We talked to the city and they said six
foot wide planter is ideal. They like that for trees and don't want it wider than that.)
>How will this area interact with the rest of the city? Because it's pretty cut off and a standalone area .
Has there been a thought or investigation in how to make it connect better? You talked about an area
being adjacent to the residential area across the tracks and I was wondering if there's a way to make an
actual connection there because right now, the only access is pretty much by car. The pedestrian and
bike access through Millbrae Avenue or Broadway is weak at best. (Mowery: We have looked at
connectivity and generally, you're being specific about connection to the west side of town across the
Caltrain tracks. We struggle a little bit with where that connectivity will happen because of the width of the
connectivity. It’s about a 200’ to 250’ width that will ultimately become a pedestrian, bicycle tunnel or
maybe a bridge or whether that should be part of the Rollins Specific Plan area because it would be such
a sizeable project in its own right. Other peninsula cities have done some of those themselves. There’s
typically years of planning, about a decade usually between consideration for funding it and actually
building it.)
>I agree with my fellow commissioner about the parklet idea and focusing on Rollins Road. One of my
concerns about using the utility easement area is the presence of mostly large overhead power lines there .
Have you seen other projects that have used that kind of space successfully as open space, because no
matter how nice you make it underneath, it still has huge power lines over the top? (Gates: It’s one of our
concerns, as there are power lines over the top and there are some lines buried underneath, apparently for
stormwater retention and such. Currently, PG&E is pretty conservative about what they want to do with
them. There are things you can do in those open spaces and they have been done, but it would take
some strong negotiations on Burlingame's part to encourage PG&E to allow more to happen. Right now,
there are tennis courts existing, so you have recreational activities happening in that space already and
you can mound things up and have smaller trees to go under power lines. So it's possible, but there's
some heavy lifting that would have to be done with that.)
>I want to reiterate, the point that the focus should be on Rollins Road. The measure of success for
this project is based on answering the following questions. Does it work? Does it function properly and
what's the experience? To siphon off activity and energy from Rollins Road to some other potential
connector is the wrong thing to do especially one in a high risk situation like this. Will anyone want to
spend any time under the power line? Anything we can do to keep the focus on Rollins Road is the right
thing to do. I also like the cluster of parks with the interconnections that probably facilitate interaction
between different parts of the overall site. It makes a whole lot of sense that those two things, focusing on
Rollins Road and these spots that you might travel that connect the various areas back and forth. On the
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
cross-section, the one where the bike lane was wider and both bicycles traveled in the same lane for the
bike lane, there's a bunch of those in Mountain View and I found them to be successful. That's my
preference.
>The tree parklet, moving the trees closer to the middle and bumping out into that parking area will
actually free up more sidewalk space or freeing up the ability to do sidewalk biking, in a larger fashion on
either side. I'd like to see the trees closer together so it's not a huge five -lane. Between the parking and
the three lanes of traffic, that's still a long ways between the two sides and they're pretty disconnected .
That's an opportunity to bring that scale in by bringing the trees further in and then opening more of that
space.
>I agree with the focus on Rollins Road, not necessarily the easement per se. I noticed that there's a
heavily used parking lot area in the middle and I'm guessing somebody is using it. Also, having been a
member of Primetime in years past, I know the tennis courts are in part of that area you're talking about .
I'm not sure about displacing those uses.
>I don't know if we have that opportunity or not. I was interested in hearing more how we do more
programmed activity. We're hoping that organically businesses are going to be fun to go see. If we're
largely industrial in that area, I'm not sure what's going to make me want to go down there. If you think
about, Fort Mason up in San Francisco uses a lot of their parking area for their Friday night food trucks .
Some of those things can become quite popular and attractive and get more people engaged in coming
into that area to use it. But I haven't seen anything in our concept yet that's causing me to want to go. The
parks are nice for the residents that are going to be there, but I haven't seen that “ah-ha” piece that's
going to make it more central. Being that the connector to Adrian Road is in Millbrae, you're just having to
start and stop in Burlingame and it's next to the freeway. I would give no reason to ride a bike over there
when it's the most industrial road we've got. I don't know that's where I would be as focused as I would be
on Rollins Road and focusing right down the middle.
>Regarding the interface between the railroad tracks and this area, I'm a relatively frequent Caltrain
rider and when you're riding the train, the more interesting spots are not the sound walls you come across
or the backs of buildings, but when you have an open space along the track. It works both ways as well .
If there is a connection across or under the tracks, it might be an opportunity to have a bike path which
would direct you towards the train station and people might use that. I'm all for the bike path on Rollins
Road, I think that's great. There might be other areas on this site that could be used as a walking area or
bike path. I know that with the train you get a little scared because of the noise, but it is going to be
electrified and the trains don't run right one after the other, so there's open space there. It could be
planted, have you given it that much thought? (Gates: On the open space, there's a space near eucalyptus
where we thought we could bring a path. The tracks widen out beyond that. But at least that part continues
down the rest of Rollins Road, there's a eucalyptus that felt like it could be developed with a walking path .)
It seems like the easy solution is to build a sound wall and call it good but we need to open that up on
that side, too.
>One of the things I agree with is getting some connectivity from Dufferin Avenue, Clovelly Lane and
Hamilton Lane to the other side. When we were kids growing up here, we were allowed to cross the train
tracks and we went to Primetime to work out and ride our bikes and carry them over the train tracks so it
made the connectivity really nice to be able to go back and forth without going do Broadway or Millbrae
Avenue.
>I like the park clusters. The one thing, if possible, is to see how big those areas could be. It would be
really great, as our fields are so impacted with kids trying to do pickup games like lacrosse and soccer
even if it’s smaller, to open up some field for the little kids to play soccer and even lacrosse. I don't know
if you have thought about that, but making those parks a little bit bigger would be nice.
>As it relates to Adrian Road, I agree that we don ’t have to have a bike path there. I also agree with the
focus being on Rollins Road.
>It's so fun to be dreaming about this space here and what it can be. I also agree about the
connectivity between the pink zone and the train tracks to have a mid -point connection to the other side to
bring people over more to this side of North Rollins Road area and vice versa. We don't see it yet because
these newly approved developments haven't been built. As we get more and more housing in this area, it's
important that when we look at these road sections that safety is the number one consideration. Some of
these scenarios, I can't imagine myself with kids riding on bikes next to big trucks because it's going to
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
continue to be a truck thoroughfare. It's important to recognize that. I like the alternative four, the bike
way where there's a physical separation of the driving lanes from the bike paths. That also makes me
think whether it will be the commuters that will be riding back and forth quickly on this bike path? What
about the families with young kids who are trying to teach their kids how to ride a bike along this
dedicated area, where would they ride? Earlier, it was mentioned that the left side of these concept
diagrams is the west side, is that correct? (Gates: Yes.) I imagined it being the east side, only because
it's closer to Adrian Road. There might be more activity around that sector of this zone. As much as
there's probably going to be off -street parking for a lot of the businesses or developments on Adrian
Road, there's going to be housing along that road as well. It seems that having some parking is still going
to be important on that road and not to eliminate parking options. If we have a nice dedicated bike way on
Rollins Road, then maybe we don't need a secondary route for bikes on Adrian Road.
>Gates: These are all good comments. The team has heard a lot of great feedback. This is nice to get
direction in your early thoughts and we'll take it back, massage these, refine them and come back to you
with some of the recommendations you're making. We're going into a community outreach meeting to
collect information from the community at large and we ’ll cycle back with the CAC to get their take on
things. It’s nice to get different viewpoints on it.
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 7:01
p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben
Hurin, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no meeting minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 8b, 1509 El Camino Real has been postponed to a future meeting at the applicant's request.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments, non-agenda.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.715-717 and 719-721 Linden Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Condominium Permit
and Variances for the new duplex buildings currently being constructed on each lot .
(1448 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; TRG Architects, architect) (71 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
715-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report
715-721 Linden Ave - Attachments
715-717 Linden Ave - Plans
719-721 Linden Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The variance is for one guest parking space. Is it one guest parking space for each property?
(Gardiner: Yes, given it is two separate lots then it will be one guest parking per lot.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant with property owner James Evans.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Based on previous condominium knowledge, the exterior and the structure of the building are owned
communally. How would that work here? Will there be a homeowner ’s association? (Evans: Yes, we’ve
already spoken with John Hanna, he is well -known for setting up HOAs. We would be setting up HOAs for
each of the two developments.) So it is like a miniature HOA with all the same kind of structure? (Evans:
Exactly.)
>Can you walk us through the issues of the COVID -19 pandemic and how that is affecting the project
and driving you towards wanting to change this to a condominium? (Evans: From a personal standpoint it
has taken a toll on us as a family. As the owner, I feel that people who own the property tend to take
better care of both the property and the neighborhood. As mentioned in my letter, we will continue to have
ownership in this property, just on a reduced scale. That variable came significantly in the decision. We
like the neighborhood. The input that I got was positive in turning these into condominium units.)
>I am trying to understand the open space and can see the arguments you have made which may lead
to the findings for the variance, since you are providing more space than you would have otherwise
provided.
>In regards to the parking, you may have a valid argument that the property has two frontages on
Linden Avenue and Carolan Avenue. In visiting the property, I see the issues of 717 & 721 Linden Avenue
both facing Carolan Avenue, but really having front entries facing the driveway. If I am a visitor, it is
easier and instinctive to park on Linden Avenue and walk down the driveway to the entry. The point is,
when you approach the properties on Carolan Avenue, everything about that landscaping and the fencing
says it is a backyard. What can be done to that frontage to make that look more like a front yard and
make it a welcoming space for visitors? (Evans: It is a valid concern and I agree with you. We would want
to do something to address that.) (Grange: You make a good point. If you have friends that visit you a lot,
they will know that’s where they should park because we have the gate there. If it ’s a delivery person, they
probably will use Linden Avenue to park. We can do something on that side to celebrate the frontage a
little bit more. We can make it look more of an entry. Driving around the site, I rarely see a car park
there.) It makes it easier if it looks and feels like a front yard for that unit. Something needs to be done
on the fencing and the private front yard identity to encourage that and make it welcoming. (Grange: That
is a good point. The solution may be to give it a Carolan Avenue address.)
>I had the same exact thoughts and found the open space arguments compelling; can make the
findings for the variance on those two items.
>Upon visiting the site and looking at the entrance on Carolan Avenue, the gate opens onto the back
deck of one of the properties. It really doesn ’t make it available for both condominium units. From the
715 Linden Avenue property, I would assume the owners will not like the neighbor ’s walking through their
backyard. Is it your idea that the Carolan Avenue parking would just be for the back unit or will this be
available for both? (Grange: Not actually sure except that as a duplex some of these questions would not
come up, but when we change the use to a condominium it is an issue. If I was living there, I would think
that the Carolan Avenue parking is for the back unit. The front unit will then use the Linden Avenue.) I
understand your arguments, but what I ’m struggling with, and need your help in answering, is that the
difference between the duplex and the condominium is the guest parking requirement. To prove a variance
we need to make findings. (Evans: If we need to address the fence back there, that is something we
would be happy to do and revisit with you.)
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>How is this going to address the parking requirements that exists for both units, whether there will be
access for that unit at Carolan Avenue and if so how will that happen? (Evans: We are sort of in a day and
age where a lot of cities are looking at abandoning any type of parking for newer developments. The push
generally is in the direction of encouraging the use of public transportation. With the proximity of this
property to public transportation, that would be a good leg to stand on in terms of the viability of allowing
us that particular variance. We have an underutilized street that is behind the house. Theoretically, we
can fashion a parking spot and take up part of the backyard. But then would have to add two curb cuts
along Carolan Avenue to accomplish that and what do we really gain out of that?) I think you should talk to
staff about what I was talking about because you are suggesting of doing something that I am not even
asking.
>Going back to the parking issue and looking at the gate off Carolan Avenue, the stepping stones
aren’t necessarily aligning with the ones going around the side in which you would actually travel to the
front unit that is on Linden Avenue. If you coordinated that a little bit more so that it felt like a straight
path, then it would feel like it is equally usable to both units as they both will end up sharing the private
backyard to some degree. Otherwise, 719 Linden Avenue doesn ’t have a backyard. Maybe that is a way
to address the concern about the parking.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I certainly understand the request that my fellow commissioner made to have more help for us to
understand the need for the variance. I would have looked at this immediately and said there is a guest
parking space in front of one of the two doors. The functionality of the development doesn ’t really change
whether it is a duplex or condominium. At any point if someone were to visit and they didn ’t park on the
street, they can easily pull back into the motor court and park in front of one of the two doors. Not sure
why that doesn’t work and surprised why it was not suggested. Maybe I am missing something. (Chair
Tse: I believe it is stated in the staff report that the guest space is in tandem with the garage.) Now I am
really missing something because I thought the request was a variance for that. (Chair Tse: It says each
unit contains a two-car garage and one uncovered parking space as provided in tandem with the garage,
therefore the project is in compliance with the off -street parking requirements.) (Sargent: There’s a
separate requirement for guest parking. It is what they are asking a variance for.) So the space in front the
garage is in compliance with the requirements for the property itself, okay.
>I am open to the parking variance. This is a good application. I am not suggesting that there needs to
be a curb cut off Carolan Avenue. What I was suggesting was pretty well articulated by my fellow
commissioner, to have a better way to connect Carolan Avenue to the entire development and how it is
going to work. It doesn’t feel connected right now, we just need more there.
>In looking at each of these 4-bedroom units, if we apply the residential standards to these units, they
require one covered parking space and one other parking space that can either be covered or not. Each
one of this units has a two -car garage. Then my fellow commissioner is correct in saying that the guest
parking can be in tandem with the garage.
>Gardiner: There’s a bit of an idiosyncrasy in that for the multi -family residential parking standards, 4
and 5-bedroom units are required to have two and a half parking spaces per unit. You can ’t really have a
half space so you end up having three parking spaces. Oddly, that is a higher parking requirement than a
single family home. That may be something you figure into your variance findings.
> I would suggest to the applicant that they have an additional argument to be made for, if not an
extraordinary, at least unique conditions. Particular to this neighborhood where there are a lot of multi -unit
properties. If you apply the residential standards to this based on the designer ’s point that this looks,
breathes and acts like any other residential developments in that neighborhood. They have the open
space issue covered that is required for condominiums. They have a unique condition with their motor
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
court and the configuration of the driveway where they provided two parking spaces for each unit in the
garage and a potential for a guest space in front of the garage. Whether it is called out or not, like what
my fellow commissioner said, in practice when friends come to visit they coordinate where they should
specifically park. I would strongly encourage the applicant to talk to Public Works to try to get the back
units 717 & 721 Linden Avenue to be assigned an address on Carolan Avenue for deliveries or anything
besides friends, they will look for an entrance assigned for those units. Changing the fencing, the gates
and making that more of a front entry will further help drive the parking towards Carolan Avenue for those
back units and take pressure off of Linden Avenue. There are things that can be crafted before this goes
back before us for action that will help us make the findings and help the application in general.
>I can make the findings. I agree with my fellow commissioners for the applicant to come back and
change the address over to Carolan Avenue. We are close by public transportation, it is a nice property in
which you don’t have to have another parking space if people are taking the train.
>There is also that new bike lane that was newly painted along Carolan Avenue and can help with that
public transportation aspect.
>I really hope the applicant will come back and that the hardship will include that difficulty of having half
a car. We had various applications that says something like that.
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to place the item on the Regular
Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1835 Capistrano Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, one -story single
family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), per Section 15301(a).
(Sunny Gao, applicant and architect; 1835 Capistrano LLC, property owner) (88 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1835 Capistrano Way - Staff Report
1835 Capistrano Way - Attachments
1835 Capistrano Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was not present for the study
meeting for this item but reviewed the details of the meeting minutes.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Is it possible to put up the picture on the screen, do we have it electronically? Because the handout is
black. (Gardiner: We'll see if we can find that and can get a better quality to put up there.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Sunny Gao, represented the applicant.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the elevations, you said you changed to composition roof shingle. That clarifies it, but on the roof
plan on Sheet 1.1, is it correct that you haven't gotten around to changing that because it still calls out
metal roof? (Gao: It could be a typo. I apologize for that.) Are you doing composition shingles
throughout? (Gao: That's correct.)
>On the landscaping, Agapanthus attract a lot of snails. You might want to consider an African iris as
opposed to the Lily of the Nile. (Gao: Okay, thanks.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Thanks for reconsidering the roofing material, especially in a one -story house with this kind of slope,
half the building facade becomes the roof. This is a really nice project. It is a really well -designed project
and it's going to fit well in that neighborhood.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
b.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Amendment to Condominium Permit to
add common open space on the roof of the building (condominium project is currently
under construction). (Pat Fellowes, applicant; 1509 El Camino LLC, property owner )
(113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (This item was continued from the January 25,
2021 meeting.)
1509 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1509 El Camino Real - Attachments
1509 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
This item was postponed to a future meeting at the applicant's request.
c.1341 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for a commercial recreation use. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(a). (Adna Berryman, applicant; Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer Design Build, designer;
Ken Merrill, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi (This item
was continued from the January 25, 2021 meeting.)
1341 Marsten Rd - Staff Report
1341 Marsten Rd - Attachments
1341 Marsten 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.
Questions of staff:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Are there any overnight or long -term parking restrictions in that area that's different than the residential
areas of town? (Gardiner: I am not aware.) Some cities have enacted parking restrictions on motor homes,
and that's kind of where my question was leading. Do we have any restrictions on that in town? (Gardiner:
I'm not familiar, but let me find out.)
>Are there any restrictions around interactions with a single adult and a youth in any business?
(Spansail: I can certainly look into that. But in front of the Planning Commission today, we should assume
that whatever activity is taking place here is done pursuant to the proper county or state law. So we're
looking at whether this activity should be allowed and then the city can make sure that it's being done the
way it's supposed to be done pursuant to the law.)
>There used to be a waiting room in the front and now that's missing, it is just an office space or
storage.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Adna Berryman represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Thank you for commissioning the plans. It really helps to understand the building and what we're
reviewing. You're going to do youth training, correct? (Berryman: Yes.)
>The suggested finding in the staff report in regards to the parking, is that it's going to be a different
commercial operation than a typical recreational sports facility where you have a lot of adults coming to
train, like Primetime or something like that. Since you're going to be training youth, is it safe to say you
may have a number of parents that are dropping off for training and wouldn't need to stay and take up a
parking space? (Berryman: Yes. It is based on the age group of 7 to 12, 12 to 15, 15 to 18. If I'm training
anyone from ages 15 to 18, my franchise allows me four students and most of those kids would drive. It
would require parking, but for the most part, yes, I'm encouraging people to drop off and not hang around .
It's more for me to monitor who is on grounds and what not.)
>Could you schedule those training sessions with your students that are 15, 16, 17 years old for after
hours or when more of the businesses nearby are shutdown and maybe some of the younger ones at 3:00,
4:00, 5:00 hour or something like that, right? (Berryman: Yes. My thought process is kids get out around
3:00pm giving them time to get there. Just like what we do in youth baseball, we allow the field ’s earlier
times for the younger kids and then as it goes on, kids can basically come a little later as they get older .
On the weekends we don't really have an issue because that's midday.)
>So programmatically, I wouldn't want to make it a condition of approval because it would get hard to
monitor, but if you can encourage your students and the parents to drop off and go park elsewhere. If you
see parking issues, maybe vacate a spot and let everybody else come in and that sort of thing .
(Berryman: I don't know the procedure of this either, but there are two parking spots in front of my
business. What is the procedure of getting those turned to green where you can only be there for 24
minutes? That's helping my business with people not parking there. But basically, having that so people
do drop off, there's a 24 minute zone just like a fast food restaurant on a busy avenue. It allows for that
quick access and usually people are respectful enough that they don't park there overnight.) That's out of
our purview. You could talk to staff and others in the city about that because it's not something we would
take up.
>Often times when you change occupancy, it triggers upgrades. I’m a little bit concerned by the letter
that the applicant has provided that says “I don't have money right now, and I'm not required to bring the
space up to ADA compliance.” I don’t know that's true. Change of occupancy can trigger all sorts of
upgrades. It may not be the case that physical alteration triggers the ADA upgrade. I would urge you to
look at that. We discovered last time, there was a missing ADA parking space outside and that's caused
some troubles. My sense is that you may trigger something with the change of occupancy that calls for
more trouble. You say you are not required to do so because you are not making significant changes to
the interior space, are you sure of that? (Berryman: This is one thing that I was told when I talked to the
Chief Building Official. Basically, any project that is under $100,000 worth of interior or exterior changes,
you're required to apply for a hardship in which at least 20% of your construction costs would need to go
towards accessibility upgrades. If you have $10,000 in project cost, you would at least need to put $2,000
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
toward being compliant.)
>Understanding the ADA issue with valuation, but that's different than change of occupancy .
Sometimes, for example, a change of occupancy required an update to the building without physical
changes to the building. This isn't the purview of the Planning Department, per se, but you need to make
sure you've got your ducks in a row. Let’s not repeat what happened last time where you came in and didn't
have the accessible parking spaces that you need. You need someone to tell you this isn't the case. One
of the advantages to working at home while in these meetings is I have access to codes and I found one
site where a building official says change of occupancy triggers for ADA upgrade. So, that's a concern .
We don't need to solve it here, but I wanted to know if you were absolutely certain that was the case and it
doesn't sound like it. (Berryman: I 100% know. If things turn around in the business and I can invest in a
property I don't really own, I can definitely try to accommodate that and make that work.)
>I want to thank you for putting together the plans. It was a lot more helpful in understanding
everything. Looking at your variance application, you were saying four to eight kids at a time. Is eight kids
the maximum under your franchise agreement? (Berryman: For ages 7 to 12 it is eight maximum. From 12
to 15 the maximum is six. And from 15 to 18 the maximum is four. Their thing is it is quality of attention .
So that's kind of where I can go on to a football field and do a team organization where it's not individually
and run 50 kids out on a football field, but inside the facility, yes.) I appreciate that because you
mentioned the four teenagers. Your business is going to curtail how many people are actually coming to
the business at a time and how many will need parking. I feel good with having that information.
>On the ADA issue, it's not that we're going to solve your ADA problems, but don't be surprised when
you get a visit. Because there are attorneys out there looking for money. (Berryman: I know. This is not
going to be a booming business right away. But yes, when I get revenue coming through, I have to protect
myself in every manner and I'll probably consider doing that at that time.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>For me, given the people and everything that he's going to be training, I'm fine with the parking
variance. I was fine with it before as long as we solved the ADA parking spot issue which they had done. I
feel good about this and can support it.
>My primary issue last time was the drawing, we weren't sure what we were reviewing and approving .
Based on the layout and the addition of the accessible parking stall I can support the application as
drafted, can make the findings for the variance and the conditional use permit.
>I'm curious, this doesn't go to the Building Division because there's no proposed changes, right?
(Gardiner: They will need building permits and there are some Building Division comments included in the
back of the staff report that become conditions as well. So, the particular accessibility questions don't
have to be answered right now. They would need to be answered at some point in the future, but the
commission doesn't need to address that right now.) I just wanted to make sure we weren't the last gate.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.14 Peninsula Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Eric Dumican, Dumican Mosey Architects;
Gemini Development LLC, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
14 Peninsula Ave - Staff Report
14 Peninsula Ave - Attachments
14 Peninsula Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item, based
on a long and personal relationship with the architect.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The staff report said that the front fence complied with the requirements, is that something that staff
has verified or is that based on applicant submittals? Because it looks too high. (Gardiner: I believe that
has been verified by staff, so it may be right at the five feet. I'm assuming the statement of the staff
report reflects that it has been verified by staff.) I think it needs to be re -verified. I didn't take my tape
measure out there, but after counting the number of 6" boards, it definitely was more than ten.
>I have a similar question, but based on the plans it looks like they're removing the existing fence and
building a new one. So my reading of the staff report is that the proposed fence would meet the standard,
but maybe that's something we can ask the applicant to clarify. (Gardiner: That may be correct. It does
use the word “proposed.”)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Shawn Noland and Eric Dumican, Dumican Mosey Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Can you tell us about the wood siding on the front and rear elevations and the transition that it makes
to the roof? All I'm seeing is cut off wood siding. How do you plan to finish those edges or protect the
wood? (Noland: We’re looking at a cleaner, crisp, contemporary detailing. With the gutter concealed and
behind, it would have a minimal flashing running along the top, so creating a clean edge.) You're thinking
of using flashing at the top? (Noland: Yes, a flashing or a metal strip, just to cap the edges.) It would be
one thing if it was acting as a rain screen and you were letting the water go down through and out the
bottom, but this seems to be a traditional siding applied to ply and building paper, which is going to leak .
(Noland: The gutter sits in and the flashing wrapping around over it, it ’s essentially creating a cap to the
siding.) Right, but when you do most parapets or even most of these flats, you're taking that flashing down
two three inches and then pulling it out away from the building to get a drip. I can appreciate if you're going
with a real clean look, but I'm not seeing the flashing detail up there just yet. (Noland: We can look in
more detail at that.) I understand the integrated gutters at the low sides of the pitches and can appreciate
that, but unless you had something that was going to protect the edge of that wood from water, I think
you're opening yourself up for leaks.
>Same question about the window section details. I'm not seeing details here to help us understand .
There's a building section that would suggest it's a punch window, but not understanding how the wood
siding is going to end and transition to an under side and a window set. Setting it slightly back suggests
water infiltration. I would suggest having more details in those areas to help us understand how those
transitions are going to work.
>The stucco and the sidings being covered by the darker brown roof assembly is no big deal. The
wood siding on the ends and windows is a lot of exposed material that isn't traditionally exposed that way .
(Dumican: Those are details we haven't gotten to the point in developing yet, but those are good points
and thought that can be put into it. The rain screen scenario is probably a likely scenario for that wood
siding but it would be with a quarter inch vent playing back there.)
>The reason the details are important is we need to know the character of what we're approving. If this
has to have trims introduced to stop that wood siding or contain that wood siding and or flashing, or some
coping, or cap flashing at the top of that wood, that ’s important because it changes the character and the
cleanliness of the lines you're showing in both the renderings and elevations.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Why is there a carport rather than a garage? (Noland: Through the carport, we wanted it to be a more
open space back there. With the two car requirement, as discussed with our client, we felt having it more
open allowed for when a car is not parked there it creates a shelter space in the backyard and it made the
rear yard feel more open.) There's only a requirement for one covered parking spot, so you don't actually
need a two-car garage or two -covered car parking spots if you want to maximize your backyard space .
(Noland: Noted.)
>The house is very inward looking and lifeless on the side elevation. Was it intentional to not have
openings on the ground floor, anywhere in the living room and the kitchen along that whole side wall of the
house? (Noland: We really wanted to focus the view from the Kitchen, Living and Dining to the rear yard .
With the setback on that side and just the landscaping, it was more like a side access. So, yes we could
look at creating openings along there.)
>There are some great opportunities for getting some light, even if it's on the sides of the media wall in
the living room. Some small slot windows could make this elevation start to sync and some small slot
windows into the kitchen may help.
>On the driveway side, particularly up on the second floor, you have an opportunity in the Master
Bedroom to get a couple of windows above the night stand, just some small peek -a-boo windows to bring
light in and life to that elevation. I don't know if this was a driving factor, but we get applicants and
architects that want to not intrude on privacy with their neighbors and we end up with somewhat lifeless
and inward focused elevations on the side. It just means we're not only asked to consider a contemporary
design in a neighborhood like this, which can fit if it feels residential, but it loses that look and feel of
residential because it becomes lifeless with these flat exterior walls that don't have a lot of detail on them.
>Regarding the carport, I can appreciate the open plan and the modernist detailing with this home .
When I think of a family living there, what's not practical is not having storage space. I wanted to know
how you were considering storage for typical family items, boarding equipment, even linen storage. Did you
think of those needs? (Noland: We have a storage room, just to the left of the entry, on our ground floor
plan. Then in our upper floor, in our bedrooms, we have built -in storage that's accounted for.) In the
closets, you mean? (Noland: Yes.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The driveway elevation is a little flat. There's an opportunity to look at how the planting strip right up
against the wall, instead of being a ground planting strip, could be a raised wall to some degree that would
create a bit more layering effect to that elevation and an opportunity to not have such a large vertical wall
that doesn't have anything going on. We're looking for some layering. Windows provide layering. Without
the window, we've got finishes. We need a little bit there to help make that work a little bit better. I agree
with the slot windows, or windows that bring in different light, can create an opportunity. I've got several
windows that’s are well above five feet that I don't look out, but it creates an interest to my exterior and
interior elevations.
>The drawings need more detailing, so we can not only understand how the design will work with no
overhangs for the roof, but how the finished product will look. The most disturbing thing about this design
is that the proposed left side elevation and the upper floors being completely blank, that's the driveway
side, so you'll see if you do a perspective that shows the front of the house and down the driveway it will
show how stark that is. In going to the site, those slot windows or those high windows on the kitchen wall
side could be very effective. There's such heavy vegetation back there. I don't know you would ever see it,
but the driveway side you see from a block away. The design is residential. It's certainly different than the
other modern designs we have seen, but it could move forward with some refinements on some of those
elements.
>It's well-crafted, but I'm concerned if an abstract modernist take on residential massing really fits in
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
this neighborhood. I get it that the other side of Peninsula Avenue is an apartment block. But this side of
Peninsula Avenue is all traditional homes, so not seeing that architectural compatibility.
>We don't see a lot of carports proposed. It's certainly not the pattern of this neighborhood, so I'm not
sure how that would fit in with the design review criteria of matching the garage patterns of the
neighborhood.
>The carport is not standard for that area. Would prefer to see a one -car garage there and make that a
little bit more modern in design. Also would like to see a little bit more windows, as others have
suggested. Other than that, I could see it fitting in. It's a little bit of a funky street there. This design might
be interesting to have on Peninsula Avenue.
>It's an interesting approach to modern style. It has the elements that feel like the profile of a
residential home. I like the front porch, the feel of the entry leading to the house. Would like to see some
overhang in front of the flex room nano wall. It seems like in the renderings, there's a lot of southern
exposure and not a lot of direct sun going in there, it could be a good articulation.
>Want to reiterate that I don't know if a carport is the right application for parking here. Even if it wasn't
for parking, it's much needed for storage. As much as you might want to live lean, it ’s not practical from
day-to-day perspective. Otherwise, it's a very interesting design and could see this fitting in the
neighborhood that's varied in architecture style.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
b.1431 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Hao Hao Construction LLC, property owner
and applicant; Han Li, Han DesignStudio, designer) (166 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
1431 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1431 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1431 Capuchino 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.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Hao, Hao Construction LLC, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Want to confirm that a ten foot ground floor plate height and nine foot second floor plate height is
proposed. (Hao: Yes, that is correct.)
> Can you tell us more about the windows and the trim around the windows? I'm not seeing details. Is
there a window trim? Is it just square and the stucco? (Hao: On the window frame, it will be square and the
window interior will be fiberglass. The window is a bit modern looking.) Looking at these window frames, I
see the frame around the outside. Is the window frame itself sitting in back away from the stucco towards
the inside of the room? (Hao: The window framing will overlap to the outside of the surface of the exterior
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
wall.) Is that going to be a wood frame or a stucco frame? (Hao: It's fiberglass)
>What about the materials for the porch? Is that just concrete or is there some sort of a tile at the
entry porch? (Hao: It will be the typical tile on the porch.)
>Is the roof an asphalt shingle roof? (Hao: Yes.)
>On the front elevation there is an awning over the second floor three -window unit. What material is
that? (Hao: To be determined right now because it is the owner ’s choice and the owner hasn't decided on a
specific material yet. Once the material has been decided, I will report this to the planner.) That's
important for our decisions as we move this project forward.
>Is the gable vent up at the end metal or wood? (Hao: Wood.)
>How about the railings? There was another railing on the rear, is that metal or wood? (Hao: The railing
will be also wood.)
>The garage door is vinyl, is that correct? (Hao: No, the garage door will be wood and the garage
framing will be vinyl.)
>Is this new construction from the ground up, so you're starting with a new foundation? (Hao: Yes. The
old structure will be 100% removed and we're only going to keep part of the foundation. We'll build some
new foundations, yes.) So it's not all new and you're keeping some of the foundation? (Hao: Yes, just part
of it.) Is that why you're keeping the raised floor level? (Hao: The existing structure has the higher crawl
space and with the new design the crawl space has been lowered by one foot. But the old foundation was
built by the pier systems. So the new structure will also use the pier system for the foundations.)
Public Comments:
>Comments sent via chat: How many windows are facing north on each floor? Living next door and
worried about the decreased privacy from the second floor. (Chair Tse: At the end of her chat says she
looked at the plans and got her answer.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This feels like a good candidate for design review consultant. It feels a little bit haphazard. The
ten-foot, nine-foot floor is not very often that we don't push back on that. It feels like the house is bigger
than it should be. Everything feels like it's not settled into place yet. There are drawing anomalies that
need to be addressed.
>I have the same question about what the awnings are. What material will be used? Are they square?
Have they got a slope to them? At the very least, they should show up at the lower level and profile. We
should see them on the backside of the house on the south elevation. It seems like a bunch of stuff
hasn't been thought through fully. This can benefit and move through the process faster if it goes through
the design consultant.
>The plate heights need to be looked at and consider a more traditional height of nine feet on the first
floor and eight feet on the second floor. The consultant should look at perhaps not saving some of the
existing foundation, that's going to hamstring them and their design process. It's both in terms of the
configuration of the house and also it forces them to raise up three feet. That neighborhood is not all
two-story houses, so that just contributes to it feeling large. The 30-foot building height is a maximum, not
a floor height, so you don't have to go all the way to that.
>There's a lot of attention to detail on the exterior that is missing, like the window trim, the awning
material details. If you look at the front elevation, there are three different head heights between the
window to the left, the front door and the pair of french doors on the right. That probably goes all the way
around the house and needs to be revisited.
>The second floor deck has to be considered and how it's going to interact with the neighboring
properties. Whether that needs to be reduced or screened in some way.
>It kind of has a craftsman feel in materials of massing and the detailing that there is. They need to
consider window grids, which would add a lot of texture and richness to this exterior that will really make a
difference in the end.
>In terms of our basic five criteria for design review, I don't see consistency with the existing character
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and style with the neighborhood. There are houses with a lot of charm and character and detail in that
neighborhood. This is almost completely lacking of any of that. It's almost like it's the first pass at a
volume and that's about it. The parking pattern seems to be consistent. In terms of architectural style,
mass and bulk, there's no style. These are lines that have been connected to create a volume and that's
it.
>For landscaping, we have what's called a set of landscape and irrigation designs from a registered civil
engineer. We have a cover sheet, general notes, a stormwater management plan, a drywall detail, an
erosion and sediment control during construction and an irrigation plan, but there's no landscape planting
plan. We don't know what the landscape planting will be for a new house on the property. We need to see
a landscape plan to see if landscaping is consistent with the massing and design of the house.
>My further concern, in terms of some of the details, with the response that the owner has not yet
decided on some things like the awnings, leads me to think this is headed down a path where the owner
will make decisions during construction that may not be consistent with what we approve. I don't know if
we can burden the design review consultant, but if they or staff could make sure that the applicant, the
designer and ultimately the contractor are informed that what they're putting together needs to be built and
is essentially a contract with the city, then that communication has to happen. Otherwise, this project
could be headed towards coming back with revisions, amendments, FYI's, et cetera.
>All of the roof overhangs and everything are large. They do suggest a craftsman architecture, but yet
there's no style to this. It turned out to be very plain and not interesting.
>We should take another look at the balcony in the back because you're overlooking into the
neighboring backyard. There's plenty of space down on the lower deck to enjoy. Would like to see it
eliminated or reduced in size at maybe 50 square feet, but otherwise opposed to decks on second floors.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
c.1804 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling, Side Setback Variance, and Variance
for clear interior dimension of garage. (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technology,
Inc., applicant; Hillary and Chris Milks, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1804 Devereux Dr - Staff Report
1804 Devereux Dr - Attachments
1804 Devereux Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused on this item for
non-statutory reasons based on business relationship with the school district and the close proximity of
the project to Lincoln Elementary School.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>In the existing garage, do we know if there's a ceiling, because it looks to like a volume and it does
not appear as though we've calculated in the FAR for volume in there? I couldn't find a building section
through there. (Gardiner: We can ask the applicant for clarification on ceiling height in the garage.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technology, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Is there a ceiling in that existing garage? (Stachniuk: There is some structure in there to be opened
up throughout. So, we're proposing the false dormer to provide the light, as well as the skylight on the
back, thinking that this might be a future application for a remodel later on. But at this time, it's open
space.)
>You have Hardie panel under the big window in the bay on the front of your house, is that just a big
flat panel? (Stachniuk: That's exactly right. This is the Hardie, the same family of products and this bay
window is really not substantial in size. We're proposing that the smooth finish of this panel will be
seamless. It’s only on the corners which is going to be utilized with the trim cover, the same wood size as
the rest of the window. So the left wing of the bay window, the face of the bay window and the right wing is
the smooth finish of the Hardie product.) Do you have the horizontal exposure to the side of that at 7
inches? (Stachniuk: Yes.) It’s going to affect the way the design looks because there are vertical lines
and I see horizontal lines there. On the north elevation on sheet A 2.1, the note on the side of the garage
says new stucco, smoothed finish and first floor California front Hardie horizontal exposure. Is that
stucco? (Stachniuk: That's right. This is the California wrap. This is only about 24 inches of the horizontal
Hardie siding.) Will they come around the corner? (Stachniuk: Yes, about two feet on each side.)
>Did you explore any floor plan options to accommodate the left side setback so you won't have to
request a variance? (Stachniuk: We can utilize this and change. However, when we talked to the
customers they really felt the extension is only for 7 feet and then it would be very clean as far as the
design. We're keeping the hipped for that purpose on the back of the dwelling and we're not proposing any
windows on this site facing the neighbors. We didn't do the survey for the property. We only have the
survey for the elevations. We don't have the property lines so the measurements are based on the fence
lines. The fence we have throughout the property seems to be increasing because it is angled. We
measured the setback to the middle of the fence and the front, 4’-2” and on the back, even though this is
the opposite way, we measured 4’-4” so it projects for the bigger distance when we go 7 feet toward the
back with this new addition.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There's something quite odd about this project and I can't put my finger on it. The upper floor doesn't
have much to do with the lower floor, nor does the front of the upper floor have much to do with the side of
the upper floor. It feels like it's not hanging together well. In some ways, the challenge is one of scale and
it's all best encapsulated by the new dormer at the garage which feels completely out of character with the
rest of the house. The existing house is an unassuming one -story house. It's pleasant and almost
charming. The proposed seems decidedly un -charming with that big dormer there. All the windows on the
upper floor seem over scale if you compare them to the existing front door. If that front door is 3 feet,
maybe it's 3’-6”, those almost square windows are 5’ to 5’-6” wide, they seem too big for that front.
>The vertical siding doesn't seem to have much to do with the lower stucco and there doesn't seem to
be much of an attempt to knit the two together. The north elevation, front southwest is odd. What's really
odd about this is the house suddenly seems massive. It doesn't seem massive as it exists and all that
has happened without adding much to the ground floor. Almost no addition to the ground floor has led to
this massive looking house or massive feeling house.
>Struggling reading these plans. The site plan needs to be bigger in scale and needs to have property
lines on it. The left side setback is not there and the right side setback is not there either because it's
angled. The houses in that area are just crunched together.
>The two-car garage does not work at all because of that angle in the back. This is at best a one -car
garage. I would argue with the added dormer and the added skylights and no ceiling in there. It’s going to
become a playroom and it's not actually going to have a car in it at all. So, if it's got an open ceiling and
that dormer is putting light in there, then that square footage is not being counted towards their maximum
FAR which is over building here and it's contributing to the massiveness we're seeing in the elevations.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Struggling with the materials. The horizontal and the vertical siding and the massing is just not coming
together. It's definitely a remodel and not coming together on the elevations as a whole. Can't support that
dormer on the garage at all. It is a garage.
>This needs a design review consultant to try and help clean this up. The garage door drawing doesn't
match at all. It's also too tall, 28’-6“ is just not necessary on that elevation being so close to the street and
in the scale of the rest of the houses in that area. Have a hard time supporting this.
>It looks like there are four different kind of sidings and two different kinds of roofing going on.
>I circled and highlighted that dormer on the garage on my plans. It absolutely does not fit. It's not in
scale with the addition.
>The real problem I have is that second floor shoots up out of the first floor roof. This second floor
looks like an addition and it's supposed to mesh well with the first floor better so the architecture works
together. None of it is hanging together.
>Regarding the appearance of the second story, it seems like it's a result of the decision to move
everything towards the front of the house and away from the rear. You have all those nice diminishing hip
roofs in the rear elevation, but the result is all the mass was moved up to the front and it has a high
forehead.
>As far as the variances, the continuation of the noncompliance side setback, that's something we
frequently approve. It's definitely something we could consider in the final application.
>The garage needs more justification on the unique circumstances.
>Regarding the garage variance, the applicant is asking to build out maximum square footage, but with
the way the garage is configured, isn't going to do that. They’re asking for five bedrooms and not provide
the second covered parking space. Before we send this off to a design review consultant, we should be
clearer because personally, I can't support that variance at all for the parking. We're pushing that out and
we're not looking at it. I would hate to send this to design review consultant and fix some of the problems
that we have discussed architecturally and come back, then we are not addressing that parking variance .
We're going to come back and say you can't make that work because it's not a simple fix. They don't
have any land to the right to make that work. I don't know if I can support five bedrooms and this much
square footage given the parking.
>It seems like a big ask for maxing out this site and making a significant change to the house to do
that variance, and simply asking to not comply. I'm not sure what the justification is.
>With how the addition is taking shape, there are other areas to develop a little more cohesively to
allow that garage to become a proper two -car garage, yet still have the space for the family and maybe
even a better orientation to the backyard. If the kitchen gets squished maybe it can be pushed back
behind the breakfast nook. I couldn't support the two-car garage variance.
>I also don't feel the side setback is something that is absolutely necessary since that area is new .
The two rooms that are being designed into that space are large. Can't see why the setback couldn't be
complied with, considering the tightness of the property in the area and the angled property lines as well.
>Agree that the parking variance needs to be revisited.
>Regarding the side setback variance, one of the things that I always work on is to be consistent with
how we apply our variances. This kind of extension, the existing condition is something we have
consistently given over the years, so I would be harder pressed to not support that one.
>I'd like to just see better how it relates to the neighbor to the left as well. The other aspect is that
whole left side has no articulation whatsoever. It’s just one big, long wall getting longer. Just wondering
what the neighbor sees on the other side.
>Any request to make a judgment related to a project that would have to do with the setbacks and not
being able to do certain things because of the site, it seems that we ought to have that drawing. I don't
see how you can come forward with a request for a variance that's related to property lines and the special
shape of the site without having a survey.
>Agree wholeheartedly because there's nothing in the site plan that would suggest they know where the
property line is. Both sides are cramped. We need to know that before making such a decision.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to refer the application to a
design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021
February 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Recused:Terrones1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner mentioned that at the February 1, 2021 City Council meeting,
the council reviewed the development agreement for the 220 Park Road project and moved it forward for
adoption with further clarification that the $2 million that is offered by the project towards the town square
is in a dedicated fund that will not find its way into the general fund.
Also, the cannabis ordinance was advanced to approval in the next meeting with the provision there be a
resolution to place a limit of four of the retail delivery businesses. That can be revisited if needed if we get
to four, but that was the addition the council requested.
a.139 Loma Vista Drive - FYI for proposed exterior changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
139 Loma Vista Dr - Memorandum
139 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments
139 Loma Vista Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner noted the following:
>Concerned with the removal of the clerestory windows above the garage door, creating a large space
between the top of the garage door and roof eave. Typically when we see this condition, we ask for a
trellis or something similar.
>The applicant can submit a new FYI with a trellis or come back as a Design Review Amendment if
another type of element is proposed.
b.108 Channing Road - FYI for clarification requested by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
108 Channing Rd - Memorandum
108 Channing Rd - Attachments
108 Channing Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on February 8, 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 February 18, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 3/23/2021