Loading...
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