Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.01.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 11, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8d (405 Chapin Lane) was withdrawn by the property owner, so this item will not be reviewed. Item 8h (Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis retail delivery) has been continued to the next meeting on January 25th. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the Consent Calendar. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.822 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits and a Setback Variance for a new, two-story accessory structure to be used as a detached garage and accessory living quarters. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), per Section 15303(e). (Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, applicant and architect; Jordan and Chris Chavez, property owners ) (228 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 822 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 822 Walnut Ave - Attachments 822 Walnut 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. Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, represented the applicant with property owners Chris and Jordan Chavez. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no commission questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Can't make the findings for the variance and even some of the conditional use permit requests, simply to do with this being a very large garage with additional living space or a recreation room. I don't see where there's a compelling need for something too big even with the argument that the pool is in the way and the lot is a weird shape. Looking at the plan, the parking requirement could be met without a variance and there's a requirement for two parking places. One could be covered and one could be uncovered so there's enough room for a one -car garage and driveway. I don't see the pressing need for a large structure and the consideration for the conditional use permit which triggers the need for the rear setback variance. It didn't hit all the points for a variance for me. >I see some unique conditions relative to this lot that other lots don't typically face. One is the fact that it's fronted on two sides. It's a fairly unique condition of that block, particularly on the Arc Way side in terms of the parking in the proximity of any structure to that property line and the fact that there would be some sort of variance required in order to get the off -street parking that's necessary because of the location of the pool and other developments that are already on the property. Those are things that we've considered in the past for variances. Can make those findings and appreciate the changes made, revisiting some of the details on the structure to have it harmonize a little bit more with the main house. >Getting additional parking off of the street, particularly along Arc Way in that neighborhood that's somewhat impacted. It's commendable and necessary. Therefore I can make the findings for the variance. >Can make the findings in the staff report. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.112 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Alex Mortazavi, Habitat, applicant and designer; Oceanwide Global LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 112 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report 112 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments 112 Costa Rica Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the December 14, 2020 planning commission meeting where this was discussed but did visit the site and watched the meeting video. 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. Alex Mortazavi, Habitat, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no commission questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Liked the project when this was presented before us previously. We typically look closely at projects that have a unique character relative to the rest of the neighborhood. As was discussed last time, there were some contemporary or modern houses in this neighborhood specifically. I consider closely as to whether or not that contemporary still looks residential and as previously mentioned, this house does. It has nice scale and detailing. >I too liked it the first time around. Would agree that the residential scale is there and does tend to fit into the neighborhood with those other projects that are in the area. I appreciate the quality effort being put into the drawings and the project as a whole. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots and Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), per Section 15301(a). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Staff Report 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Attachments 812 and 816 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the December 14, 2020 planning commission meeting and did watch the meeting video. 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. Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no commission questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project was much improved from the last time we saw it. It was approvable at that point and still is. >Understand the complexities of the flat roof and some of the other issues, but it's much more improved over the previous iterations. >Still have the same problem as before. First time around was that this building just really seems to “fill the page.” It doesn't work with trying to reduce the massing. It's a block or neighborhood of predominantly single story and lower -slung houses. Understand the desire for a steep pitched roof, but there are ways to work with that design element and still reduce the massing of the house. Just don't see how cutting off a steeply sloped roof and making a flat area on the top is a good solution. There's a much more creative way to do it and to break the massing down of this house. Don't see how it fits into the neighborhood and not satisfied with the massing. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Liked the project the last time it was before us. Agree that it's a big mass, but overall, it's a good looking project and can be supported. >Project has come a long way since the first round. Quite like the massing as it is currently designed . It shows well in the rendering how the massing is shaping up and appreciate that the garage is detached away from the front. >Agree that it's much improved over the first iteration that we saw. There are probably much more clever ways to solve a massing problem than to chop the head off of it or give it a crew cut, but this works pretty well. It's much improved. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.405 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for size of a new accessory structure (pool house/loggia). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), per Section 15303(e). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Tombstone Properties LLC, property owner) (78 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (This item has been withdrawn by the property owner) This item was withdrawn by the property owner. e.1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture, applicant and architect; Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he was not present at the Design Study meeting but did watch the meeting video. 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. Ross Levi and Patrick Donato, Levi Design, represented the applicant with property owners Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In regards to the engagement with your neighbor at 1205 Cabrillo Avenue, it sounds like you've had some meetings with them to discuss their concerns. Based on the revisions that you've agreed to make, is it your opinion that those issues if not resolved, are on their way to be resolved with the revisions to your landscaping and site planning? (Talwalker: Yes. We spoke with them and we had a Zoom call with our architect the day after. We believe we have addressed their concerns. We have told them in writing and also verbally that we're committed to making the changes that they've requested because we fundamentally believe that their privacy is as important as ours and there's a few other points as well. We agreed to that fundamentally and if they have an issue, they can raise their voice right now.) >Looking at that front elevation, the changes in the form are a nice addition and do add to the context of the project. Saw the standing seam metal in renderings but not seeing where the drainage is going to come into play and how that will detail out, whether you're considering a hidden drain at the top of the wall or how will those things play out? (Levy: The wooden portions of the building are meant to be rain screened, meaning the siding isn't attached directly to the wall therefore we can hide gutters and downspouts in that cavity.) The main place where the standing seam is doesn't look like it has the rain screen on it? (Donato: Yes, the lower gable does not have the wood rain screen and it is stucco. We do plan on doing a concealed gutter system in which the gutters for that section could be embedded into the wall and we can thicken the wall as needed to do that.) Actually, this particular detail being shown now would be a fine way to solve that problem. >Is there a plan for screening the heat pumps on the low ADU roof in the back because that's a fairly flat roof with no ability to hide anything? (Donato: We’re not showing any screening, but we'd be amenable to screening them appropriately.) In some of your 3D renderings it would be worthwhile to put a heat pump up there to see what that's going to be like, because that's going to be directly visible to the neighbor to the north. (Donato: We assumed we would be screening them in some way. We just didn't do that in this proposal.) (Levy: There are other locations that the machinery itself may exist in and it may be that's not the place for it at all.) It's just such a very flat form. You don't have any parapet to hide behind. So it's just going to be really exposed. You have a great opportunity on the flat roof, on the two story wood area. It's a small parapet, but if you're going to get your solar panels in there, you might be careful how much depth you have so that's not popping up and you get to look at the object instead of the solar panels. >Have a similar concern on that same neighbor's side. So much of the focus of this has been from across the pool looking at the house, which is shaping up nicely. But there was something that was odd about it to me. Realized yesterday while looking at this that you have a wall that's over one hundred feet long. It's almost 12 feet tall facing that neighbor four feet off the property line. Have you looked at the plans with that neighbor and do they know what they would be looking at? Have you spoken to them about that? (Talwalker: Yes, I have spoken with them. They've written a letter of support which is included in the materials. They were supportive of the initial design as well. I don't think that element has changed in the revisions.) >On the landscape plan, there is some shrubbery, is that just a low shrub inside the fence or is that something that would screen that length of wall? It's not the side with the swimming pool. It's the side with the long wall. (Levy: There’s an existing 15 foot tall planting which would be part of the answer to your question about the wall on the first floor. The plant material there that's between the two houses is pretty mature and tall.) So you're intending for that all to stay? (Levy: Yes. The upper section of the wall that borders that property line, there's a different material and physical modulation in that wall to provide relief to the western neighbor, exactly for the reasons you're pointing out on the first floor, but we thought in everyone's interest that we should do it on the second floor which we've done. I'm sure we're open to comments about the first floor, but we think it's more or less invisible to the neighbor here.) Potentially it would be. Was assuming the lot would be completely cleared and the hedge wouldn't be remaining. The second floor looks better. But the first floor, looking at the plan and I saw 101 feet, that was a little concerning. It might be beneficial to break it up a little bit on the first floor. >The wall of the house that faces the garage also seems to be a little flat. Have you thought about working on some angulations on that wall? Especially like your street view when you did that one. (Levy: I do recall our conversation last time. The modulation on that wall was previously a cantilever and you called into question and rightly so. We've removed that and that wall is lacking modulation at this moment, but we can bring some there.) Saw it in your rendering, but when you did your street rendering, it looks flat . Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wondering if you can do something on that wall? (Levy: Internally, we're having debates about material consistency and what's the best way to have a clear application of materials, but bringing in more finer materials and playing with the wood and the stucco in conjunction there. That's a fine comment.) >In the front elevation, don't see it in the rendering, there's a grid pattern to the window to the right of the front door. It has an interesting intersection of the grid. (Donato: That’s just a mistake, it shouldn't be there.) Is it going to be one fixed plane of glass? (Donato: Plain glass, yes.) >In addressing the comments from the neighbor to the left, you're looking at a new location for the barbecue, has that location been decided? (Levy: No, it hasn't. We had that conversation on Friday, and I haven't spoken to Sohan and Sandya since then. We know now, as it's common when you chat with your neighbors, you find out what's on their side of the fence, literately. Now we know they have bedrooms there, so I won't expect it's going to be near the property line at all.) >The fountain is still showing in the plans, but that would be deleted from the plans you would be resubmitting? (Levy: Correct.) I wanted to thank you for your very thorough comments and response to our comments. Public Comments: >Jane Gomery, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: We wanted to thank the Talwalkers and the architects for quickly hearing our concerns and meeting with us. We would like to have our comments in the conditions of approval primarily because the contractor needs to be made aware of the decisions that were made. A lot of times that gets lost by the time the building permit gets issued so we wanted to be sure and have those included in the final plans. If the pool is approved by the Planning Commission, we did get comments back from the architect and he had some suggestions during construction about how to take care of any settlement or displacement that may occur because of all the pool shoring and they weren't sure on the depths yet, so we were hopeful his comments as well could be included and done as part of the conditions of approval for the contractor during demolition to protect our house as well as construction and afterward. He talked about putting markers on the house or tarps to keep the dust and debris out of our house which we just recently painted. >Steve Pade, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: I had an additional comment on our discussion. We are kind of concerned about the 50 feet approval that is 8 feet from our old 1921 foundation. There was a discussion with the architect about marking our house before and after, so we know if our house shifts or not. It was a good idea, we want to make sure that really happens. That would be our recommendation on five. We agree with the whole letter entirely, but that was talked about, but it doesn't say they're going to do it, so we would like for that to be included as a requirement. (Chair Tse: Is that item F in your letter, about the pool and the shoring?) Yes. (Chair Tse: Item F which is the sixth bullet point in the response letter.) Yes. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I appreciate the presentation and the revisions that have been presented. As mentioned in the study meeting, I had some concerns about the character of the house relative to the neighborhood. Looking closely at the front elevations in sheet A 3.1, as previously submitted and what was submitted now, it has better residential character than it did before. Like the way it's presenting itself much better in the current iteration. There are some conditions and qualifiers that could come back as an FYI. Based on what's there now and the potential for this design, am a little excited to see something like this in the neighborhood because it does feel residential. It's somewhat reminiscent of the house they showed at 1529 Bernal Avenue. It can fit in the neighborhood the way it's presented now. The revisions to the site planning, the barbecue and the landscaping, the heat pump locations, the articulation on that wall of the house facing the garage and the other conditions of the neighbors for monitoring the construction, those could come back as an FYI if this moves forward. Could find support of the project now the way it's presented. >Uneasy about this project, especially because we just approved a much more traditional modern project just earlier, but there's a major difference between this project and that project. That project is Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what we might call a classic modernism. It grew out of architecture values and it led that project to nestle to the site in a comfortable way. It's well scaled. This project feels cartoonish in a post modernist way just like the work that Venturi did in Philadelphia, Franklin Court and the so -called ghost houses which are tubular steel frames in the shape of a house. Very uncomfortable with this house for those reasons. It's an idea rather than a house. In part, it may be the way it's presented. Some of what I see recall some of the worst of the 70s modernism which makes me uneasy and we have a few of those homes around town, they stick out like sore thumbs in my view. I cannot support the project because of my uneasiness. What makes me also uneasy is I have this running debate with a close friend who is a pretty prominent architect who complains to me all the time that planning commissions have no business. As long as the applicant's design meets the letter of the law and is within the by right letter of the law and the math all works, that we have no business saying what fits and what doesn't. I can't go there with him because that's what we're charged with, in part, by the community. So we have to make that judgment call whether the math works or not. Whether it can be proven that it fits or whether it can be proven that it doesn't fit. This project, for me, just doesn't fit. That's an impossible term to define, but it doesn't feel like a house. It feels like an idea, a sculpture. With that said, the image that the architect showed the detailing of that wall which looked like a wood rain screen wall looks pretty nice. Maybe this will turn out to be a nice house but we're letting this project off the hook in a way we would never let another project off the hook. We almost never let any project off the hook. These two sidewalls are abominable. We fuss over adding a tiny little detail here and add a window there and why is that wall so blank and we're letting this project off the hook in that regard, especially on the 101-foot long wall. That's just not right in my view. It may be okay with the neighbor that's there now, but some neighbor in the future is going to say what were they thinking? What's going on here? You can't let people do that, build a 101-foot long 12 foot high wall with a couple of windows. It's four, six windows and a couple of notches cut into it. That's just not right for any future owner of that property to that side. I won't support the project for these reasons. I'm uneasy because we've just approved a modernist house, but that house worked and this one does not. >I wasn't at the last hearing, but I've studied the plans and watched through the whole hearing. So I feel like I got a good sense of what happened there, but I can't support the project as it is now either. They have made great improvements to the articulation in the front. It has come a long way towards fitting better in the neighborhood, but its neighborhood compatibility is a real issue here. Particularly, the massing in terms of the height. When you look at it in comparison to the house on the left and on the right, it's a much bigger, taller mass. The design guidelines speak of trying to minimize mass and this feels like it celebrates it. Agree completely about the comment regarding the left side wall and the right side wall. The presentations were really helpful and really great. I have real confidence in the ability of the architect, but three of the four houses that were used as examples of how this one was compatible with the neighborhood weren't subject to design review. The one that was, which is the one on Bernal Avenue, has many modern elements such as the standing steam roof and the metal windows without any grid patterns . That's just massed in a much more traditional way and articulated in a way that this house is not. The one example that actually we reviewed isn't a good example for why this house should be approved. I understand that there's not a special permit for the garage anymore. A detached garage at the front with a blank rain screen wall doesn't feel like it's within the pattern of the neighborhood either. So I can't support the project as it's currently drawn either. >The design was helped along, but it still has a very industrial feel. Expect to see this in a warehouse district as a building that was redone. The elements of the building really don't hang together that well for me. It seems like it's trying to put together a few different buildings. Wasn't sure what was really striking me about it. We talked last time about how this would work well out on a 50-acre parcel on top of a hill in Napa Valley, but the thing that really got me is that 101-foot long wall. Like what my fellow commissioner said, we beat people up for 20 feet of wall with nothing on it, and this is 101 feet with a few elements in it that, granted it's screened by that hedge. In the overall scheme there's a better way to mass this house and the driveway wall, obviously, needs a lot of help. The cantilever was taken away because that doesn't fit the code as written, but something could or should be done there. Not sure if this project is headed in the right direction. I'm not going to be supporting it either. >It has come a long way since the previous iteration. The shapes in the front work better, but listening to my fellow commissioners and looking at the plans, I too am a little nervous about some of the big walls. Appreciate the cantilever over the garage is not there, but that has left a sizable two -story wall that Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes we don't really like to have. It's challenging with the modern style in that you are trying to go more minimalist, but because it doesn't have any relief to it or anything else to go with it, it does become a very blank wall other than the punched windows. There's some room to work on with it and it could get better . The big walls do make it challenging for us to support that and would like to see a bit more work on it. >Definitely appreciate all of the efforts that have been put into tonight's presentation and a lot of thought into it. What looks like a lot of focus on the massing of the front of the house and then subsequently what happens with the floor plan on the inside. The focus on the front and then let's rollout the effective change on the second story throughout the back of the house. Agree with some of my fellow commissioners on the need to work on that left wall as you approach the house from the left side. Also that long side wall on the right has been bothering me. We know the ADU is attached to the house and that is outside of our purview. It doesn't help that it is just a continuous run from the house. Thinking about current neighbors who want to be supportive of their friends and neighbors, but what if someone were to move and there's a new neighbor that moves in at some point along the line and what they have to experience. >I'm going to repeat that the pool is in a location that is troublesome for the neighbor on the left. There could be a better location, shape or size of the pool on the lot. >I would like to suggest that the choices appear at this point, based on what we ’re hearing from commissioners, is either continuing or deny it. >Gardiner: Denial without prejudice is an option which allows the project to resubmit at a future date. It acts very similar to a continuance and the difference is it has an appeal function should the applicant decide that they're ready to have a decision set. If there were to be a denial based on what we heard tonight, just clarify whether it's a flat out denial or denial without prejudice. If without prejudice, they could come back in the next meeting with these changes and no harm, no foul. But it would also allow them to consider whether to take an appeal to the City Council. >Just to clarify, if it was with prejudice, then an all together new submission would have to be made? (Gardiner: Yes. If the desire is to have something completely different and not resembling what was submitted. What I'm hearing is there are commissioners that feel strongly, but others feel like there are details that can be worked out. Without prejudice, would allow those details to be worked out and a straight up denial would have them go back to the drawing board.) >Spansail: Madame Chair, you can reopen the public hearing to get input from the homeowner . Something at your disposal. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. > Levy: We're listening. I believe that we can address the comments that have been made. Short of Commissioner Loftis' comments which are more deeply conceptual and kind of philosophical, I would be more than happy to have a conversation about that. I understand the points of reference he's making. As far as our project sponsors go, I'll let them speak for themselves, but I suspect they would like us to have the opportunity to respond to the comments that the commission is making and hopefully convince you that we are making something that's appropriate and something you can approve. So a continuance would be a more direct line from our point of view. >Talwalker: We're certainly disappointed with the views expressed here and confounded as well. But we understand you have the views you have. We would like to have the opportunity to revise and work toward meeting your requirements. If I may be upfront, how do you all think about an ADU? Is that desired? It's a framework set by the state, just so I understand if it's something we should be including or not because we have a limited footprint of six thousand square feet of the lot and so the decision to attach the ADU to the home, which has subsequently led to this very long wall which everybody is focused on, it's because of that, right? In an ideal world, we would have a bigger lot and the ADU would be separate. If you look at the main home it is not any longer than our home that's adjacent to us which is a two -story home at 1213 Cabrillo Avenue. I want to better understand what is the view on the ADUs and is it desired or not desired? I don't have a clear sense for it. It's a new concept that came forth at the beginning of 2020. >Spansail: I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to interject because the ADU is something that's ministerial by state law. The Planning Commission is not actually allowed to comment on it. It's something that can be seen in the context of the project because it's definitely going to affect the landscape of the property, but Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes it's not something they can comment on about whether it's preferred or not preferred. I apologize. I know that's frustrating, but that's something that they're not allowed to comment on. This is a brand new law, completely understand. >Talwalker: That’s fine. I'm learning more as we go forward. For that reason, we don't have a lot of data points to understand. There's the law, but certainly we didn't have examples available to us. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >There's a number of other choices, but seeing them as my fellow commissioner first laid them out . There are two choices, continuance or deny without prejudice. The distinction is between, if we were to continue it, we would be saying that minor changes could lead to an approval. If we were to deny it without prejudice, the commission would say there's more fundamental changes required and it's not making a few minor changes. The City Attorney can correct me if I'm wrong here, but repeating what he said which is the ADU is not in our purview at all. But what it does, it affects the rest of the project and the available square footage of it on the lot and it's a relatively small lot. When you add the ADU and the pool, you push a lot of requirements on that lot in terms of massing and where the garage can go and how it affects the rest of the neighborhood, so it feels like there's too much trying to happen on this project. That's driving some of the other concerns that have been expressed and in terms of massing and the large walls, the large two story wall and the position of the garage. >The opportunity for making some fundamental changes might get this project there, and minor changes won't do it. In past discussions where there was an attached ADU, it's out of our purview except it affects the overall design of the project. We have looked at an ADU in the past couple of years that was attached to a project and with respect to what it did to the project as a whole, we were allowed to comment on it. The decision to attach has driven a lot of the subsequent decisions and probably caused some of the comments coming back. Part of what makes the project feel cartoonish to me is that front facade is like what a kid would design, would draw if they wanted to represent a house. It's a rectangle with a gable on it. That's also what's causing the over scale of that house relative to the adjacencies. It's decidedly not what happens on the Bernal Avenue project, it was not a face print issue. This is a face print problem, if it were not flat or a rectangle on top, it wouldn't look cartoonish. To be more articulate about what it was, didn’t realize it until after my fellow commissioner followed up and said that one image makes the building look so much bigger than it otherwise might relative to its adjacent neighbors. >To reiterate and crystallize what my fellow commissioners were saying in regards to the ADU and as our City Attorney would remind us, it's not an issue of preference at all relative to the ADU. The issue comes back to the applicant and their architect working through what you want to do with your lot, what you want to do with the massing and what you want to do with the parts and pieces you want to accomplish with your project? And how you want to allocate those to find something that is achievable. It's a matter of what are the effects of those various different parts and pieces of your project as you apply them to the site and how that manifests in the actual application that you put before us. So it's entirely up to you guys to consider those things and with the sincerity that you're approaching the project and skills and talent of your architects, I'm hopeful you can find a solution with those pieces that you want to achieve. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Nay:Terrones1 - Absent:Comaroto1 - f.912 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and Front Setback Variance for a new, two -story single family dwelling and an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, applicant and designer; Templeton Holdings LLC, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 912 Linden Ave - Staff Report 912 Linden Ave - Attachments 912 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the December 14, 2020 planning commission meeting and did watch the meeting video. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the setback for a single -car attached garage different than a two -car attached garage? (Gardiner: Yes. If you have a two-car garage, then you're either going to need to split the two -doors and offset them or push the garage further back.) So it's 25 feet for one-car garage and 35 feet for two-car garage, is that correct? (Gardiner: That's right.) To meet the 25 foot setback requirement, do they have to jog these two-doors or not? (Gardiner: Yes. If they were jogged and then one of the doors was offset further back, then they could comply with the requirements. But as it is now with the double doors, none of it is offset so that's why they're requesting variance.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Chris Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no commission questions/comments. Public Comments: >Comment sent via e -mail by Emily Robinson Davis and Ryan Davis: To whom it may concern: My husband and I are homeowners in Burlingame Gardens and wanted to voice our concern over parking and traffic in regards to the project proposed at 912 Linden Avenue. Linden, Laurel, and Toyon are all very narrow streets that are already often parked on both sides to capacity making visibility difficult. This neighborhood has a lot of children, families, pets, and older people who frequently take advantage of its walkability. Often on garbage collection days and with the influx of delivery trucks due to COVID it is not uncommon for Linden to be completely blocked to traffic both ways at times. With the addition of untold numbers of construction trucks that accompany a remodel of this size there is a potential for even more congestion and potentially unsafe situations on Linden. Ideally, we would hope that guidelines for parking will be enforced or created to ensure safety and convenience for the residents of the neighborhood by limiting the number of vehicles to the project site. There seems to be ample parking on Carolan which is just a few short blocks away. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >As previously stated, could be supportive of a variance application if the garage were aligning with the current location. In other words, they're adhering to an existing condition. They're not making an existing condition worse as was previously proposed when the garage was pulled forward more. I like the revision that's been made. >There are unique conditions for this property. That is an odd shape lot, it has a short side about 105 Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes feet where the existing garage is. To ask them to push the garage even further back would be a hardship based on the exceptional circumstances of the lot. Supportive of the variance the way the house is planned now. >In this neighborhood, there's nothing but attached garages so there would be support for the special permit for the attached garage. I like the detailing of the house, it ’s fairly simple, humble but well composed so I'm supportive of the project as revised. >The only issue I had the previous time we saw this was the location of the garage and where the house sat relative to the sidewalk. Pushing it back six feet to where the current line is at is what I was hoping to achieve on this as well. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - g.220 Park Road (Post Office) and below grade portion of City Parking Lot E, zoned HMU - Notice of Intent to Consider Adoption of a Development Agreement between the City of Burlingame and 220 Park - Burlingame LLC (Historic Post Office Building ), setting forth the duration of the agreement, permitted uses and density of the project, requisite development standards, community benefits to be provided by the applicant, and additional terms and conditions regarding development of the project. (220 Park - Burlingame LLC, applicant; KSH Architects, architect; Burlingame Park Square LLC, property owners) (222 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Post Office Development Agreement - Staff Report Post Office Development Agreement - Attachments Post Office Development Agreement - Resolution Exhibit A - Term Sheet CC Meeting Minutes 11-04-20 Exhibit B - Schedule of Performance 220 Park Rd (Post Office) - 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, and introduced outside counsel Edward Shaffer. Questions of staff: >There is the $2M contribution from the developer, but is there an overall cost estimate for the town square itself? (Gardiner: There is still a community process for coming up with a concept design for the town square, so the total budget will depend on the outcome of that process. The applicant has shown a couple of scenarios showing what could be built for $1M or $2M; $2M would create a basic town square, probably a lawn and a path and some seating. Should the community decide to add more embellishments, those would be at the city's expense or could be phased over time.) >Is it necessary for the term sheet to capture the items mentioned by the City Council regarding hours for the parking garage, holidays, etc .? Or will those details get captured in a subsequent document? (Shaffer: Those will be captured in the development agreement. If there is a particular item the commission is concerned about, it can mention it.) >Are there specifics about how to protect the historic portions of the post office that are being moved Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and stored? Weather protection, vandalism, etc. (Gardiner: There is a procedure for the logistics during construction, and provisions for ensuring the maintenance of the structure. Those will be included in the development agreement.) >In reference to the parking spaces being available all day on weekends, is that 24 hours, or what does that mean? (Shaffer: Currently that has been identified as 8 am to 11 pm. It will be 5 pm to 11 pm on weekdays.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Andrew Turco, Sares Regis, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would the sidewalk improvements mentioned for Lorton Avenue come out of the $2M? (Turco: Yes, there is a menu of improvements that could be constructed in conjunction with the project, but it would be up to the city to decide. We will make improvements to the sidewalks in front of the project itself, but the additional improvements suggested would be the portion of the sidewalk in front of the town square.) Public Comments: >James Ruigomez, San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council: Hoping that the development agreement can specify union contractors, or that Sares Regis and Dostart could write a letter of intent to the Building Trades Council stating that the project will be built 100% union. Part of what the Building Trades stands for is the working families platform for earning a decent working wage, health care for you and your family, something to retire on, and funding our own education. When a project is contracted at a prevailing rate, all the money for the health and welfare, retirement, and training, goes onto the worker's check as whole. Hopefully Sares Regis, the Planning Commission, and the City Council can work together with the Building Trades to ensure the skilled and trained workforce. Our apprenticeship programs are one of the largest privately -funded education systems in the United States, to ensure that the workers on the job site are skilled and trained. On a project this size with the underground and structural elements, would hope that Sares Regis and Dostart would create that letter and commit to the Building Trades and the construction workers in the area. It keeps the money in the local economy, will help tremendously during this time of covid. Looking forward to hearing from the General Contractor and the developer on this matter. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Excited about this project, and glad to see the applicant back to complete the step of the development agreement. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to recommend to the City Council that they fully negotiate and enter into this development agreement. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - h.Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Regulations Governing Commercial Cannabis Activity. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (This item was continued from the January 11, 2021 meeting) Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report Proposed Resolution Exhibits A and B - Proposed Regulations October 5, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes Innovation Industrial Map California Regulations for Delivery of Cannabis Products – Summary Attachments: This item was continued. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner mentioned that the January 4th City Council meeting included discussion of an ad hoc committee being formed to study "soft story" buildings in Burlingame. The committee will include two Planning Commissioners. The work originates with a policy in the General Plan Safety Element that points to concerns with soft story buildings and seismic events. A number of municipalities in the Bay Area have passed ordinances that provide some sort of timeline for retrofits for the interest of public safety as well as property protections, so an ad hoc committee is being formed that's trying to represent the cross -section of those interested in this topic. The committee will be advisory to the City Council, so we don't know what the final outcome will be, but the idea is to look at the situation in Burlingame, how many buildings are potentially needing retrofit and what would be some programs or regulations that would help address that over the long-term. a.1457 Bernal Avenue - FYI for proposed exterior changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1457 Bernal Ave - Memorandum 1457 Bernal Ave - Construction Investigation Letter 1457 Bernal Ave - Homeowner Construction Documentation 1457 Bernal Ave - Historic Status Community Development Memorandum 1457 Bernal Ave - Historic Resource Report 1457 Bernal Ave - Project Analysis and Historic Resource Evaluation 1457 Bernal Ave - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1457 Bernal Ave - Applicant Explanation Letter 1457 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner indicated wanting some clarification as to what is original and what is a reproduction of the existing house. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 11, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 11, 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 January 21, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021