Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.10.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 28, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 9, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 9, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 23, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1704 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is Categorically Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Una Kinsella, applicant and architect; Jerry and Barbara Maley, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1704 Davis Dr - Staff Report 1704 Davis Dr - Attachments 1704 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrrones was recused because he has a business relationship with the project designer. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1319 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Patrick Gilson, property owner) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1319 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1319 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1319 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Chair Comaroto and Commissioner Sargent were recused from this item because they own property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu and Patrick Gilson, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Rendering shows landscaping closer to the street, but the plans show landscaping where the interior courtyard used to be, beyond the first articulated bay, right? (Chu: Correct, there is landscaping just outside of the kitchen and breakfast nook.) >On the building elevations, you show a spark arrestor for the chimneys but label them as direct vent fireplaces. Will the fireplaces be gas units? (Chu: Yes, that is correct.) >Will the fireplaces vent through side vents or through the chimney? (Chu: They will vent through the chimney.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Ernestine Agnussen, 1321 Capuchino Avenue: Grateful that interior side courtyard has been eliminated from the project. Acting Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the revisions, this is a much improved design. >Would like to make sure that the exterior light fixtures comply with the exterior lighting ordinance, so that the direct light doesn't extend beyond the property line. >Revised design fits in well with the neighborhood and meets the design review criteria; in support of project. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis4 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - b.831 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Nikko Kandhari, applicant and property owner; Kellond Architects, architect) (149 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 831 Acacia Dr - Staff Report 831 Acacia Dr - Attachments 831 Acacia Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had an email exchange with the neighbor to the right. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Steve Kellond, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the changes made, appreciate that they worked with the neighbor in addressing privacy concerns, reducing second floor plate from nine feet to eight feet made a big difference. >In looking at some of the imagery that was provided by the applicant and comparing it to the rendering provided, thought that front wall could benefit from a little bit of articulation like the image in the upper left corner of the photo board. Looks like a fairly long border wall along the front of the property. >The two chimney stacks look fairly tall in relation to the building, thought that if it's going to be a gas fireplace, that perhaps those chimneys could be brought down a little bit lower. The massing has gotten 18 inches wider than the original chimney stack, and from a massing perspective, might make the house feel a little bit more concise and tight. >Think the project has very good curb appeal, looks like it's going to be a very nice house. Like the quality of the materials. >Have some concerns about a Spanish style house on this block because there are many single -story classic Craftsman houses with lower roofs, but saving grace is that there are two Spanish style houses across the street, which seems a little out of place on that block because there are so many good examples of the Craftsman style; can't object to it on that basis because of those two other houses there . Really like seeing those Craftsman houses and hope those remain or are added onto in a similar style. >Would like to make sure that the exterior light fixtures comply with the exterior lighting ordinance, so that the direct light doesn't extend beyond the property line. >Project is very nicely done, like the changes you've made. >Front wall could have decorative pieces like you put above the windows, but is not a deal breaker. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.1457 Bernal Avenue - zoned R-1 - Application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope and building height, and Variances for side setback and driveway width for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant; Tim and Megan Baldwin, property owners) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1457 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1457 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1457 Bernal Ave - Historic Resource Report 1457 Bernal Ave - Project Analysis 1457 Bernal Ave - Mitigated Negative Declaration 1457 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Terrones and Tse indicated they had met with the property owners to discuss the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >Plans provided to us earlier appear to be different than what is before us now, can you provide any clarification? (Hurin: In some case the version of the plans change, can ask applicant to clarify which version is correct.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant. Noted that two separate plan sets were submitted, correct version is dated October 17, 2019, which shows the existing dining room windows to remain. Commission Questions/Comments: >Do the correct plans show the dining room windows retaining more of the sunroom windows along that side as shown on the rendering? (Raduenz: Yes, the elevations are correct.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the fact that applicant revisited the side elevations for the existing residence that's being retained. Sufficiently addressed maintaining more of that front porch area, which makes up of a big portion of the identity of the structure as you come up Bernal Avenue; appreciate applicant committing to maintaining those existing windows and that sash along that side. On the other side, recognizing full well that the existing aluminum windows are not original, but are probably in an original location, applicant revisited this side and has incorporated the doors and windows in locations where there are existing windows now, which helps mitigate the impacts that they're making to the original residence; helps me able to make the findings for the negative declaration. >Variances and other special permits are necessary due to the extraordinary circumstances of this historic facade that they're trying to maintain, and its unique characteristics and unique dimensions relative to typical structures you would see on a 50-foot lot, can make those findings and think the project is approvable. >Appreciate all the work from the applicant and for working with the historical consultant. >Appreciate the retention of the two trees at the front of the property as well. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Sargent1 - d.1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Joseph Ho, applicant and designer; Xiaochuang (Henry) Lin, property owner) (122 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Markiewicz 1345 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1345 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1345 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he did not attend the design review study meeting for this project, but was able to watch the video. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Henry Lim and Joseph Ho, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there going to be a guardrail required at the front porch? (Ho: A guardrail is not required since the height of the porch is less than 30 inches with the landscape planter below.) You may need a guardrail at the side of the porch because there is no planter there, so the porch is more than 30 inches. (Ho: Yes, thank you.) >Did you consider reducing the size of the second floor deck at the rear of the house? (Ho: Yes, we reduce the size of the second floor deck.) >Think plans state that the second floor deck was reduced from 196 to 143 square feet, is that correct? (Ho: Yes, that's correct. We also have a partially solid wall at the deck so it provides more privacy to the neighbor.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Like the changes they've made, think it's a nice project. >Concerned about size of second floor deck. We consistently ask applicants to limit them to 100 square feet or less out of a concern for privacy for neighbors. >Also concerned with the deck, would like to see it reduced to 100 square feet, if that's possible. >Struggling with this one, can see that some of the changes have softened the design, but still feel that it doesn't have a clear design direction. Not sure that just by applying these materials to the house makes it more a contemporary home; not convinced this is the right house for this block or this location . It's working too hard to try to be something it's not. >Struggle to generate much enthusiasm for transitional modern homes,it's neither modern nor is it traditional in a way that would easily fit into the neighborhood. >Concerned with the metal roofing and roof pitch. >Concerned with stark pseudo modern buildings in residential neighborhoods. >Applicant has addressed previous concerns with project; was previously concerned that the application of the materials wasn't consistent from the renderings to the actual application, and notes and details on the elevation drawings. However, in looking at what they worked through with the design consultant, am more in support of project now because they've made the scale more residential, they've reduced the scale Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes on the stone and on the horizontal siding, and the window patterns and the type of windows are more residential in character, and better scale for the neighborhood. Can support the project as proposed. >Is definitely different from other houses in the neighborhood, but also look to see whether or not it feels residential in scale and character. >Can reduce size of second floor deck by adding planters or by increasing the amount of roof to get it closer to 100 square feet. >Think you did a nice job with the design consultant, like the project with the revisions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the rear second floor deck shall be reduced in size and the revised plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to building permit issuance. Comment on the motion: >With the reduced roof pitch, the house is raised fairly well above the street, so it may not be as visible. >Can support the special permit for increased building height based on the change in roof slope and reduction of the second story plate height; contributed to a tighter, shorter building. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Kelly1 - e.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (2). (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1556 Cypress Ave - Staff Report 1556 Cypress Ave - Attachments 1556 Cypress Ave - Plans Attachments: Chair Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >It appears from the floor plan that there is a three inch offset of that bay above the front door towards Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the front and side of the house. However, the front elevation does not show the offset along the side of the house. (Raduenz: Correct, will fix plans.) >The roof eaves on the gable end at the front of the house are lower than the eaves on the main roof above. In addition, there is a lateral ridge running left to right along the top of main hip roof of the building . However, the roof plan does not reflect these roof elements. So we will need a revised roof plan. Concern is that if that gable comes up to a peak as is now shown on the roof plan, the roof will be taller than 30 feet. Are you anticipating there is going to be a flat area? (Raduenz: Yes, that is correct.) > If what we're approving is the front elevation and we don't have an application for special permit for building height, we're going to need a revised roof plan, which can be handled through an FYI application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the revisions that have been made. >Think that project designer can address the discrepancies on the roof plan, as well as providing revised building elevations correctly showing the cantilevered bay above the front entry, and bring these clarifications back as an FYI item. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the Planning Commission shall review an FYI item that includes revised building elevations correctly showing the cantilevered bay above the front entry and a revised roof plan that is consistent with the approved building elevations. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - f.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow retail, personal service, and business service uses on the ground floor of an approved new commercial building (not built yet). Proposed uses on the ground floor fall within the scope of the previously approved project which qualified for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a conversation with the applicant to get more clarification on the application. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Think this is well within the original intent of our approval of the building. Didn't realize we had a restriction, assumed we were going to have some type of retail space on the ground floor, in favor of the project and find it fully supportable. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.730 Crossway Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Leslie Macchia, property owner) (167 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 730 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 730 Crossway Rd - Attachments 730 Crossway Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Variance application notes that the rear of the lot was reduced by 20 feet at some point. Don't think Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes we should ignore the fact that you're maintaining the front wall of the house in the existing location and building on it. Project is defined as new construction based on how much you're doing. (Wehmeyer: Front wall will be new construction.). If project were forced to comply with the average front setback, wall would have to be torn down as well and the entire house would need to be pushed back. >Should consider using stucco or brick for water table to provide a more substantive base; then you wouldn't have wood siding that's almost touching the ground. Could also be the concrete footing . (Wehmeyer: It is something we considered and discussed, but eliminated it for budgetary purposes. It's a good point, will consider it.) >Had the same reaction about the base below the wood water table, it seemed like it wanted to be stone or something rustic since you've gone with the board and batten siding. >Wondering if there's too much board and batten siding and if it's visually stretching the building height, especially on the east and west sides. Should consider some articulation in another material . (Wehmeyer: Can take a look at it. House next door on the left is so big and tall that we weren't quite as worried about how that came out, but we can take a look at using different materials.) >Can you consider adding a vent on the first floor gable at the front of the house? Would help to break up the linear lines. (Wehmeyer: Make sense, will consider it.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Think that the house looks nice, but am concerned with the front setback variance. Existing house is softened by the landscaping at the front, however house is close to the sidewalk, and it is only a single story house. The proximity to the sidewalk is going to be exacerbated by adding a second story, and that being so close as well. In essence, this is a new house, so if we were reviewing this as a new house would we allow this? Don't know that we would. There is an argument in the application that this would allow the applicant to have a house in kind with the neighbors, however it is a smaller lot and smaller lots get smaller houses, it's the way the guidelines and design parameters are set up. Not in support of the variance for the front setback, but I do like the design of the house. >There are varying setbacks on this block. Existing house has a 15-foot front setback, but it is a small portion of the house, and the application includes moving the entire house to the front, so think it's going to be more imposing on the street. >Have a different take on the variance. This particular lot is distinctly unique because the rear of the lot was reduced by 20 feet for whatever reason. The house is smaller because they're limited in terms of FAR and they're not asking for special considerations for lot coverage or FAR. They are maintaining some existing portions of the front wall, and they're stepping the second floor back as required for a typical standard setback. Think that there is something fairly exceptionally and unique about the property, so I am more accepting of the variance application the way it has been presented because of the unique aspects of the rear of the property. >House is placed as far back as it can be given the tight turnaround space between the house and detached garage. >Majority of the front elevation is experienced at the first floor, given that the second floor massing is stepped back. Is a nicely designed project and there is a nice floor plan developed with it, so for all those reasons can support this project and the variance request. >Worried that if we force the building back the garage would become attached, which I think is not the best solution. Think the house pushed back slightly with an attached garage filling the entire lot is less desirable. The lot size having been changed over the years has made it difficult to fit in properly in the neighborhood. >If we were not to approve the variance, don't see that the logical conclusion is an attached garage because it would be easy to slightly revise the floor plan to increase the back up space for the garage; the garage is oversized so that would be one way to increase the backyard space. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.1335 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James, Chu, applicant and designer; Igor and Andrea Cerc, property owners) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1335 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1335 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1335 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. James Chu and Igor and Andrea Cerc, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Garage roof on the left elevation of the garage is not consistent with roof plan, please correct. (Chu: Will correct.) >On the right side elevation, over the entry to the mud room, is there any consideration for weather protection since it's a side entry? (Chu: We talked about adding a shed roof, will discuss with homeowners.) >Location of the dining room french doors appears to be incorrectly shown on the rear elevation, in plan they look like they're centered on that wall. (Chu: Will correct the rear elevation.) >Appears that there is a porch railing missing at the front entry wall of the house, looks like you could squeeze right there and fall into the plants. (Chu: There should be some kind of guardrail.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Don't have an issue with contemporary designs in traditional neighborhoods. However, am concerned regarding the elements of this design and how that contemporary architecture is applied in this case . Concern is that the front entry element is very bulky in terms of the fascia and how you're detailing the front porch. Doesn't have a residential feel to it; ask myself does it feel residential? Does it still look like a house? Does it behave itself in a traditional neighborhood? Some homes look commercial and look like a medical office or dental office, and this has parts and pieces of a commercial look. The front gable is Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes quiet and subdued and think it works well, but looking at that front porch and the area above, it looks like some kind of square, modern piece has been shoved into that corner and added, looks like an addition or something that was done to a traditional house as opposed to hanging together as all traditional design . Think there needs to be revisiting of the front porch element to make it feel a little more residential . Doesn't necessarily have to be traditional, but it has to have a better scale to the parts and pieces. Think that the rear elevation is working a little bit better in terms of breaking down the scale of the heavier fascia. >Left side of house is flat and bulky and that's where that contemporary architecture starts to breakdown because now it's starting to look like flat walls that are trying to say it's contemporary and therefore, it can be blank. Think there's additional articulation along the right side elevation and the front entry element. Think it needs an additional pass at getting that contemporary or modern look. Has good scale in terms of the massing, but think the articulation needs another pass. >Have voiced my uneasiness about the mushiness in the contemporary design, sometimes it works, but in my opinion it hasn't been successful. >Had the same reaction to the front entry design, found it very strange especially because the second floor element is stacked directly on top, flush with the first floor wall. >Concerned with the two story element at the front of the house, it's a tall two -story bay that's not articulated very much, and it's very sheer. Can think of one instance of a house that was built recently in the past year where that tall singular front bay is very aggressive. Think it needs some more articulation. >Concerned with the two-story window element at the stairway along the right side of house. Understand that the neighbors may be accepting of it now, but there may be new neighbors in the future who are not . Think it needs to be rethought because it's not just the current situation, it's all future situations. >Standing seam metal roof may be acceptable in this instance, it's not nearly as pronounced as in other houses we've seen. >There may be a solution for all these things, and maybe a combination of contemporary and traditional styles will work here, but don't think this one does yet. >Proportion of tall fascia capping the flat roof areas is not connecting well with the gable roof areas, should consider a better way to connect them. One of the interesting things about modern design is the kind of interplay of modules and material elements, just as the staircase is separated from the window wall on the right elevation; would imagine that the second story front room is likewise set aside, setback from the entry portico that wraps around the right elevation. Think it's the big cap on these fairly modern elements of the home that take away the modernism element from it, tries to make it a transitional or traditional, think some further development may be needed. >Struggling with the bedroom above the entry and how the roof line penetrates the gabled roofs on either side, but not in any kind of interesting fashion. Looks like it's squeezed in the middle, it's not making a statement for itself. There is probably another round of design development needed for the exterior. >Overall like the feel of this house as a modern or contemporary home, however am concerned with the two-story sheer wall on the front of the house, it is stark, think it can be broken up. >Like modern elements such as the taller windows and window element in the stairwell, gives it that element of a modern home. Need to keep in mind that neighbors can look into house, can be mitigated with landscaping. >Like combination of flat and sloped roofs, works well on this contemporary and traditional home. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. Discussion of motion: >Window in stairwell is concerning, may want to consider frosting the glass to mitigate privacy issues discussed earlier. >Would be wise to obscure glass one way or another; if it's going to be obscured, it needs to be permanently obscured. >Would like to make sure that the lighting on the exterior of the house complies with code requirements so that the light does not extend beyond property line. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Regarding the glass in the stairwell, don't agree with the comment about obscuring it, it's going to be ten feet away from the property line and it can be mitigated with landscaping. >The entire window system does not necessarily need to be obscured, for example certain sections can be obscured; gradient glass can also be used to create breaks in the glass. >Think window element is a nice design feature and like that the stairs are separated from the wall, so there are creative ways to take a look at obscuring the window panes. >As a general principle, am uncomfortable with obscuring glass. Think there are a lot of other ways to create privacy, obscuring would diminish the impact of the window and think obscuring it diminishes from the project. >Need to ask ourselves if we are prepared to continue to allow large windows facing neighbors; have had this discussion on other projects and had the applicant go back and revise the window size because of its proximity to the neighbors. Worried that we'll be setting a precedent. In this instance, it may or may not work; raising the issue because we've had this conversation before. >Like the window element; live by a large window that looks into my bedroom, window is frosted and helps to reduce impact. Perhaps shades can be used, do worry that it is going to impact a neighbor in the future. Should revisit this window element and see if there are other options or material that could work. >Like window as an architectural element if the house was on a large, open lot, however don't think it's the responsible thing to do. >Seem to recall that there have been some instances in which we allowed taller windows like this, particularly in stairwells. Look at what spaces are we looking at and from; what I appreciate with this detail is it's in a transitional space, it's a stairwell and it's not a standing area or a master bedroom or any bedroom overlooking another yard. The landing is recessed away from the window, so if somebody is on that intermediate landing, there is some distance from the window. Also look at it from the standpoint of projects that we've had in the past where we've had large transitional landings, it adds for a different facade. >Concerned with a particular architecture where the window extends side to side on the wall and making the entire wall a window; if it were a more slender window, it could make that element substantive and make it feel more residential. As proposed, it's looking more commercial, but don't have an issue with a visible vision glass at that location because it is a transitional space in the stairwell. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.1336 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer; 1336 Drake Ave LLC , property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1336 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1336 Drake Ave - Attachments 1336 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would like to see something a little more substantial regarding the front door. (Raduenz: Currently proposing a door and large sidelite, will make the panes more symmetrical.) >On sheet A3.0, the numbers on the right and front elevations aren't adding up on the left -hand side. 9 feet from the top of the plate to the grade is shown on one elevation and 8'-6" plus 1'-6" is shown on the other elevation; please review and correct. >You designed a similar house on the 1000 block of Drake Avenue. Would you say this design similar to that? (Raduenz: It's a very similar design, however we are bumping out the second floor and the colors will definitely be different. We did change a few things on the inside. I try to get a side entry, which is something different than what you typically see, but it works really well for a family. On the front elevation, we have the four brackets that support the articulation of the second floor bedroom.) >When we reviewed that project, I really liked it in plan, thought it was a cool looking house. However when it was built, I was concerned with the massing and thought it was out of proportion to the houses around it. So i'm just wondering if there's anyway to break up that second floor massing more. (Raduenz: I can look into it.) >Would benefit to have a rendering for the proposed house. (Raduenz: Will provide a rendering. Think we can provide more articulation by pushing back the dormer on the right side and maybe incorporating a popped out dormer above the entry, that would change the look drastically.) >Have you talked to the neighbors about the project? Since you're showing new fencing around the whole lot, please coordinate with them. (Raduenz: We will coordinate with the neighbors.) >Having trouble reading the setbacks on the site plan, can you revisit the site plan so we can read the setbacks more clearly? (Raduenz: Yes, will do.) Public Comments: >Ray Kruck, 1338 Drake Avenue: Neighbor on the right, think the project is okay, but haven't seen too much of the elements of proposed project. One concerns I have is that there are a lot of the trees that are dead along our fence line, so glad to hear they're being removed. Would like to review the new landscape plans to see where the nine new trees will be planted and to what extent that would provide privacy or shielding. Also concerned with the massing of the roofline along the right side of the house; would like to see where the windows line up with my son's window. Otherwise, don't have serious objections, but am glad to hear the property will get refreshed landscaping and new fencing. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Think it's a nice project, but not sure what affect revisiting the plate heights will have on some of the proportions, it may or may not help. >Think it would help if there were more articulation on the front facade, whether it's bringing the left side forward or the right side back a little bit more, and maybe adding that additional pop -out on that second floor. >Should coordinate with the neighbors on both sides of the property, share with them the proposed landscaping and fencing along those shared property lines. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Kelly1 - d.1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue, zoned DAC - Design Review Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Code to allow a multi-family residential use, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new three -story, 14-unit mixed use commercial/residential building (John Britton, applicant; Britton Trust, property owner; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect;) (182 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Staff Report 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Attachments 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Materials Binder 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Gary Gee and Mark Hudak, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is Hardie plank proposed on the east elevation because of the existing building that's there? (Gee: Correct. Haven't been able to approach the owner and have been reluctant to put scaffolding on the roof because of liability, so we thought of using the 4x8 Hardie panels, want to keep reveals as thin as possible.) >Wouldn't you need to get on the roof to install the panels? (Gee: Think we're going to try and put the panels on the finished walls and then raise them.) >Appreciate the lightwells on the west elevation. Have you thought about putting a clear story window in the bedrooms? This would let light in and give the blank walls relief, don't think there are any plans to develop that public parking lot. (Gee: We can look into that, will need to check with the fire department about their requirements for property line windows.) >Like the project and think it's great to be developing this downtown, but front elevation seems heavier and bulkier than previous design. On front elevation, could you look at adding recesses in those plastered facades along the left side of the building, above and below the arched openings. >Like the project the way it sits generally, think it's quieted down and more definitive in terms of its style. Mentioned Casa Baywood as an iconic piece of architecture, this has that simplicity to it and substantive architecture, but had similar reaction to some of the blank pieces. >Recall that there was concern with the inserted pots because there's the issue of who is going to maintain them and are they going to be dead plants or dirt. Think there's a possibility for some simple articulation, maybe something over that one large blank element or maybe it's just a simple opening in the railings up on that third floor where you had the inserted pots before. (Gee: Blade signs hung off wrought iron brackets were taken out.) >Think showing the signs could help, helps with the identity for the commercial spaces and gives articulation. >Would suggest doing something at least along that third floor balcony, something there to help with the blankness. >Think you have something dynamic in the garage entry, the playful sculpted opening piece offsets the Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes blankness you have in the facade above the garage entry. >In support of what you're doing on the east and west elevations, the addition of the light well really helps. >Should revisit a few parts and pieces, think it can happen in step with this project moving forward, not requiring wholesale revisions that's going to have us reconsider the environmental assessment. >Did you look at moving away from the rear property line to get some planting area? Proposing an 18 -foot tall wall against the back property line. (Gee: Originally when we worked with civil engineer on the stormwater management plan, planters at rear were designated for that use. May be able to remove some of the planters, so height of wall would be reduced by 4 feet.) >Asking if you could move the building so you have enough room to plant something in the ground. The thought of having an 18-foot high blank wall against your property line is not very nice. Wondered if there was a way to reconfigure the parking so you can shift the wall in to get 18 inches or a couple of feet to plant against the property line, between the wall and the property line. There may be fluff in the parking garage that would allow you to do that. (Gee: Think we're using a 25-foot backup for the 90-degree parking, may be able to get a four inch planning strip there.) >Green screen is not reliable, you'll see a lot of metal grid systems with no green on them, sometimes they work really well and sometimes they don't, but it seems to me that something ought to happen against that wall, uneasy about approving a project that puts a harsh back wall against another property. >Concerned about people standing in the gathering space and looking down from 18-feet into the backyards and back windows of residences, think a tree like a Lombardy Poplar would go a long way toward relieving the harshness and hiding the people on the roof looking down into the backyards. >Concerned about large blank wall on the east elevation, we're going to see that wall for many years, it's going to be really impactful. Something other than a big, blank painted 4 x 8 gridded wall should be considered there. >We have had some success with other developers working with the Historical Society. Agree with Russ Cohen's letter, would be a real miss if all we got was an 8.5 x 11 plaque. It's unfortunate what happened with this property, so we have to do something to capture what we have lost. We've had real success, whether it's a mural or something that identifies this property as somehow connecting back to what it used to be. (Gee: In terms of murals, we have done that before too, sometimes the murals can be done in a shrink wrap material that can be taken off later and serviced.) >Project has developed nicely, good enhancements have made to the design. >Because building has one finish, one color across the majority of the exterior of this building, should consider some kind of a horizontal break, whether it's a change in color, some change of material, or something to create a little bit more of a pedestrian level experience for this fairly tall structure on a narrow street. Think a horizontal break across that lower level, at that commercial level would help. >Stair tower looks like it could also benefit from some added detail and embellishment, perhaps some windows, looks like there's opportunity for some added decoration or architectural treatment. (Gee: Those windows have been recessed and they have a round top on them too. In some of the more traditional towers, including bell towers and mission towers, they have recessed windows that are deep and don't have many fussy details. There's something that may can be enhanced. Looking at it as a single plane it may look simple, but if you look at it as a two or three -plane element, there are things happening on each side as a composition.) >Want to see something outside the windows in stair tower, perhaps a wrought iron detail or Juliette balcony, it's the tallest part of the development and at the street level. Could also look at enlarging the windows. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: Really care about the way the Downtown Specific Plan was carried through. Liked the previous design, appreciate the suggestion for added embellishment in blank areas. In favor of the direction staff gave regarding parcels chosen to be included in rezoning because it's such a narrow street, to include those properties only facing Donnelly Avenue, keeps intact main street which is Lorton Avenue, the old retail zone. A few years ago, we weren't looking at parking being provided in vehicle stacking systems, limits on parking limited the size of projects, so buildings weren't going to be 55 or 60 feet tall Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes because there was no parking that could be accommodated there. Now, we're looking at different types of projects with vehicle stackers. Concerned that that there is no rear setback requirement. While this project is set back from the rear property line, at least the housing portion of it is, it doesn't mean the next project will be. Density bonus allows more density for a benefit, like a reduced setback, if you don't have a setback that you're dealing with, there is nothing you have to trade. Think we need to be carefully looking at rear setback requirements with this amendment moving forward. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the quieting down of the project. Easier to peel project back to its bare minimum and add things back that makes sense; don't disagree with many of the comments that it's the final solution, it's some where in the middle. Think it's probably closer to this end than to the other end because typically good urban buildings are pretty quiet. Appreciate the changes made to the project. >Concerned with 18-foot wall along rear of site, would have problems supporting that without some sort of mitigation. Seems too late to have a setback now, but it's certainly not too late to mitigate the proposed infringement on the neighbors. >Like suggestion that you use that large blank wall on east elevation to address the concerns noted by the Historical Society. >Renderings make the stair tower look much larger than it looks in the elevations, seems much narrower on the building elevations than it appears on the rendering, may be a perspective issue. Stair tower is a nice element, still seems very blocky, but that may be a trick of the perspective. In support of the project and like where the project is going with vibrant retail on the ground floor and residential above, think we need both. >Think it would help if there's a way to bring in that rear wall and create planting along there, don't think that's a substantive change that couldn't happen in parallel with the project moving forward. >In regards to the architecture, like where it has gone. Feel for the architect in that we provided direction to strip everything away and he did that, think it's a function of being consistent with the type of architecture that it is now, and just adding a few details that really make it sing. >Agree that there's something about that stair tower that's quiet and substantive, that element is reminiscent of the Casa Baywood architecture. Think maybe some additional articulation can happen there, but don't think it should go too far because that gives nice relief, particularly with the roof form and the way it goes up and over on that side elevation. Think it is very simple and looking at that side, with the stepped arched windows, it reminds me of that Spanish Revival style that is very substantive and has that sort of tower element with a few simple windows that look out, which I think is the way it should be to give relief to the rest of the plane where you want to have balconies and windows. >Like the direction the architecture was going and think the environmental assessment could and should move forward. Don't have an issue with the rest of the entitlements moving forward. >In regards to the Special Permit for height, it's not a 54-foot building, it's more of a 43-foot building because the only element at 54 feet is the stair tower, which we noted is a narrow piece. Think it's a nice piece of articulation for what is still just a 3-story building, and about 43 feet tall. Think this project in this location would be good for our downtown area, and good for Donnelly Avenue. >Think that revisions can move forward with some articulation of the building itself in terms of how it approaches the neighbor. >In regards to the overlook to the neighbors, think it's important to note that because they've worked in the planters on that second floor area in the open space, there are a few spaces where you can get to that guardrail, but there's a lot of spaces, particularly where the benches are, where you have planters separating you from that wall that overlooks the neighbors. Think with articulation on that back facade and getting plantings in that area would work better. >Maybe the whole wall doesn't need to step in, but perhaps some three foot by three foot cut -outs with some vertical element can be planted and grown there to break it up. >Think something needs to be done on the big blank walls on both the east and west elevations. >Look at addressing mass on stair tower by making the windows slightly larger, or adding grids to provide some detail. Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. e.1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU: a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed-use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1766 El Camino Real - Entitlements Staff Report 1766 El Camino Real - Entitlements Attachments Part 1 1766 El Camino Real - Entitlements Attachments Part 2 1766 El Camino Real - Entitlements Attachments Part 3 1766 El Camino Real - Code Amendment Staff Report 1766 El Camino Real - Code Amendment - Attachments 1766 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Loftis noted that they had met with the project architect. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Bill Higgins and John Martin, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Looks like the plaza is 35 to 40 feet deep in front of the building, the same depth as the curtain wall to the core wall to the building. Who is going to use that and when? Reason I ask this question is I had a police officer recently tell me that one of the challenges they face is that at night, the Burlingame Plaza and CVS is brightly lit and attracts people from the train station to hang out. (Higgins: We see with 148,000 square feet of office space there is a great opportunity for morning and daytime use throughout the day with employees taking breaks, waiting for rides, and arriving to the site. It also depends on the commercial use of the retail space, if there is a food and beverage component, that will add to this indoor/outdoor use. At night there will be lighting schemes that we will implement to make sure that it's safe. We can see the residents using it, maybe on weekends where it's not as active with employees.) >Is there seating there? Are the bay shapes benches? (Higgins: Yes, the rounded shapes will be benches. Seating and street furniture, as well as bicycle racks, will be provided. We wanted to create a gathering space on those times when people want to use it, and part is under a cover.) >Plaza seemed really large, wanted to make sure I understood what you intended it for, not sure what you would do with that space if wasn't a plaza, worry about it being grand open space that doesn't get used very much. (Higgins: It's not a grand civic plaza or union square, but rather a plaza that is relative in scale to the building, location and the number of people that will be working here.) Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can see it being used incidentally. (Martin: Depending on the tenant that is in one of the office or commercial spaces, there is an opportunity for outside movable tables and chairs that will further activate it.) >Does it get good sun? (Martin: Yes.) >Is it possible, both in terms of where the property line falls and in terms of the architecture or structural articulation, to add an awning structure so that it provides emphasis to that corner? (Higgins: The cantilevered slab is still within the setbacks, it could go another couple of feet, so yes it's possible.) >Was thinking about how travelers may be coming from the Millbrae BART /Caltrain Multimodal Station . Is there a way to incorporate a secondary entrance on Trousdale Drive so that one who is walking from the multimodal station doesn't have to travel all the way around into almost a second half of the frontage on El Camino Real to get into the office building? Where you have an entrance to the fitness center, it seems like a natural secondary entrance to get to the core of the building. (Higgins: It also depends on the pedestrian foot traffic of whether they're walking along El Camino Real or along California Drive. Don't have any sort of population patterns of what that pedestrian movement might be. Currently, it's an egress point from the stairs, but we do have the fitness center and commercial space in this corner. The point would be to get them to the building by the enhancement of the landscaping and the sidewalk treatment and then lead them to the office lobby; we could look at that, but we don't want to create too many security points in an office like this, so that's the only challenge.) >There are hundreds of parking spaces below in the garage, and a majority is for the office and residential uses, but it would seem like a nice opportunity to have direct access to the commercial spaces without having to come out into the plaza and walking around to go to the fitness center or into one of two entrances to the commercial spaces. (Higgins: Yes, we could review that. We have these shuttle elevators that lead from the garage out to the office lobby, we could look at putting them on the perimeter. Do you allow them to open up into the lobby or open to the landscape. We prefer from a weather and security point of view to open up into the lobby. We could look at whether the elevators open up to a more public zone verses a semi-public zone.) >Think that's the kind of activity that can help enliven the street a little bit. If office workers are coming down into the lobby and jogging around the corner, and over to the recreation area, as opposed to everything being internal, there's that gated community verses it being open.) >Just for reference, what is the height of this building and the height of the hospital across the street? (Higgins: This building is 85 feet to the roof deck and 95 feet to the top of the elevator. Believe hospital is between 70 and 80 feet. The mass of that building is much larger than this one because it wraps the corner.) Public Comments: Carolyn Scott, 1755 California Drive: People that work across the street from the Police station at the rehab center park in this area right now, but there's not a lot of parking around because the parking on that frontage road on El Camino Real is limited to two or four -hour parking. The place across the street is not going to have a place to park so they're going to end up parking over in the shopping center and the hospital. We lost parking in front of our complex because we've got the bike lane and the cars, and there is no street parking from 5:00 to 7:00 pm, so we've lost two hours of parking there. Parking is a real big deal and if this project is going to have 60 residential units and only 69 spaces, you're going to end up having no place to park. Jill Young, 1755 California Drive: Want to echo the issue about parking, it's a huge issue in the area. We have to have cars towed off of our guest spaces on our property because there is no place to park, whether it be for the multimodal station or offices in the area. Concerned that the proposed rental units will reduce the property values in the area. Concerned with the height of the building next to our two -story building. Will there be limitations to the windows on the south and east side to protect our privacy? Unidentified speaker: On behalf of our neighbor who had to leave, he is concerned about our neighborhood being provided with complete environmental information and about the traffic impact to the neighborhood with an addition of a massive structure like this. Would reiterate that the parking is a Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes horrible problem for people who have lived there for many years, and we do not want any parking reduction . The city has taken away parking spaces and parking hours from the area in front of our residences . Would also like to note that the terrace, which not only violates our privacy looking into backyards, is located on the east side of the building, and will be impacted by noise at all hours of the day by trains, factories to the east of the railroad track, and the police department. Doesn't seem that it will be very amenable to potential residents, seems like the design is not even considering factual information from real people who reside or frequent the area. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Think this project is headed in the right direction and has come a long way. >Think the enhancement of the corner reinforcing the corner is a big deal. >Asked the question at the last meeting, why this building at this site?. How does it answer the urban design question? Things that have been done to try to reinforce that corner have gone a long way of doing that, like suggestion to reinforce if further. >Think the architectural enhancement of the residential has helped to stratify the building and give it structure. >Not convinced about the grand canopies. More convinced by the lower level canopy because it has a function, it can be seen as a cover for entry, however the upper canopy seems superfluous. Think the least successful thing at the hospital across the street are those flying elements, the structural beams that are hanging out off the building, they don't make any sense, they seem to be money spent with not much return on that investment. Feel the same way about the upper canopy, not sure what you're getting out of that, the fins at both ends also seem superfluous. >Like the way that the building is starting to talk to the medical office building across the street, which I think is a nice piece of quiet modern architecture, with the big punched opening and the double height punched opening in the middle of the building, and it's a calm facade. Think this is starting to work, but I don't think it's there yet. >Think you're being too literal about the grand canopy, which is trying to capture an angle of the street which really is not that useful. With that said, the fact it's functional at the ground level makes some sense. > Like the upper extended fin because of what it does in terms of unifying that element along the facade in terms of separating the office from the residential, like what's happening in terms of the vertical piece . Agree that the fins toward the left side don't have to happen, but like the dynamic of what's happening there and the separation of that fin. Also think there is a potential, if the architecture and detailing still works for the opening to make it lattice like, think it's going to create a real dynamic for the light that's coming down the alcove, there's a nice opportunity for some play of light coming through there with that upper fin. >Previously building had bowed elements, now we have something that's actually different and have some component pieces that are working better. Like the angles of the grand canopy, at least at that ground floor, because it adds that cover and think it responds to the angle of the slip street in terms of the site planning. >Think corner element needs a little bit more reinforcement, so think that of kind articulation with the architecture can move forward in parallel with the environmental assessment. >Need to analyze traffic and parking in the vicinity. >Think neighbor raises a good issue in terms of analyzing noise impacts to the residential property because we need to make sure those elements are addressed as a part of the assessment moving forward. >Appreciate the fact they've revised what they're asking for in terms of the revisions to the parking ratio, think the 1:400 SF ratio works much better, am more comfortable with that than the 1:500 SF ratio previously requested, think that's a good change to the entitlement. >Think the project needs to move forward into the environmental assessment so we can look closely at the impacts, comfortable with project moving forward. Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019 October 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >This is a large project that's going to have a big demand. Environmental assessment should carefully look at impact on City's sewer and water service. >Need to look into how this project could potentially affect the police department's communication system and how this potentially could be blocking some of their radio signals. >Like some of the things that are developing with this rendition of the building, appreciate the bowed facade being turned more rectilinear. >Like the upper fin as it relates to the one at the street level, which provides a great opportunity for signage and shade, agree that there's an opportunity to allow light infiltration through that upper canopy and although it provides shade, it can act arbor -like or like a fin, can be a nice element rather than a solid piece that carries across the whole frontage. >Corner at Trousdale Drive can still be strengthened further, would like to see a little more of an experience on that corner, other than a corner of glass. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin reminded the Commissioners of an upcoming Planning Commission training on October 30th, hosted by 21 Elements, the American Planning Association, and Home for All San Mateo County. The training will focus on transportation issues and how they relate to work as Planning Commissioners. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 28, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 7, 2019, 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 $1,045, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019