HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.11.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, November 12, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 7:18 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner,
Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and LoftisPresent5 -
Kelly, and TseAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application
for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review for one 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) (149 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Staff Report
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Attachments
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of
staff.
Commissioner Loftis opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Specs are provided for the gutters, but they are not shown on the elevation. (Raduenz: Can show
them.) Staff can check this on the plans.
>The flat roof portion is shown as EPDM on the roof plan, but is shown as standing seam on the
elevation. Which is proposed? (Raduenz: Labeling error, not standing seam. Will be a rubber roof.)
>Why is there a big flat area in middle of roof? It contributes to the bulk. The block is predominantly
single story. This house appears bigger than everything else. Flat area is not helping the design .
(Raduenz: Trying to do a gable with another gable intersecting, as a design style. Is set back from the
setbacks on the side, is a tight driveway on the adjacent property and trying to give relief to the neighbor .
But can look into having the flat roof less massive.)
Public Comments: None.
Commissioner Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Appreciates eliminating the special permit for the attached garage.
>Is approvable can move forward.
>Other than the roof comments, project can move forward with FYI.
>Is already accepting the CUP for re-emergence of the lots.
>Each elevation looks really big and massive. Design guidelines discuss compatibility with the
surroundings. Surroundings are mostly single story. The flat areas create the appearance of mass.
>Needs more reworking than an FYI. Design needs another cut.
>Does not think it is necessary for the project to come back. Massing is generally acceptable, they are
not asking for additional height or floor area considerations, and roof plates are in line with what is
ordinarily approved.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to continue the item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Gaul, and Loftis3 -
Nay:Terrones1 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.1515 Los Altos Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect, Peter Wise and Stephanie
Wen, property owners) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1515 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report
1515 Los Altos Dr - Attachments
1515 Los Altos Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the stone turning down both sides? Not clear from the plans. Where does the stone break? (Morris:
It stops about 2/3 back, so the transition is not visible from the street.) Would prefer it stop at a rational
spot, would like to see some clarification.
>The windows show horizontal muntins in some locations. Wants to clarify that windows should have
simulated true divided lites. (Morris: Understood.)
Public Comments: None.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the changes. Well proportioned.
>Wants to know where the transitions in the stone will be. Could bring back as an FYI.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>Prior to issuance of a building permit the Planning Commission shall review an FYI item that
includes the following revision: show where the stone veneer material terminates on the side
building elevations.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
c.1470 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Variance for floor
area ratio for approval of unpermitted conversion of crawl space to living space and a
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
rear deck addition (no new construction proposed). This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Design Everest, designer; Jennifer Gilson,
applicant; Marc and Ariane Trimuschat, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact:
Michelle Markiewicz
1470 Alvarado Ave - Staff Report
1470 Alvarado Ave - Attachments
1470 Alvarado Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project
advocate to discuss some of the details and obtain access. Commissioner Sargent had exchanged
emails with the property owner and spoke with the advocate. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the advocate,
and the property owner about a year ago. Commissioner Comaroto spoke with the advocate, and was able
to access the home to look around.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>When the project was approved in 2000 was crawl the space accessible? (Kolokihakaufisi: From the
records it was shown as not accessible)
>Was noted as an access door on the 2000 approval. (Kolokihakaufisi: If it is not a full size door, it is
not considered accessible.).
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
David Cauchi represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Work unpermitted done by builder for himself who lived in house, then sold house to current owners .
Prior owner did not disclose.
Public Comments:
Jok Legallet: Neighbor to the north. Changes to the deck have made the house more appealing. Better to
live in and look at. In favor of approving the deck expansion.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Unfortunate event. Current owners did not know what they had purchased.
>In site visit saw how the squaring off of the deck looks, and it does not appear it would affect the
neighbors. Deck slightly larger than what would want to see. Neighbors on the north side seem to have
sufficient privacy.
>Issue with making findings for variance. There are a number of houses on rear -sloping lots where
larger decks have been supported. Allows for more backyard living without needing to terrace out. Not as
concerned with the size of the deck. Has considered areas that have been built out on small lots, and
downsloping lot be a peculiar enough of a condition to warrant a variance. Crawl space appears to be
adaptable to 9-foot ceiling space and additional bedroom. Downsloping lot could be justification, but
concern with precedent. Does not see an issue with the neighbors.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Situations inherent in sloping lots. In others has had areas filled in to prevent things like this. Is
responsibility of the designer to use spaces like this correctly.
>Does not appear large from the street, and room is not a burden to the neighbors.
>Deck helps, it is a difficult backyard.
>Mitigating circumstance is original design should not have been approved. Appears space should have
been included, and contributes to mass and bulk. House should have been shorter and have less
massive footprint.
>FAR is one tool to mitigate mass, other is height and bulk. Should not have been approved as it was,
but changes are not adding to the mass or making it any bigger. Mass was there already.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
d.1325 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a). (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1325
Balboa, LLC, property owner)(88 noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen Khan
1325 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1325 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1325 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent was recused, as he may own a property within 500 feet.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis reported that he was not in attendance
for the design review study meeting, but watched the video.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Jesse Guerse represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will the columns be prefab composite fiberglass? Or Hardie Board? (Guerse: No. Might be GRFC.)
Public Comments:
Donald and Diana Piana, 1329 Balboa Avenue: Received letter stating neighbor requested having coastal
live oak tree in utility easement strip removed, wants to appeal intent to issue permit to remove the tree .
Have been homeowners for 44 years in this location, tree has been helpful to quality of life. Removal of
tree would reduce value of both houses. Requests commission have the designer look at alternatives to
removing tree, perhaps move garage forward 3-5 feet to take it away from the trunk of the tree, pruning to
remove codependent leaders. It is a strong and capable tree. Requests an informational conference on
site to review alternatives; project designer could suggest to not remove the tree. Does not need to be
removed. Will remove wind protection. House will be built for spec and sold, does not have the emotional
attachment. Will impact privacy. Acacia needs to come down. (Commissioner question: Is this the tree in
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the corner?) Yes.
Jesse Guerse: Trees are not in good condition. Arborist had looked at trees and deemed them to be in
poor condition and a hindrance to easement area and utility lines. Garage being moved would not be
effective since roots extend out broadly.
Discussion:
>Compelled to ask the designer to consider moving the garage. Photos make it look healthy. Would
like to see an arborist report.
>Tree removal permits are often contingent on Planning Commission approval. (Kane: Could take an
action contingent on information from the City Arborist as to whether the tree needs to be removed
independently, or if the removal is only contingent on the Planning Commission approval of the project.)
>Appreciates changes. Has good scale and massing.
>Would like to see information contingent on the approval of the oak tree, was it contingent on PC
action or the tree condition.
>Would encourage designer to look into moving the garage, reducing size, working with the tree.
>Does not consider this to be a farmhouse style. Not a big dumb box. This is well articulated, nice
stone base, simple addition of board and batten does not make it a farmhouse.
>Moved by the discussion of the tree.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>Approval is contingent upon verification from the City Arborist whether the tree removal
permit for the oak tree was approved because of the condition of the tree itself, or whether it
was conditional upon approval of the Planning application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis4 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
e.829 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to a
previously approved Design Review project for first and second story additions (major
renovation) to an existing one -story house and Special Permits and Conditional Use
Permits for an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of
the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, AIA, Diebel and Company | Architects, applicant and
architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (189 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
829 Maple Ave - Staff Report
829 Maple Ave - Attachments
829 Maple Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Gary Diebel represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments: None.
Public Comments: None.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Changes are straightforward, and they add to the project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side Setback and Parking, and
Special Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family dwelling, to
convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage .
(Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana
Williams, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2711 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report
2711 Burlingview Dr - Attachments
2711 Burlingview Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto indicated she had spoken with the
architect. Commissioner Terrones indicated he had visited with the uphill neighbors so that he could view
the story poles.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Chimney will be removed but existing roofline will be retained? (Wehmeyer: Yes.)
>Stair on left side is shown going out to the property line. Does the stair need to be so wide, or could it
be brought in from the property line? (Wehmeyer: Yes.)
>Are there other options for the skylight on the ridge? Could it be smaller, or translucent rather than
transparent? (Wehmeyer: Can look at it. The intent of the skylight is to bring light into the stairwell .
Something translucent could work.) Could also have automatic shades so it does not emit light at night.
>How is this lot different from others in the hillside area? (Wehmeyer: Each home in the area is sited
differently. This lot has a very steep driveway. The shape of the lot and steepness of the lot limits
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
placement of the house, in particularly placing it forward.)
>Need to show dimensions of the crawl spaces.
Public Comments:
Richard W. Murphy: Over the course of living at 2625 Summit Drive for the past 26 years, as a result of
hillside erosion has had to replace steps, walkway, brick facade, fences, retaining walls, and back yard
pavers. Has installed drains and paving systems to drain off water that comes down. Underground rivers
coming down from Hillsborough, flooding properties. Last thing that should happen is to alter the hillside .
Should not bulldoze the hill for the property, should strictly enforce the 7-foot setback. Currently a blank
wall faces the house, but would now have 15 windows.
Mark Hudak: Concern with the skylight being added. Does not want elevations to change. Concern with
the precedent this approval would set, in particular that the three -story elevation does not occur anywhere
in the neighborhood. Variance should be to allow what other neighbors have, but none of the neighboring
properties have three -story facades. There are other good ways to bring natural light into the stairwell other
than skylight, such as light tubes.
Vera Zaarour: Will block the view if the roof goes over the height. Every inch counts. Requests not to
approve a skylight due to light impact concerns.
Mike Liberty: Represents the Murphys. Three-story facade would not be consistent with neighborhood .
Water flow is an important issue. Mud slides and mud in the road have been an issue on Summit Drive .
Should not be asking for three variances, indicating shouldering way into neighborhood and building
monstrous home that would be out of character. Privacy issues with at least 15 windows looking into the
neighboring property.
Commission Question to applicant:
Could some of the windows on the side be removed? (Wehmeyer: Can look at the windows on the sides.)
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Hillside applications are difficult. Appreciates what the designer has done, but concerned with the
variance application. Needs to determine how the property is unique. Concerned with precedent. Does not
want to see more applications like this.
>Rare to give consideration to reducing the size of the parking in driveway.
>Uncomfortable making subjective decisions on erosion etc ., there is a process through the building
permit and public works division to look at the soils reports and civil engineering. If the project were
approved, it would be backstopped by the building permit review process.
>Variances need to be made more closely, cannot make the findings here.
>Previous plans were unapprovable for view ordinance. Commission suggested looking at other
considerations relative to the property, including the potential for building forward via a variance, as now
proposed. The Commission has permitted 3-story homes on sloped lots, in predominantly two -story
neighborhoods such as the Easton Addition. Applicant has made an argument of where the property is
buildable. Is not aware of ordinances that would restrict a three -story facade, and it is not unusual in the
hillside given the sloping lots.
>Does not see view blockage as an issue, as it was in the previous submittal.
>Modifications can be made, such as the windows, skylight, and stairs on the left side. Unique
circumstances include the sloping of the lot, and that there are only certain areas where the project can be
built. Has approved other projects where reducing the parking dimensions are allowed, and the dimension
reduction is not significant.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Hillside lots are all unique. Each lot has its own conditions. Could push the house further back into
the hillside but it would be irresponsible – most of the work is being done forward of the existing line of
construction. Seems like a highly responsible response to the site.
>Can move the skylight down the ridge so it is not visible. Can be easily addressed.
>Nice design for a site that is extremely difficult to work with.
>From the back its a one -story house; from the front it is three -story. Good solution to a tough
problem, pleased to see ridgeline staying where it is.
>Side setback is not doing anything that is not already there with the existing house, other than going
down an additional level.
>Should look at the skylight (potentially eliminate it ), and the number of windows on the left side .
Handsome looking house.
>Nice job with a difficult situation.
>Every house in this area is different from each other. Can support the variance. Should look at the
skylight and reduce windows.
>If skylight is retained should consult a light engineer to determine the true impact.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
b.757 Farringdon Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Elaine Lee, Elaine Lee Design, applicant
and designer; Beth Taylor property owner)(127 noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen Khan
757 Farringdon Ln - Staff Report
757 Farringdon Ln - Attachments
757 Farringdon Ln - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Elaine Lee, Elaine Lee Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Front elevation shows shingle on bottom and stucco on top. Usually this is reversed. (Lee: It is a
shingle wainscoting from a craftsman style)
>Lot is only 40 foot wide? (Lee: Yes.) There is a special circumstance, and it has articulated traditional
architecture. But consider reducing the 10-foot first floor plate height, perhaps to 9’-6”. Would also help
proportions of the front porch, and could help settle the house.
>Have you looked at any ways to reduce the special permit? It is a big house on a small lot. It would
imply a smaller house on a small lot. Could shrink it down a bit to reduce the encroachment. This is a
block of smaller lots, houses look crammed together. (Lee: Rear is set back further from the requirement .
Portion of the building mass is 15” horizontal by 2 feet - it is a corner sliver of building. Has brought back
the whole side of the building to reduce the encroachment.)
>Will the shingles be made of wood? (Lee: Have not determined the material but have discussed
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
wood.)
>Trim details show a lot of 1x, but might not look substantial enough. Should consider 2x's or 5/4 trim
to give more substance to the belly bands.
>What is the window material? (Lee: Fiberglass.) Should indicate this on the elevation.
Public Comments:
Ron Bland: Owns property behind on Acacia. Has drainaige that goes out from Acacia and under the
driveway of the subject property to Farringdon. Wants to make sure that when construction occurs the
drainage pipe does not get damaged. OK with the project otherwise. Make sure there is a way to get the
water out of the back of Farringdon so it does not flow onto the Acacia property. (Commission: Should
talk to the applicant, and possibly record an easement.)
Ronald Biggs: Owns house to the right, which was built to the maximum size allowed for the smaller lot
size. With two large houses next to each other, it will encroach into the light area.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Nice project, well-crafted. The craftsman style fits into the neighborhood.
>Reconsideration of plate heights will reduce special permits for declining height.
>This house is narrower than most. The encroachment is a small portion of the master bath.
>Consider moving the plate height to 9 feet. Neighborhood is mostly single story houses. Should
strongly consider a more standard plate height of 9’ and 8’.
>Has done a nice job of moving encroachment from the front.
>Reduce the plate height, will reduce the project overall.
>It is a very narrow lot.
>Architecture hangs together really well. It is well articulated.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 -
c.1868-1870 Odgen Drive, zoned NBMU - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review, Conditional Use Permit for tandem parking, and Condominium Permit for a new
120-unit, 6-story condominium building. (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect;
Green Banker LLC, property owner) (363 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1868-1870 Odgen Dr - Staff Report
1868-1870 Odgen Dr - Attachments
1868-1870 Odgen Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>What is the rent for a unit in this income range? (Gardiner: Varies with household size, but is based
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
on 30% of household income.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Architecture is handsome.
>Is there a way to make the front of the plaza less walled -off so it looks more inviting for passers -by to
utilize the plaza? It does not look like public plaza. Make it more porous? (Levy: Idea is to make it open
and welcoming. Previous design had more hardscape, but could not reach the 60% landscape
requirements. Site furniture is meant to be inviting.) Could take some of the ground cover, shift it to the
back and make it more porous from the sidewalk.
>Regarding the tandem parking, will some units not be able to have independent parking spaces?
(Levy: Intention is for each unit to have an independently-accessible parking space.)
>Is there guest parking that is available for the community space? (Levy: Is meant to be used by the
community, but has little to do with its use. Does not have parking, prefers to not have non -residents
parking inside the garage. Community space is meant to be used by people in the area.)
>Bike parking? (Levy: Parking in plaza, and a bike room. Consistent with bike parking requirements.)
>Package delivery? (Levy: Accommodated in lobby, and package room.)
>Where would delivery trucks park? Street is full in terms of parking, would need to double -park. (Levy:
Could park in driveway.) Consider a turn -out or a 10-minute space in the front. (Levy: Reluctant to take
parking off the street.)
>Has there been a traffic study? (Levy: Will have a traffic study.)
>Trash room has doors swinging out. How will they function and how will the garbage will be accessed?
(Levy: Has met with Recology and verified the trash room layout.)
>What is going on with the wall between the lobby and the community space? (Levy: Idea is for the
courtyard to continue into the center of the building.) Could be a spot for resolution.
Public Comments:
John Fullen, 1901 Garden Drive: Lives in area, chose to live close to BART. Wants to talk about more
units rather than parking. Would encourage more units, is a wasted opportunity. Could be an opportunity
to partner with school district for microunits. Community space is a great idea, runs community drill for
surrounding apartments, would be great to have a place to meet. Design is great, would like to add more
to fight the housing crisis.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Provides desperately needed housing.
>Likes the approach with the courtyard solution, allows it to break down the scale of what could
otherwise be a large project.
>Plaza is fantastic, community room is fantastic with how it sits on the plaza.
>Has some work to do with the architecture, does not yet hang together, maybe trying too hard or
breaking itself down too much. There is a lot going on and needs to iterate some more.
>This is the area designated for more housing but needs to be well planned. Would like to have further
work on the plaza. Could have organized activities use the space, maybe even some cubicle rooms.
>Would like to see the tandem parking work so each unit has access to a legitimate parking stall.
>Could designate space in the driveway for a delivery van, 19-foot wide gate would allow cars to go
around. Preferable to creating a time-limiting space on the street.
>Good opportunity for public benefit to make use of space on the ground floor.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019
November 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Would like the front entry way to be something special, would have liked to see a water feature .
Should be more inviting.
>Plaza and community room could mesh a bit better.
>The two-story wall covering parking garage on the west elevation could be difficult. Maybe more
variation.
There was no action, as the application will return on the Regular Action Calendar once the
environmental review has been completed.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1345 Vancouver Avenue - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
1345 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
1345 Vancouver Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 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 November 12, 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 22, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/10/2019