Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.02.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, February 12, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Present 7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018 Attachments: Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Minutes of January 8, 2018. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 9b (1206 Lincoln Avenue) as she owns property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Kelly noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8c (1245 Cabrillo Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. 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. 129 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10 feet of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Su-ling Slaton, SLC Design, applicant and designer; Jerry Zakatchenko, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 129 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 129 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 129 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones noted that he had contact with the property owner regarding access to the property. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1431 El Camino Real , zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1431 ECR - Staff Report 1431 ECR - Study minutes and response 1431 ECR - Application mtrls- parking lift details 1431 ECR - Resolutions 1431 ECR - Dept Comments, Notice, Aerial 1431 ECR - 02.12.18 - plans 1431 ECR - CEQA doc, Mitigated Neg Dec 1431 ECR - Comment letters 1431 ECR - CEQA - Response to Comments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Clarified that a parking variance is requested because the property lies outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. (Keylon: confirmed this fact; policies within the Downtown Specific Plan area permit the lifts to be considered without a variance.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing Toby Levy and Bruce Chen represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > May be difficult to grow grass within the median strip; what does the applicant suggest? (Chen: noted that grass is not proposed, low ground-cover is proposed.) > What is the makeup of the existing units on the property? (Grace: two, two -bedroom, one bath units and two, one-bedroom, one bath units.) > Could the project be developed without the garage? (Levy: wanted an enclosed garage as it is nicer to Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes look at.) > How will delivery vehicles access the property? (Levy: there are adequate turnaround areas.) > Asked about the noise generated by the garage doors? (Levy: referenced other cities' evaluations that show that the noise studies prepared by the provider are accurate.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The project has been thoroughly vetted. Comfortable with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. > The site constraints make it difficult to replicate the development that exists on the property currently without losing units. The project will replace and minimally increase the number of units on the property. Other areas near the location are permitted to use car-stackers for parking. > The building is similar in scale and massing as well as finishing to other projects in the area. The project is approvable. > Confirmed that the variance approval will run with the property. > The density proposed is well within the density permitted under the General Plan. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - b. 1455 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Art Lierman, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1455 Cortez Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1455 Cortez Ave - plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Art Lierman represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a very nice project, likes the reduction of the deck. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Action Item. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - c. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Commissioner Kelly was recused from the discussion as he resides within 500 -feet of the property; he left the dais and the chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > With respect to the left elevation, second floor; the master bedroom and master bath appear co -planar on the floor plan, but not on the elevation. (Chu: is cutting a well into the roof plan.) > Noted that the well would only be under the two tall windows. > Need to prepare a roof plan that more accurately shows the detail of the roof well on the left elevation. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Is a nice project. Appreciates that the applicant is retaining the existing siding. The revisions are nicely done. > Need an FYI to finalize the roof plan on the left elevation, second story. > Well articulated project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve as the application with the added condition that a revised roof plan shall be submitted as an FYI. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto 6 - Recused: Kelly 1 - d. 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Samaneh Nili, TRG Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2683 Summit Dr - Attachments 2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbors to the rear and to the left of the site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he met with the neighbor to the left to gain access to view the story poles. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: Debra Cosco, 6 Hillview Court: don't really have an issue with the height, but want to know if they are looking at a wall of windows. Currently has total privacy. Has a view of the Bay Bridge. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a good looking project. Appreciates that the architect installed the story poles. Appreciates the neighbor bringing her concerns about privacy forward. Doesn't see that this addition will affect distant Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes views. The windows at the rear fit into the design guidelines. The applicant's justification for the variance is supportable. The project is approvable. > Appreciates that the windows are obscured. The windows facing the neighbor do not appear to be in the line of site of the neighbor. > Is a good design solution for the property. Clarified that external lighting cannot fall off of the property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - e. 50 Broderick Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage for a car rental business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SEction 15303. (The Hertz Corporation, applicant; Thomas and Martina Murphy Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 50 Broderick Rd - Staff Report 50 Broderick Rd - Attachments 50 Broderick Rd - Plans - 02.12.08 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, and Gum spoke with with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Isn't a timeframe normally imposed upon a conditional use permit like thi s? (Meeker: we're trying to move away from this approach. This use is permitted; conditions have been imposed upon non -conforming uses in the Bayfront. > Will improvements to mechanical systems be required before the use is implemented? (Meeker: yes.) > How will monitoring of vehicle movements be achieved? (Meeker: Code Enforcement will investigate any complaints.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Christian Rotzog and Colin Regan represented the applicant.. Commission Questions/Comments: > Will mechanical improvements be put in place before opening? (Rotzog: have already begun this work.) > Will vehicle repair/maintenance occur on the property? (Regan: no.) > Requested details regarding landscaping materials. (Regan: have a landscape plan that can be submitted.) > What is the design of the opaque fence? (Regan: grey slats in a chain-link fence.) > What is the length of the lease? Is this a permanent storage area? (Rotzog/Regan: ten years; will occupy for at least that period of time.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: > Will be nice to have something happening on the property. Doesn't appear that the use will impact surrounding properties. Would like to see a landscape plan that shows drought -tolerant materials that will revitalize the site. > Perfectly acceptable use. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted for the landscape plan. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - f. 740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review to remove and replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing condominium unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 740 El Camino Real - Staff Report 740 El Camino Real - Attachments 740 El Camino Real - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Halle Hagenau and Chris Chavez represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The project is approvable. > This is a prominent place on El Camino Real; is technically a front -yard deck. Concerned that the deck could be used as a storage space or other use than intended by this applicant. Is this what is wanted in this highly visible area. Not a good place for a deck of this scale and size. Is not compatible with the pattern in the neighborhood. > There is a homeowners' association that will ensure that the deck is maintained. Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Likes the changes to the rail. > The property is sandwiched between El Camino Real and the activities at McKinley Elementary School. The deck is open-air and unlikely to be used for storage. It's prominent location ensures that it could not be enclosed without being noticed. > Be advised that if the design changes, bring back changes before built. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 - Nay: Gum 2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. (Robert Medan, applicant and designer; Sharyl Wong and Andrew Blanco, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 846 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 846 Paloma Ave - Attachment 846 Paloma Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Sharyl Wong and Robert Medan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Not certain why an angled bay is proposed below the square bay on the right side elevation. (Medan: thought the angled approach on the fist floor would be a bit more playful on the interior.) > The massing is handled nicely. Is there a possibility for extending the roof overhang from the front along the side to the full two-feet, connecting the line, and dropping the stairway windows down; would make the two gables on the front look like a dormer on the roof. (Medan: yes, can do this.) > Had a similar question regarding the right-side elevation. There might be a way to review the bump-out on the master bath to make it a bit smaller; may be some extra space to work with. (Medan: can see making this change to make the bump-out for the bath a bit smaller than the one below.) > With respect to the special permit for the garage; describe the rationale. (Medan: feels that pushing the garage back further will encroach upon an existing tree's roots.) > Any thought given to screening the back more to protect privacy of the adjoining properties? (Medan: this is acceptable.) > Neighbor noted that the fence is in disrepair; any possibility of incorporating a new fence into the project? (Wong: will repair as needed.) > Could the front porch be made larger? (Medan: there is a tree directly in front of the porch that would be impacted. The driveway is also a constraint.) Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Nice project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the application on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Discussion of Motion: > Nice project. On the point of the stacked bays; may be better as two identical bays, or a better distiction between the bays. > Suggested engaging the neighbor on the rear fence matter. > The special permit request is supportable since the tree is being preserved. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - b. 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners) (65 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right. Commissioner Comaroto recused herself from the discussion as she owns property within 500 -feet of the property; she left the dais and the chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Are their limitations to the trellis in the rear as far as being close to the property line? (Backos: The trellis is being removed.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jack Backos represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Windows above the garage and dormer windows are odd in scale. > Will rear lawn go fence to fence or will there be planters there? (Backos: No changes are to be made.) > There were a series of additions to the house before? (Backos: Yes.) Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > The existing east elevation is a simple single plane, the addition build s on that making very large flat plane, suggest more articulation instead of one big mass like a bellyband. (Backos: difficult because bathrooms are on that side but will look into it.) Doesn't need to be windows, can be a trim detail or look at the roof. (Backos: Side that faces neighbor and Redwood trees, it's difficult to see that elevation.) Can be convinced of that - not to do anything. > Slender trim works on a small cottage but does not fit as well as the building grows. Suggests widening the trim to relate to the massing. (Backos: the volumes of the house create interest. Would change the overall aesthetic of the house. Feels it is successful as designed.) > Front elevation - two things that strike me with two dormers windows seem smaller than other windows. Should match sizing and muntin pattern to bring it together more. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > There are some scale issues going on with the plan. Several very large planes. The roof seems very huge. > The left elevation is confusing where the roof slopes come together. And west elevation proposed needs to be simplified - it's a lot of gables. > Is a difficult project to start from; the existing mass ing is a bit odd. Is a traditional split-level that wants to appear like a bungalow. Biggest concern is with the east elevation; is there something that can provide relief with this sheer plane. > Will help to have all the windows detailed on the rendering. > Good candidate for a design reviewer. The house looks like it's maxed out but proposed FAR shows that it is not so there should be some ways to move around. > Trellis over front entry, would like it to be addressed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project to a Design Reviewer. Discussion of Motion: > Doesn't understand the trellis over the front entry on the three-dimensional drawing; look at this element more closely. > What is proposed serves to make the home look taller. The added roofline and the space above the garage are the most troubling. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly 6 - Recused: Comaroto 1 - c. 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Lisa Ley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1402 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1402 Grove Ave - Attachments 1402 Grove Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor on the left. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the left side, the existing family room: is the west wall being preserved to retain the side setback? Looks like its on a brick foundation. (Geurse: intend to rebuild the foundation an d the wall. Was once a patio that was enclosed. Will review this. Keylon: because the lot is only 45-feet wide a three-foot setback is all that is required.) > With respect to the exit to the balcony; it seems strangely centered. Is there a reason it was d esigned that way? (Geurse: keeping the gable out of the declining height envelope, but wanted to center the door over the window below.) > Likes the assymetry of the gable that was referenced. The bedroom gable is a bit quirky, but works okay. Offsetting the doors off of the master bedroom creates a sitting area. (Geurse: added the extra knee-braces to add to the articulation.) > Will the gargoyle be relocated? (Geurse: wasn't aware it was there.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The front and rear elevations are nice. The side elevations need work; break down the sense that they are pancaked. The siding/shingles running into the stucco does not work. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - d. 250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor for construction of a new, 4-story mixed use office building (retail and office) (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Drive - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Kelly had a brief email exchange with the developer. Chair Gum and Commissioners Terrones, Comaroto, and Sargent met with the applicant to review the plans. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was unable to meet with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara and Andres Grechi represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is there an attendant that monitors the car lifts? (Guibara: the system is intended to be fully operated by the public, though there will be an attendant available.) > What is meant by "temporary" users; how will they access parking? (Guibara: such users will need to call a receptionist to gain access to the garage. Tenants will have cards to open the garage.) > If some of the space is commercial, will some of the parking be made available to the public? (Guibara: is providing the in-lieu fee for eleven parking spaces. Employees of the first floor retail will likely use the parking, rather than visitors. Noted that 225 California was not required to provide retail parking. > Likes the amount of retail space provided with this project. > What is the height when compared to 225 California Drive? (Guibara: the same height.) > How will traffic impacts be evaluated? (Meeker: the project is categorically exempt, therefore no additional analysis will be provided.) > Will there be an analysis of the need for crosswalks by Public Works? (Meeker: that department has reviewed the project and has not weighed-in on that particular issue.) > Has a concern about a continuation of the trajectory toward building more office space. When do we need to become more concerned about density, scale, etc? (Meeker: noted that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. It complies with all policies and analyses in the Downtown Specific Plan. Are limited only to discussion of the design of the project; there should be no discussion of the jobs/housing balance.) > Noted that the project has been found not to result in any environmental impacts that rise to a level of significance, pursuant to CEQA. (Meeker: the exemption analysis found that the past analysis done for the Downtown Specific Plan assumed this level of development at the site.) > Clarified that the Commission's job is to find the project consistent with zoning. > Feels that collectively a variety of smaller projects and their impacts must be considered. > The Downtown Specific Plan assumed a variety of projects that would be built under the analysis in the Plan. > Requested clarification regarding the design of the window system. (Grechi: designed to break down the windows into a more human scale.) > Seems like the south-facing wall nearest the railroad tracks needs to be broken up a bit more. (Guibara: have broken up that side pretty significantly already. Grechi: is broken into three parts. Can't put windows in the brick wall; will have much texture itself.) Public Comments: There were no public comments: Page 12 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Feels that the brick wall on the southeast face should include some depth rather than just smooth brick. > Feels the use is appropriate. > Likes the materials and the massing. Has a functional design. Likes the parking lifts. > Likes that the vehicle entry and exits will be on the least busy street. > Believes that the use will promote pedestrian activity. > Appreciates the preservation of the mural and the work that has been done with the Historic Society. > Will significantly alter the building skyline in this area of the City. Lies close to the historic Train Depot. > Is concerned that the building looks like it is from the 1980s. Is missing the opportunity to have some interesting details for a brick building. Doesn't buy the oversize window mullions. There is detail missing; doesn't feel welcoming. Part of the problem, per the rendering, is the colors used; the mullions make the project feel somewhat prison-like, where darker mullions would make the windows appear more transparent. Look at treating in another way, perhaps consider using terra-cotta. The supports for the trellis on the top of the building do not appear substantial enough. The building appears very chunky. Missing opportunities to do something very special at the entrance. There is a level of detail that is necessary for a successful brick building. > Is a well-crafted, well-planned project. Though the project will significantly change this area, the project is much better than an underutlized parking lot. > Sees this as a Modern Industrial interpretation of a brick building. Wants be be certain that the brick does not look cheap. Could consider using a Blonde-colored brick. A problem with introducing terra-cotta would remove it from the clean, industrial look that the design embraces. > The trellis does need to be revisited and may be designed to contribute more to the aesthetic of the building. Likes the direction and program for the project. > The color rendering is likely a bit different from what is represented on the sample board. > Feels more work needs to be done on the southeast wall. > Need to look into the concept of adding crosswalks to the area. > Likes the project; is a good location for it. Likes the red brick. The more traditional brick softens the Modern elements and help it fit into the area. > The conditional use permit for office use is supportable since the space will be used by the Historical Society which will have interaction with the public. > Is the third project in this area that is to be built at this height; will fit in as time progresses. > Is not certain if the design needs to be complicated by adding more details. Perhaps a mix of brick coul d be considered. This project represents the direction that the Downtown is going. > There is too much building occurring in the City. The public wishes the building to stop. The project doesn't fit the sight and the surrounding development; overpowers the adjacent Train Depot, the most photographed building in the City. > The project is not compatible with the height, mass and scale of other buildings in the neighborhood. > Happy that the wallscape is being preserved and will be visible to those visiting the building. Although the project will largely block it from pedestrian view; and is a significant impact. > Building heights have been increased when in the past 35-feet was the maximum that would be allowed in the City. > Project is short eleven parking spaces; will be a cumulative effect over time. > The Specific Plan policies are intended to preserve auto -related uses; feels allowing the office is contrary to this intent. > The impact fees that will be collected as a result of the project will not help to alleviate the concerns expressed by community residents. > Would prefer either building nothing on the property, or something significantly smaller. > Noted that in an industrial-style building, the window mullions would have had a smaller profile. Page 13 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Statements made in opposition to the project based upon CEQA lead to a misunderstanding of how CEQA is used and its purposes. The project is exempt from further analysis based upon the prior analyses prepared under prior planning efforts. If changes are to be made to CEQA, then the State legislators must be lobbied. No action required as the project will return on the the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Note that the Basecamp users are jaywalking across California Drive in the early morning hours. Who should be contacted to encourage the users to use crosswalks? (Meeker: will determine who should become involved.) 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's Reports. a. 705 Walnut Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to an approved Design Review project. 705 Walnut Ave - Memorandum Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:57 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 February 12, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018, 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 $533, 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 14 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018