HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.03.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, March 12, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Present 7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Corrections to January 22, 2018 Minutes:
Page 4, bottom of page, bullet beginning with "would it be helpful"; eliminate "at the".
Page 6, midway down page under "Commission and Comments"; delete "is" prior to "has been".
Page 6, "Questions of Staff"; under Kane's response, insert "be" after "should".
Page 7, third of the way down the page; insert "committed to" prior to writing.
Page 13, midway down page under "Commission Discussion"; replace "be" with "been" in line beginning with
"is difficult".
Corrections to February 12, 2018 Minutes:
Page 2, near the top; delete second "had".
Page 4, near the top, motion; replace "Mayor Brownrigg asked for a roll call vote" with "Chair Gum asked for
a voice vote".
Page 5, line beginning with "Commissioner Kelly returned"; note that Commissioner Terrones met with the
neighbor to the "left", not to the "rear".
Page 6, Item "e"; note that Commissioner Terrones didn't meet with the applicant at the property.
Page 6, Item "e", note that Commissioner Comaroto did not visit the property.
Page 10, third bullet; replace "mutton" with "muntin".
Page 10, first bullet replace "on" with "one".
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
January 22, 2018 and February 12, 2018 minutes with the corrections as noted. 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 -
a. Draft Minutes - January 22, 2018
Draft January 22, 2018 meeting minutes Attachments:
b. Draft Minutes - February 12, 2018
Draft February 12, 2018 meeting minutes Attachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda Item 6b (701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) was moved ahead of Item 6a (1541 Adrian
Road) on the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
b. Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and
equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right -of-way at the locations
listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility
pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. (Abigail Reed,
Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group,
architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1. In right-of -way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak
Grove Avenue) (39 noticed)
2. In right-of -way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed)
ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Staff Report
ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Plans
ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Chair Gum recused himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the proposed
installation at 701 Winchester Drive; Commissioner Sargent recused himself as he lives within 500 -feet of the
installation at 1800 Hillside Drive; they left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the properties. 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.
Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Angela Kahn and Helene Nagazarian represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Does the San Francisco example that was shown have fiber-optic cable running to it? How will it run in
Burlingame's installations? (Kahn: it is buried in that instance. In Burlingame, a separate entity from AT&T will
run the fiber-optic cable overhead. The fiber-optic cable will need to run closer to the antenna, above the
PG&E lines.)
> Clarified that this is not a co-located facility; other providers will seek additional locations and likely run
fiber-optic cable to there antennae.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> What is the radius served by the installations? (Kahn: 300-500 feet.)
Public Comments:
Doug Luftman, 2615 Easton Drive: noted that the City worked with residents five-years ago to draft the
ordinance. Offered assistance in this matter. Encouraged following the ordinance very closely. Not certain all
aspects have been addressed. The ordinance encourages public engagement. The process is moving
forward in a piecemeal manner. A master plan approach is needed. The ordinance makes it clear that
aesthetics and location are of importance. The most ideal locations within residential areas are in easements
behind properties; though every effort should be taken to keep the installations out of the residential areas.
There is no accurate depiction in the application of the installations, the stealth design is not considered,
there is a lack of justification regarding location; why are residential areas selected? Should be more
engagement of the community and there should be more of a focus on aesthetics.
Prakash Amani: not supportive. Every carrier will have their own installations. Is across from a church
property with a lot of traffic. Sought more information regarding the radiation emission. There are other
alternatives possible.
Tom Santoro, 1804 Hillside Drive: lives on Hillside Drive. No one has discussed the radiation and
cancer-causing impacts. Will the radiation hurt those children that pass by to go to Our Lady of Angels. Are
there any studies that show that the installations are safe? Doesn't want anyone to experience health
problems down the road. Perhaps AT&T has studies. Should approach the nearby church and school to
discuss with them.
Amit Chibber, 1406 Drake Avenue: agreed with prior speakers. What is the dispersal of the radiation from the
installation; how much can be expected to enter the nearby homes?
Bill Hemet: is an engineer that works with AT&T and other providers. There is no energy emitted from the
boxes on the poles, only from the antenna on the top. Have projected exposure levels for every tenth of a
meter from the installation. The maximum level of radiati on at the ground is .7%; .8% at a nearby home, well
below the safe exposure level.
Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Noted that a discussion or radio frequencies is "off the table"; meets the standards of the FCC.
> Can look at time, place and manner. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the
information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference
between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be
installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided.
> Concerned when reference is made to potential failure of 911 systems; knows that this is not the full
picture. Data is a big need.
> Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like.
> Concerned that the City doesn't have a master plan for this type of installation. Has Hillsborough done
anything similar to a master plan?
> Agrees that a master plan is needed. Individual providers will likely provide plans that the City will need to
coordinate. Also need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected.
> Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to
investigate locations that are not as visible.
> Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers.
> Provide information on improvements in technology.
> What happens when the installations become obsolete? Who will rem ove them? How does the City
decide when to remove them?
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> Can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan; stuck in a situation where an independent engineer will
need to be engaged to work on the City's behalf.
> Need to see the full picture.
No action is required on this item.
a. 1541 Adrian Road and 960 David Road, zoned RR- Application for Conditional Use Permit
for a building materials supply store in an existing commercial building, a Con ditional Use
Permit and a Parking Variance to provide required parking off-site in the drainage
right-of-way. (Floor and Decor c/o CenterPoint Integrated Solutions LLC, applicant; Frank
Edwards Co. Inc, property owners; SRA, architect) (63 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine
Keylon
1541 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1541 Adrian Rd - Application
1541 Adrian Rd - Parking and Trip Gen Study
1541 Adrian Rd - Traffic response
1541 Adrian Rd - Department comments-Attachments
1541 Adrian Rd - 03.12.18
Attachments:
Chair Gum returned to the dais.
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:
> With respect to the parking; 120 spaces are required. The plans show 50 spaces on-site and 70 off-site,
plus 26 compact spaces. Are 126 spaces being provided? (Keylon: no, must be an error.)
> Is the strip of land separating the building from the off-site parking lot a drainage easement? Can the
properties be attached to one another? (Keylon: yes, is a drainage easement. As far as is known, the parcels
cannot be combined.)
> Is public works still concerned about shopping carts spilling into the neighborhood? (Keylon: noted that
information has been provided by the applicant that shows how this will be avoided.)
> Could the parking request be handled with a conditional use permit, or could a variance be required?
(Keylon: the use of the drainage easement requires a conditional use permit for use as parking. The parking
variance is requested in this instance because a portion of the parking is on a property other than the project
site.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Greg Saia represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> All employees will be required to park in the off-site area? (Saia: yes.)
> Regarding customer pick-up; are the two stalls adjacent to the loading area going to be blocked in if there
is a queue? (Saia: yes, that could occur. Unidentified Applicant Representative: anticipates that these spaces
will also be used for customer loading.)
> Was a landscape plan required for the property? (Keylon: no.)
> Refine the customer pick-up plan.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> Is it possible to widen the drive lane behind the two parking stalls to allow vehicles to pass by?
(Unidentified Applicant Representative: didn't think that this could be done. Will look at this.)
> Ideally, designating more spaces for customer pick-up would be helpful.
> Will the applicant consider a valet service? (Saia: not sure how products could be taken to the off -site
parking lot give the restrictions on the use of the carts.) An employee could help customers take items to their
cars in the parking lot. (Unidentified Applicant Representative: will likely be able to come up with some form of
plan, though most customers will buy large enough quantities of items that they will drive to the loading area.)
> Is any work being done in the street? (Saia: no work is to be done in the street. There is parking in the
street.) Street parking is not counted towards the supply? (Keylon: correct.)
> What are the hours of operation? (Unidentified Applicant Representative: typically operate from 7 a.m. to
9 p.m. through Saturday, with shortened hours on Sunday: 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
> Concerned about the number of kids that frequent the trampoline center at the corner of Rollins Road
and David Road; are there any precautions that can be put in place to address child safety?
> Perhaps have different color carts for employees helping customers load products.
> Is there any way to connect the two parcels? (Saia: is not possible, a portion of the property is leased to
Tesla for vehicle storage.)
> Is the pick-up model used in other stores? (Unidentified Applicant Representative: all stores have loading
areas; primarily for the professional contractors.)
> Are employees dedicated to customer pick-up? (Unidentified Applicant Representative: described
process; the area is near the outdoor loading areas.)
> Is there a local delivery service? (Unidentified Applicant Representative: not currently, but will be looking
at this in the future. Would usually use local delivery services.)
> Likely have enough parking on-site, but may need to look at means of getting customer purchases to the
off-site lot.
> Discussed parking study. Is it conceivable that the facility is under-parked? (Saia: no, feel it is
over-parked.)
> When the project returns, have information regarding how other parties will be kept from using the off-site
parking lot.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes the use for the area.
> Noted how other tile shops in the area operate.
> Encouraged a delivery service.
> The key concerns have been worked through.
> Car restrictions and employees parking in the remote lot should be conditions of approval.
> How will disabled carts be handled? Include this information when the project returns for action.
> Doesn't believe the use will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
> The off-site parking is easily accessed by users of the trampoline center; must be controlled.
> Feels that the fact that the site is already built-out is justification for the parking variance. Whatever use
may go into the property could not provide enough parking per the Zoning ordinance. The applicant is
actually removing a portion of the building to accommodate the use.
No action was required on this item.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no Consent Calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a. 772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and Variance for a new front porch. The
project is categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jessica Sin, JSD
Architecture, applicant and designer; Vivek and Pooja Shah, property owners) (129
noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
772 Walnut Ave - Staff Report
772 Walnut Ave - Attachments
772 Walnut Ave - Plans - 3.12.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Gaul recused himself from the discussion of this item. He left the Council Chambers.
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.
Vivek and Pooja Shah, and Jessica Sin represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> What is intended for window treatments on the large window in the master bath? (P. Shah: likes the idea
of having a bathtub at that location that allows views of the yard. V. Shah: there are tall trees that surround
the house, so it will not intrude on the neighbors.)
> Will there be a post at the corner of the window? (Sin: are attempting to have a true corner window.)
> Is there a selected window manufacturer? Must use true divided lights, or simulated true divided lights.
> Suggested adding a corbel or other feature for the porch roof to land upon.
> Are the windows casements? (P. Shah: yes.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Feels that the large window at the master bath is out of scale and not a good idea.
> Not supportive of the large window on the east elevation.
> Likes the board and batten gable.
> Agrees with the comments regarding the windows, but is not a deal breaker. Likes the changes that have
been made. The variance is supportable; recreating the existing condition in a different location.
Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Recused: Gaul 1 -
b. 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. The project is categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines.(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 - Attachments
846 Paloma Ave - Plans - 3.12.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais.
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.
Robert Medan and Sharyl Wong represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Has a window type been chosen? Need to know type of cladding and if simulated true divided lights are
provided. (Medan: Colby or Pella, metal-clad with 7/8-inch bars.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Design is approvable. Preservation of the existing tree and the fact that the new garage is being placed
where the existing one is located is justification for the special permit.
> What is happening with the unstable fence at the rear? (Commissioner: a note has been added to repair
and replace as required is noted on the landscape 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 -
Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c. 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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
15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc.,
applicant and designer; Lisa Ley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal
Aggarwal
1402 Grove Ave - Staff Report
1402 Grove Ave - Attachments
1402 Grove Ave - Plans - 3.12.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto recused herself from the discussion of this item. She left the Council Chambers.
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 Lisa Ley represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Are the brackets for the awnings prefabricated? (Geurse: yes, are prefabricated.) Concerned that they
may be flimsy and cheap looking.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes the revisions and the project. Is supportable, but would like to have details of the awnings return as
an FYI.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the application with
the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted providing details of the awning. Chair Gum
asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly 6 -
Recused: Comaroto 1 -
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 constr uction of a new, 4-story
mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically Exempt from
Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects,
architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
250 California Dr - Staff Report
250 California Dr - Attachments
250 California Dr - Plans - 03.12.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais.
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.
Ryan Guibara and Andres Grecchi represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Noted that there is a shadow missing to the right of the stair tower on the elevation. (Grecchi: confirmed
this.)
> Likes the changes that have been made.
> On Sheet 3.1.2, noted that the "Prussian Blue" notation appeared to point to the incorrect detail on the
elevation.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes most of the changes. Much improved.
> Reduced size of the mullions helps to reduce the impact of the blue window grids.
> Likes the highly structured brick faces on South Lane, West Lane, and California Drive. Less comfortable
with the main entry details, but is much better than the original proposal.
> Likes it even more so now. The darker brick rendering distances the project more from the historic train
station.
> The darker brick that is shown now even distances itself more from the design and finish of the train
station. The project fits with the rules that the Commission is given to judge project design. Nice, well
designed.
> Having the open space between the project and the train station helps, as does the width of California
Drive; helps with the scale. This will be an integral part of Downtown.
> Thanks for providing the amount of retail shown on the ground floor.
> Likes the project. The redesign of the trellis element to be more like "eyebrows" fits better with the design
aesthetic of the building. Has an elegance to it. The factory feel to the windows is bolstered by the lighter
muntins; has been improved.
> Expressed concern with building more Downtown; perhaps should wait for the General Plan to be
Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
adopted. Would also like to see what new State mandates will be implemented regarding housing. Doesn't
feel that the project is compatible with the surrounding development. Feels that mass, bulk, and scale are out
of context with surrounding development. A four-story building as proposed is not an appropriate transition to
the lower-scale development in the vicinity. Feels that the project will overshadow the historic Train Station.
Feels that the exception of providing the opportunity for a 55-foot height has become a "rule" rather than the
base height of 35-feet. Doesn't feel that the project fits into the auto-oriented focus of the CAR district.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application.
Discussion of Motion:
> Because of the nature of California Drive, this is the location for projects like the one proposed.
> Everything known about the updated General Plan incorporates the policy direction of the
adopted Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. This project is compliant with the policies in the Plan.
> This project will preserve the historic mural and, in fact, puts it on display in the offices of the
Burlingame Historical Society.
> The developer has done great projects Downtown and has shown commitment to Burlingame.
> Supports the project.
Aye: Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Nay: Gum 1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 815 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor
addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Michael Cafferkey, applicant and designer;
Michael and Margaret Cafferkey, property owners) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
815 Maple Ave - Staff Report
815 Maple Ave - Attachments
815 Maple Ave - Plans - 03.12.18
Attachments:
Chair Gum recused himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item because he owns property
within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. He left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had met with the applicant.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
> There is not a specific application for Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, just a letter. Would
like formal application.
Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Michael Cafferkey represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Will the existing vertical siding be replaced with new vertical siding? (Cafferkey: Yes.)
> Will the existing horizontal band be raised or stay at same height? (Cafferkey: Stay at same height.) That
detail needs to be corrected on the drawing.
> Are the corbels on the proposed front elevation new or existing? (Cafferkey: New.)
> Looks like you're raising the height of that front gable because the existing position of the corbels hugs
the top of the bay from side elevation. New corbels should do the same.
> Horizontal belly band on second floor is shown on renderings but not on elevations. Belly band will help
with transition from first to second floor.
> Will existing landscape along driveway remain? (Cafferkey: No.)
> With landscape removed, the resulting driveway will be about the width of the garage. That's really wide
for a driveway. Would encourage a planting strip to soften the ground line and side wall transition to the
driveway.
> Looking at window detail, the 1" x 5 1/2" inch width will eventually cup when applied on top of stucco,
recommend a 2" x 5 1/2" inch width.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Will be important that the drawings are correct when the project is approved. Some of the gables could
be re-thought; perhaps not all are necessary.
> Feels that the window pattern is a bit confused; a lot of different types and sizes.
> Generally likes the massing. In support of the special permit for declining height; likes the composition of
the front elevation.
> Details need to be finalized and fixed to match existing conditions, and correct some plan errors.
> Doesn't have a problem with the gables. Agrees with the comments regarding the variety of windows.
Could have more symmetry.
> Agrees with the comments about revisiting the gables and working out the details. Perhaps refer to a
design review consultant.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to send the project to a
design reviewer. Vice Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Recused: Gum 1 -
b. 2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit and
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height,
an attached garage, and basement. (Warren Donald, property owner and applicant;
Kevin O'Brien, architect) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2208 Summit Dr - Staff Report
2208 Summit Dr - Attachments
2208 Summit Dr - Plans - 03.12.18
Attachments:
Page 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gum returned to the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion due to a
business relationship with the Burlingame School District (owner of the property next door) and has been
involved in property negotiations involving the school site and the project site. He left the Council Chambers.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
> With respect to Easement No. 4; there is a note that no permanent structure or landscaping shall be
placed within the easement. It appears that trees exist within the easement. (Meeker: allow the applicant to
respond.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Warren Donald represented the applicant. He noted that trees within the easement are existing.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> It is a bit difficult to determine where the home will be placed on the property; would be helpful to have
stakes installed that at least show where the home is to be placed. (Donald: willing to install stakes.)
> Is there a specific window style that is proposed? (Donald: not yet.) Note that style and construction of
the windows on the plans.
> No problem with the special permit for height. However, feels like the design pushes to the maximum due
to the plate heights. (Donald: at a disadvantage due to the location of the curb. Trying to make the best house
possible. Pushed to the rear of the lot due to the easements.) Most houses around the site don't have ten-foot
plate heights on the ground floor. (Donald: is using the school as the reference for the proposed building
height.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Doesn't the attached garage require a special permit? (Meeker: yes, and it has been requested.)
> Perhaps the most complicated design ever presented; feels shoehorned onto the lot. Doesn't feel that
using the school as a reference to support the taller home is appropriate. Need to respond to the other home
across the access easement. Is too tall, stretched out. Would be better with a nine foot first floor plate height
with an eight foot second floor plate height.
> Agrees that the design is nice and does a good job of fitting into the lot, but the overall height needs to be
reviewed. The special permit for height is supportable. Suggested bring it back on regular action.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on
the regular action calendar when ready for action.
Discussion of Motion:
> Place stakes at the front two corners of the garage, the right corner of the front porch, the
Page 12 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
rear right corner of the kitchen, and the rear corners of the loggia.
Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Recused: Terrones 1 -
c. 825 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2- Application for Design Review including a first and second
story addition to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and
designer; Greg Scopazzi, property owner) (60 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
825 Edgehill Dr - Staff Report and Attachments
825 Edgehill Dr - Plans - 03.12.18
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones returned the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Vice-Chair Gaul and Commissioner Sargent met with the
applicant at the site.
Senior Planner Keylon presented the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Greg Scopazzi represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Concerned with the parking in the carport working.
> Why are there no windows into the living space? (Scopazzi: noted that it would look at the neighbor's
stucco wall.)
> Suggested adding windows into carport along the front elevation.
> Asked if the owner thought about adding a garage door to the carport?
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Consider adding a garage door to the carport.
> Add windows on the front elevation for the carport (below porch).
> Right elevation - too long, break up with windows.
> House has an 88' long wall, long walls need to be broken up.
> Left elevation is okay, maybe add a door.
> Front elevation needs more work.
> Right elevation needs more detailing as does the left side.
Page 13 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> The fireplace element on the right side could use some form of stone treatment and could be run up to
the roofline.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the project to
a design review consultant. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Discussion of Motion:
> Front elevation is "quaint" but the stairs feel undersized.
> Plans call out "metal roof" for the smaller roof areas, but it is drawn as shingle roof, clarify.
> The massing is done well, but the details need more work.
> Also needs a landscape plan.
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There was no Director's Report.
a. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue - FYI for review of clarifications to a previously approved Design
Review project.
1245 Cabrillo Ave - FYI Memo and Attachments Attachments:
Accepted.
b. 50 Broderick Road - FYI for review of clarifications to the landscape plan for a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit.
50 Broderick Rd - FYI Memo and Attachments Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 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 March 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 March 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 6/13/2018