HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.04.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Staff Present: William Meeker, Community Development Director; Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner;
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Assistant Planner; and Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
2. ROLL CALL
Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 -
a.Rotation of Officers
Community Development Director Meeker announced that the Planning Commission Officers for the
next twelve months are as follows:
Peter Gum, Chair
Mike Gaul, Vice-Chair
Sandy Comaroto, Secretary
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.April 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft April 10, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the April
10, 2017 minutes.
Discussion of Motion:
>Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes as he was
not at the meeting.
Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Abstain:Gaul1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Larry Stevenson, 1124 Douglas Avenue: The Planning Commission should amend the Downtown
Specific Plan with respect to parking and delivery requirements. E-commerce has increased the number
of deliveries and there is no sign of this abaiting. In 2016 Amazon doubled their deliveries from year
before. Would like to bring up the fact that tonight ’s meeting does not show up on the City Calendar on
the website.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1849 Bayshore Highway, Suite 103, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for
a school use on the first floor of an existing commercial building (San Mateo County
Chinese School/Great Joy Service Center and School, applicant; Dale Meyer
Associates, architect; Aryana Health Care Foundation, property owner) (23 noticed)
Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Staff Report
1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Attachments
1849 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 103 - Plans
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:
>What was the code enforcement complaint? (Keylon: the school was operating at a location with
inadequate existing as required by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Kane: was a life-safety issue.)
>Were there any complaints regarding parking? (Keylon: will have to check notes in Code
Enforcement file. Kane: not aware of any complaints in the last year or so involving vehicles or parking)
>Can conditions be placed on the project that limit it to a school with non -driving age students?
(Kane: can limit the operation based upon the project description and operational characteristics.)
>Can hours of operation be restricted; can a condition be included requiring the use of the vans to
transport children? (Keylon: yes.)
>If the application comes back in a similar format and the Commission does not grant the variance,
what are the options? Accommodating existing parking or close school? (Keylon: yes, those are the
options.)
>Is it known if permits are required for the van transportation? (Keylon: will need to research.)
>Has the Fire Marshal reviewed the proposed layout? The area proposed as the pick -up area
appears to be outlined as fire lane. (Keylon: yes, Fire has reviewed this and has indicated that as long
as drivers are in the car, there is no problem with drop -off and pick-up at this location. There is very little
work being done in order to accommodate the use – the Fire Marshal will do a walk -through to determine
compliance with Fire requirements.)
Chair Gum opened public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are the 72 parking spaces assigned? (Meyer: no.) Is the second floor unoccupied? (Meyer: yes and
two-thirds of third floor is unoccupied.)
>How long has the second floor been unoccupied? (Meyer: about two years.)
>One of the supporting arguments for the variance is that SOAR (the surgical center) is not using
parking, do you have in writing that they will not use those spots? (Meyer: no, just know from real estate
agent that their business hours are from 6 am to 3 pm. This leaves that parking available for the school
after SOAR is closed.)
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There will be a maximum of 30 students and 5 teachers on the property; how does that compare to
operation at the Cowan Road site? (Meyer: for about 4 years that has been their steady number of
students. They are not actively trying to increase number of teachers or students. During the summer
run two classes or activities – they rent space at Burlingame High School or one of the other schools for
larger summer activities, they are not held at this location.)
>Will the vans will be stored on the site? (Meyer: only parked there during day, two owners drive the
vans from their house and at night drive them home)
>The school is open 9 am to 6 pm but students are not there the entire time? (Meyer: yes.)
>During the period from 3 pm to 6 pm they operate by appointment only? There will only be 5 spaces
but in reality could be a couple more available? (Meyer: yes. Kane: when this item comes back the
applicant may want to clarify what type of vans are used and the number of passengers they hold .
Meyer: the vans make multiple trips. Kane: clarify that in the application before the item is considered for
approval by the Commission.)
>Do parents ever bring their kids and stay? (Meyer: unknown. Most of the time parents have
appointments after 6 pm with teachers.)
>Since the vans are making multiple trips, is the window of arrival actually around 2:30 pm? (Meyer:
depends on how far away the students are coming from.)
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Accepting of the logic of the variance, we have considered similar projects in the past like
recreational sports symbiotic relationship with neighboring businesses as they do not operate at the
same time.
>Obligation to analyze the variance based upon the operational characteristics of the use; however,
this analysis could be faulty because some of the tenant spaces in the building are vacant. Things could
change.
>They have had an operation around the corner similar in scale, if the new location operates in the
same manner it seems that the impact is minimal to none and that the 7 parking spaces should suffice.
>Is the school being allowed there is it a CUP? (Keylon: permitted by right, but the use does require
consideration of the parking variance which is a discretionary action.)
>Thought building was completely vacant.
>Parking will be okay predicated on SOAR not changing their business hours, applicant should
approach them to see if that will be the case for the future.
>Even if that were not the case, the Commission has the obligation to ask if it will work still? If tenancy
changes, the parking arrangement may not work for another user that has different operational
characteristics.
>Do variances run with the property or just conditioned based upon a particular applicant and their
business? (Meeker: variances run with the property, but conditions of approval may be crafted that
ensure that any future use has the same operational characteristics that permitted the Commission to
support the parking variance. Need to ensure that if the application is approved that the conditions are
tailored to students that are not of driving age.)
No action was required on this item at this time. The matter will be placed on the regular action calendar
when all additional information requested by the Commission is received from the applicant.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Loftis, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto5 -
Recused:Gum, and Gaul2 -
a.5 Winchester Place, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e)
(1). (Joanne Wong, Komada Diseno Architects, applicant and architect; Willie Hung
and Heidi Lee, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
5 Winchester Pl - Staff Report
5 Winchester Pl - Attachments
5 Winchester Pl - Plans
5 Winchester Pl - Rendering
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.219 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second
story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Section
15301 (e)(1). (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, applicant and architect; Simona Torcia and
Sergio Vaccari, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
219 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
219 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
219 Burlingame Ave - Plans
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.
Joe Sabel 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:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Likes the revisions made to the stair dormer; aligns nicely with the adjacent windows.
>Project is approvable.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
b.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Avenue (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (307
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1. Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
2. 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4: Application for Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Front Setback Landscape Variance, and Parking
Variance for driveway width for a new five -story, 27-unit multi-family residential
building with at-grade and below-grade parking.
3. Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination for 52 Feet on Douglas Avenue, Portion
of Lot 3, Block 5, Map No. 2 of Burlingame Land Co. and 50 Feet on Douglas Avenue,
Portion of Lot 3, Block 5, Map No. 2 of Burlingame Land Company.
4. 524 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R -1: Application for Design Review and Front
Setback Variance to demolish the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and
replace it with an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue; the project
includes a first and second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue
and construction of a new detached garage.
1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Staff Report
1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Attachments
1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Final EIR
1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - Draft EIR
1128-1132 Douglas Ave & 524 Oak Grove Ave - MMRP
1128 Douglas Ave - Historical Resource Evaluation
1132 Douglas Ave - Historical Resource Evaluation
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Plans
524 Oak Grove Ave - Plans
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Tentative Parcel Map Memorandum
1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Tentative Parcel Map
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner Comaroto indicated that they will recuse themselves from
the discussion as they have business relationships with the property owner; they left the City Council
Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Commissioner Kelly indicated that he had reviewed all prior materials related to the project.
Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of Staff:
There were no Questions of Staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Does the circular driveway necessitate the front setback variance due to the location of the tree, not
the building? (Furlong: since the building is outside of setback, if going to push circular driveway out of
the setback into the middle of the site, this would limit buildable area for the property.)
>Proposing circular driveway? It does not show on the plans. (Furlong: yes. Pointed out on the plan.)
>Is the entire front of the property being paved? (Furlong: yes, alternative solutions limit functionality .
The two driveways and pedestrian access and anything added triggered a landscape variance.)
>The EIR addresses protection of the Redwood tree during construction, what will protect tree past
construction? (Furlong: proposing an asphalt as opposed to a pervious paver the asphalt profile can be
minimal. Will have an arborist involved during the construction process.)
>Is the tree within the easement? Any thought to protecting from cars going in and out of the
driveway? (Furlong: providing a curb on top of asphalt paving; from curb to other side of easement is 9
feet.) Seems really tight. (Driveway has to be maintained regardless of providing parking or not)
>Drawings of circular driveway are difficult to read. Requested clarification regarding the outline of the
circular driveway? (Furlong: showed the location of the driveway.)
>What problem does the circular driveway solve? (Furlong: delivery vehicles and congestion of
visitors.)
>Landscape drawings not coordinated with plans. Describe what would be within the front of the
property if not a circular driveway? (Furlong: lawn area.)
>Where are there buildings of similar in size or larger? (Furlong: was provided in a presentation from
the prior discussion; there are several buildings of similar size in the Downtown neighborhood; provided
examples.)
Public Comments:
Linda Taylor: has lived across street for over 10 years. Has listened to many discussions regarding the
design of this building. Still does not believe that this building fits in with the Douglas neighborhood. The
proposed building would shade an area greater than the existing development. The residential areas in
the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan have a range of building heights. Attention needs to be paid to
the massing relative to surrounding development. Should be designed to a residential scale. Does not
meet principles and guidelines of Downtown Specific Plan. There is no open space. Doesn't understand
why the building could not be narrower. Residents on right side will share parking. What about providing
open space for residents? There has been minimal discussion as to how trees will be protected as the
historical house will be moved to a new location. Not in favor of the conditional use permit for building
height. Please respect the quality of life in the area and scale back the project.
Larry Stevenson: Stated that the setback should be 25.83 feet rather than proposed 19 feet because of
the averages on the street. Has surveying info on that. Second, property line to root collar is 3’-9”;
doesn't see how a 9 foot driveway can be constructed there. A 7’-9” driveway is not wide enough. The
driveway is wider but it is all on his side of the property.
Betsy Vogel: Lives at 500 Almer Rd. Has lived off and on in Burlingame since 1940. The reaction of
people to the project was, what is going on in Burlingame? Development is looking like Manhattan. If we
start building like this, we are going to have a city, not a hometown.
Elsa Torres: lives at 512 Primrose Road. When you have 27 units; car will move in and out 6 times a
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
day. The other issues is the narrow driveway. If this variance sets a precedent, anyone who builds in
Burlingame will utilize these similar variances. The house at 1128 Douglas will no longer be historic if it is
moved to Oak Grove Avenue. How the trees, the telephone wires, the gas lines be affected by the
moving of the house? Many people will suffer while this move is taking place.
John Root: he and his wife have lived in Burlingame for many years and at 1133 Douglas for 4 1/2
years. Moved closer to Downtown because of proximity to shopping and transit. Increased activity
something we like. The proposed building will be there for long time, everything should be done to
ensure that it fits into community best as can and works well for community and neighbors. Believes that
building is just too tall, The Downtown Specific Plan allows the height, but it does not fit in this part of the
neighborhood. The setback on fifth floor helps but does not fit well with other structure on Douglas .
Visitors, drop offs and service personnel block the street on regular basis because there is no off -site
parking. Pay close attention to plant material and how it is going to be maintained. Additional number of
residences is a significant impact.
Applicant Response to Public Comments:
>Relocation of the Historic House: the EIR speaks to the process and provides mitigations for
impacts. The developer is responsible for expenses of relocation; it will occur during overnight hours to
minimize impacts on residents.
>Building Height: the City has adopted the Downtown Specific Plan. This neighborhood is largely in
transition and very highly desirable place to live. The intention is to increase the diversity of housing
stock in Burlingame. Apartments are necessary for affordability to encourage younger people to move
into Burlingame.
>In response to a Commissioner Inquiry: incentives offered under the density bonus regulations do
not benefit the project, the developer is in it for profit and is incurring a significant number of expenses
which includes the relocation of the historic property. Developer is investing significant amount of money
to develop the project.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>What are the benefits for providing below market rate units? (Meeker: incentives such as height
increase, deviations from parking standards, relief from any number of development standards)
>Has a problem with the height. It would be good looking building on El Camino Real, but the scale is
too large for this neighborhood. Buildings directly around or adjacent are typically 3-stories, one 4-story
across street.
>Has a problem with the variance from driveway width, doesn't see how people will clear the
Redwood tree, the tree will be affected.
>The site has constraints, too many special considerations, variances. Does not support the project
as currently designed.
>Hears the concerns of neighbors, It is big change from what is there now. There have been
significant changes in the area in the last 15 years. The only thing the Commission can do is look at
zoning code that exists. The project is well within height limit with conditional use permit. Much has been
done to articulate the building and break up the massing. In comparison to other buildings on the street,
it is a really nice building.
>In terms of the heights in neighborhood, there is a big mix. There are some buildings that have the
feel of a single-family residence, but there are also 4-story buildings. Stepping back the 5th floor is going
to make this feel like a 4 story building from the front.
>Based on what the community decided on the Downtown Specific Plan, this is what was anticipated .
Meets a need for more housing Downtown.
>As far as circular driveway variance, has mixed feelings. It is something neighborhood specifically
asked for – for that reason it is supportable. Is concerned that every application for this type of building
will ask for this type of variance. Concerned with setting a precedent.
>The shared driveway will be there regardless of this project.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Overall, the project is supportable.
>On one hand the building is quite large compared to adjacent structures. Personally, would rather
see landscaping versus the circular driveway. Delivery trucks will double -park regardless of whether the
circular driveway is provided.
>If the project were three stories with a stepped back fourth story, could support. Cannot support
project as currently designed.
>This is exactly the type of project that the City needs and what the Downtown Specific Plan
envisioned. As to the buildings around it, they will not be there long; the properties will ultimately be
redeveloped.
>The 4-story front is very well scaled to the street; the fifth story setback helps reduce the mass at the
front.
>The Commission's role is to decide whether the project fits or not. Is appropriate for the area and
meets the goals and objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan. Feels the circular driveway is a mistake.
>Supports the project.
>Very moved by the public comments. Would share neighbors' sentiments if residing on the street .
However, am motivated by the policy direction of the Downtown Specific Plan. The dynamic of the
Downtown area is going to be denser and higher -scale, more steel or glass and not traditional
architecture that the community is accustomed to.
>The closer you get to Downtown the larger scale makes more sense. Within that area there are
multiple 4-story buildings. This is just one story higher than that.
>I rather go with driveway now and maybe landscape later if not being used.
>A lot of compromise has happened here. Is in favor of the project.
>To fit a building on site by variance is backwards. The building should be designed to fit the
constraints of the site. The project is not the right size and proportion.
>It is hypocritical to not include affordable units.
>Anything built here is going to require the driveway width variance because of the tree and shared
easement with neighbor.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to certify the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Kelly5 -
Recused:Terrones, and Comaroto2 -
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
applications. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, and Sargent3 -
Nay:Gaul, and Kelly2 -
Recused:Terrones, and Comaroto2 -
c.1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
to add sales of alcoholic beverages to an existing commercial recreation facility. The
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Sky High Sports,
applicant; The Roberts Trust, property owner) (19 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1524 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1524 Rollins Rd - Attachments
1524 Rollins Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly left the meeting due to work obligations.
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.
Kelly Manning represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>With respect to the sample house rules, it has signature line for servers, how does this work?
(Manning: all of the food staff supervisors and managers would participate in program that lays out their
responsibilities. They sign an acknowledgement indicating that they understand the responsibilities.)
>Requested an explanation of how the wristband program works. (Manning: different color wristbands
identify those who have been drinking and those who may go out on the trampolines; there are also
liability waivers that must be signed.)
>Does the staff on the floor monitor wristbands? (Manning: yes, they have the right to refuse service .
We track all this info where we take peoples driver’s license and liability waivers.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Think the sale of alcohol is an incidental addition, I do not see this as a drinking destination. In
support of the request.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1308 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a
new, one-story single family dwelling and attached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis
Architecture, applicant and architect; Caroline and Joseph Padre, property owners )
(74 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1308 Palm Dr - Staff Report
1308 Palm Dr - Attachments
1308 Palm Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum visited neighbor on the left at 1306 Palm Drive.
Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jeanne Davis represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>With respect to the special permit for the attached garage, is there any possibility for the front of the
garage to be pushed back from front face of the house? (Davis: the whole porch itself is forward and the
gable end expression and massing and way roof is handled is receding and set back.)
>When this comes back on action, ensure that the findings for the special permit speak more about
mass, scale, and characteristics of the garage?
>The design guidelines give lots of examples of what appropriate designs for attached garage;
address this in the application as well. (Davis: siting the garage is challenging because the lot has an
angled frontage. pushing the garage back affects the kitchen and living room. The location of the garage
is also an effort to respect the neighbors' privacy.)
>Concerned that having the attached garage affects the pedestrian character of the street and
reduces the between neighbors. Is this site is narrower in the front than in the back? (Davis: The lot is
essentially 50-feet wide at the front and rear.)
>Like the project and that is single story and nice beautiful back yard in the back. Just ensure that the
findings for the special permit for the attached garage are adequately addressed.
>See a lot of single story bungalows in the neighborhood, a couple that have attached garages on
Palm; on other streets, most have garages in the back. Looking at neighborhood consistency.
>Would be great to keep the detached garage approach.
>The side porch facing the backyard works just fine. (Davis: the house on right side has attached
garage and so does house across street, But yes there is a mix within the neighborhood.)
Public Comments:
Deborah Reed: main concern is because her husband has limited mobility they are home all the time .
The noise during construction is going to be an issue. Need a guarantee that hours of construction are
strictly adhered to. No problem with design.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Really like the project appreciates that a one story house is proposed. A perspective sketch or
drawing would be helpful to better see the setback of the garage from the street. Supports the project.
>Very nice project nice scale, nicely articulated. One door garage opening works.
>Has the feel of a Pasadena bungalow even with attached garage. Seeing how hip roof interplays
with main gable of front porch will help the argument of applicant in support of the special permit for the
attached garage.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
matter on the Consent Calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
b.1517 Drake 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 (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Joseph
Covalesky Tr, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1517 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1517 Drake Ave - Attachments
1517 Drake Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Gum met with neighbors at 1516 and 1521 Drake Avenue
and Commissioner Sargent met with the homeowner.
Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>What are the regulations regarding accessory structures; is the shed in the rear allowed to remain?
(Keylon: yes so long as the shed is not over 120 SF it would not trigger need for a conditional use
permit.)
>Is the shed included in lot coverage and FAR? (Keylon: yes.)
>When measuring height, is there an allowance for the slope of the lot? (Keylon: there aren’t specific
regulations regarding the structure height from adjacent grade; height is measured from the top of curb.)
>Is there some accommodation for the integrity of the architectural character that is a factor when
considering a special permit for declining height envelope and height? (Meeker: this has been an
unwritten policy of the Commission to do so.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Hard to see the existing conditions because of heavy growth in the back. Are the existing Elm trees
to remain? There is heavy bush right against house, is that to remain? (Wehmeyer: the front yard will be
re-landscaped, though the main trees near the street will remain.)
>There will be more visibility along that side of the house where the addition is to be placed?
(Wehmeyer: es, can see it better on the side elevation.)
>Looks like the height of the house from first floor to highest ridge height is only 24’-7” which sounds
like a normal two-story house. If you could add into the justification for the special permit that the
blended mass is a two -story house but because of the slope of the lot a special permit is necessary .
Essentially a typical two story house on an upsloping lot.
>Chimney on sheet A3.1, existing elevation remain but proposed elevation drawn differently .
(Wehmeyer: will be altered, will place an insert into it.)
>Little confused about A 3 – looking at gable on the front, the roofline on front doorway – theres an
additional piece off the back (Wehmeyer: that is the existing roofline of the old porch. We were trying to
replicate that, to stay true to original design of house.)
>Was any consideration given to making the porch broader, wider, or deeper? (Wehmeyer: the wider
it gets, the steeper the gable, the steeper the gables on second floor and higher ridge. Wider makes it
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
bulky when looking up at lawn to it. Felt like too big for rest of the house. Deeper starts shrinking the
front setback.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Something funny with all the curves. Low arch underneath two gables fits very well but the eyebrows
seem out of place; some elements of the design don't hold together.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the matter on
the Regular Action calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
c.840 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Rob Wehmeyer,
Wehmeyer Design, applicant and architect; Emily and Dave Fisher, property owners )
(77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
840 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
840 Paloma Ave - Attachments
840 Paloma Ave - Plans
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.
Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is this area in the FEMA flood zone? (Wehmeyer: yes, all necessary documentation has been
submitted to Planning.)
>Provide a sample of the Hardie siding or give an example of a project where it has been used?
(Wehmeyer: yes. The quality of the paint makes a difference. One of our approved projects on Vernon
uses Hardie siding.)
>Any way to reduce the Declining Height Envelope request? (Wehmeyer: eliminating the gable and
pulling it in creates a long bowling alley look and layer -cake effect. It would be weighted on one side of
the house and look unbalanced from the front.)
Public Comments:
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Nicely crafted house that is very well proportioned and articulated.
>Will fit well into the neighborhood.
>With respect to the Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, there are a number of substandard
lots in this neighborhood. Requirements for lot coverage and FAR scale with the lot but the declining
height envelope does not scale with the lot. This application has an exceptional circumstance.
>There is reasonable support for the Special Permit application.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar when ready for action by the Commission. Chair Gum asked for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
d.1300 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
facade changes to an existing commercial building (John A. Chipman and Karen
Baron, Chipman Design Architecture, applicants and architects; Santini Santini
Roccucci Gen. Ptp., property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1300 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1300 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1300 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon gave an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ray Fung represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the new cornice fibreglas? (Fung: yes.)
>How crisp are the edges of the cornice? (Fung: pretty crisp, we have looked at alternate materials
and the problem is the seaming with metal and with wood patching the seam to be minimized have not
been successful in our history we have 150 Athleta stores and 80% have had cornices we have always
felt fibreglas to be most successful material.)
>Has GFRG been used before? (Fung: trying to have a certain mold and consistency.)
>Cowlick edge needs to be crisp in an effort to be historical? Can look cheap if not done correctly .
Would like to see a sample. (Fung: not trying to be historical, trying to acknowledge but not copy. Will
attempt to obtain a sample.)
>Likes the look of the cornices, concern is how far out do they project from the wall? (Fung: 1’-1” for
the upper one and about 0’-8” for the one above the entry.)
>Look at street everyone has awning or door setback in, like that look – would like to see cornice
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
pretty pronounced so it stands out.
>Looks like windows to be painted are vinyl? (Fung: yes, desiring to paint them.) Might want to look at
replacing them.
>Look at cleaning up the appurtenances on the rear wall.
>Front of the building, the face is built out a little further (Fung: will rip it all off and start over, there is
no brick behind the facade.)
>What is the height of new entry doors? Scaling at about 8’. (Fung: 9’, we are not increasing
storefront opening itself.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Like the project, with the caveat that wants to see cornices nice and crisp
>Nice modern façade.
>Understated elegance, nice and clean and simple. Signage will help with architectural details.
>It adds some elegance to the street and is much improved from WineStop.
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the matter on the
Regular Action calendar when ready for Commission action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Kelly1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission's action regarding 1556 Alturas
Drive has been appealed by the applicant.
a.1132 Cambridge Road - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review application.
1132 Cambridge.fyi2.docAttachments:
Pulled for a future public hearing; the changes to the project are significant.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:08 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 April 24, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2017, 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.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017
April 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/17/2017