HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.07.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 10, 2017
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 ComarotoPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve June
12, 2017 minutes. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.Draft June 26, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft June 26, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve The
June 26, 2017 minutes. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Comaroto4 -
Recused:Gum, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself on Items 8a (1566 Cypress Avenue) and 9e
(729 Walnut Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the property.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself on Item 9b (1029 Paloma Avenue) as he
resides within 500-feet of the property.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
dwelling with detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).
(NOTICE: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 26, 2017 PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING). (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and applicant; Mission
Bay Trust and Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust property owners) (58 noticed) Staff contact:
Erika Lewit
1566 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1566 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1566 Cypress Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding this item as
she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. 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.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Why is the entry door not centered between the columns at the front porch? (Chu: because of the side
light.)
>Likes that the porch was increased; was a shed roof considered? (Chu: no, would affect the second
floor window.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion:
>Beautifully done project.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.3028 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for an Hillside Area Construction Permit and
a Conditional Use Permit for a new, detached garage. This project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (August Ochabauer, owner and applicant; Daniel Perez,
Studio Perez, architect) (27 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
3028 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
3028 Hillside Dr - Attachments
3028 Hillside Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto 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.
August Ochabauer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
None.
Public Comments:
Lane (representing her brother who owns the neighboring property): concerned with the location of the
garage just outside their fence. Also concerned about potential landslide, relocation of sewer system and
view impacts due to the removal of trees.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Believes the project is crafted well and fits well into the property. Neighbor's concerns are outside the
purview of the Commission.
>Concerns expressed at prior Study meeting have been addressed. Will still need to comply with
lighting restrictions and utility requirements during the Building Permit review. The structure does not
block views of concern.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Can make the necessary findings for the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
c.715-717 and 719-721 Linden Avenue, Zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and
Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two -story duplex on each proposed
new lot. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b). (1448 Laguna LLC, applicant
and property owner; TRG Architects, architect) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Attachments
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Plans
715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Public Works/Engineering
Memorandum
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
James Evans represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
None.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Nicely designed project.
>The lot split fits within the neighborhood.
>Have addressed the comments raised by the Commission previously.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application for design review and to recommend approval of the tentative map to the City
Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
d.287 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for building
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
height for new stairwell and elevator enclosures on the roof of an existing commercial
building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15311(a). (Ron Karp, applicant; D.
Michael Kastrop, architect; JSR Karp 10 Limited Partnership, property owner) (38
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
287 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
287 Lorton Ave - Attachments
287 Lorton Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. All Commissioners had conversations with the project
applicant, or project contractor while visiting the property. It was noted that touring the property required an
escort due to active construction activities occurring on the property.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak and Mike Kastrop represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is elevator required for ADA compliance? (Kastrop: yes. Hudak: only require the conditional use
permit because the elevator shaft is greater than ten feet above the top of the parapet.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Is a relatively minor request. Is only an incremental increase in the amount of area covered by the
elevator shaft and stair enclosure. Is supportable.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
e.309 Primrose Road, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for a health service use on the second floor of an existing commercial building .
This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Section: 15301, Class 1. (Seesaw Psychology Group, applicant;
Mark Bucciarelli, AIA, architect; Ruth Modisette, Ruth Modisette Living Trust, property
owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
309 Primrose Rd - Staff Report
309 Primrose Rd - Attachments #1
309 Primrose Rd - Attachments #2
309 Primrose Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Can public benefit be considered a variance finding? (Kane: public benefit is something that can be
used to support a finding that the use is not injurious, but it can't be the sole reason for approving the
use.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Niels and Sabrina Gabel represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Struggling with the parking situation. The prior use may have needed more parking than the proposed
use. However, the proposed use still seems like an intensification of use. (S. Gabel: the business is really
never that busy. Generally only seeing one patient at a time. Plan to have two therapy rooms and one
office, but may use the office periodically as a therapy room. The fifteen occupancy was an arbitrary
number. Most service delivery is provided one-on-one.)
>Clarified that most patients are children and are dropped off at the site.
>Must find that there is something unique about the property that prevents the parking standard from
being met. The parking situation exists for most buildings in the area. (N. Gabel: not aware of any unique
circumstances. S. Gabel: noted a nearby chiropractor that has a similar situation. Their customers will
likely use Philz Coffee as well.)
>Is there an update on the lead on off -site parking spaces that may be available? (S. Gabel: still
working on this.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The applicant has satisfactorily addressed the variance findings. Have the same situation that other
properties in Downtown have that have been accepted in the past. There is no way to provide additional
parking. The project would not move forward if they had to pay the in -lieu fee. Clients are children that are
dropped off at the site. Have had similar situations with commercial recreation uses in the Rollins Road
area. The cars will not need to be parked at the site, or immediately adjacent; the parents dropping off the
children will likely shop in the Downtown area while waiting for the child. Supports the request.
>Surprised at the concern about the parking. Is a very low impact use on the surroundings.
>There are several public parking lots in the area.
>Additional parking in this instance is only required because it is an intensification of use; another hair
salon could move into the space without needing to provide more parking. Supports the request.
>There is a loading zone in front of the building. Will be a low-impact use.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application.
Discussion of Motion:
>Concerned the the variance will run with the building regardless of the tenant.
Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
f.261 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
to increase the hours of operation and maximum number of persons on site for an
existing fitness gym (Basecamp Fitness). This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section
15301(a). (Dethrone Burlingame LLC, applicant and Hera LLC, property owner) (37
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
261 California Dr - Staff Report
261 California Dr - Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she had had a conversation
with the owner of Christie's.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Is the increase in the number of patrons an intensification of the use from a parking standpoint?
(Hurin: no, parking is based upon the type of use and square footage.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak and Ramon Castillon represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are there any residents that live near the facility? (Hudak: doesn't believe so, but that hasn't been the
origin of any complaints. There may be people living on Hatch Lane. The use is pretty self-contained.)
>How many people are in the morning classes? (Hudak: 5:15 a.m. and 6:15 a.m. classes have up to 44
persons, later classes (e.g. 11 a.m.) more like 30 persons.)
>Why can't the morning class size be capped at 32? (Hudak: there is a demand for the larger classes .
Is better to have the patrons there at that time rather than when other area businesses are open. The
nearby construction project creates a temporary impact upon parking .Can educate the clientele at the
business to not park in front of the nearby restaurant; will do their best to address the concern.)
>Have there ever been any noise complaints from the apartments above the businesses on Lorton?
(Hudak: no, can't hear anything outside of the building.) If amplified sound is used by instructors, then
perhaps that could disturb someone living nearby. (Hudak: feels that the ambient sound will drown out any
sound from the business.)
>Are the rear doors closed during classes? (Castillon: the doors are only opened when they need to get
the laundry. Also noted the presence of a nearby auto body business.)
>There will be another project under construction across the street that will likely prolong impacts from
the construction at 225 California. (Castillon: have been proactive with signage and encouraging patrons to
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
park in other parking lots. Don't want to bother anyone in the area.)
>How many clients walk or take bicycles? Are patrons local? (Castillon: probably around 25% of the
patrons ride bicycles. 80% of patrons are local.)
>Was the code enforcement complaint related to parking? (Hurin: the complaint was related to the
impact on parking available to a nearby business. Kane: noted that noise complaints would be received
by the Police Department, but don't know if complaints have been received.)
>Is the proposed class size limit an arbitrary number? (Castillon: based upon the square footage of the
space.)
>If the population is related to the square footage, is the Commission being asked to exceed the
occupancy load? (Meeker: the Building Division and Fire Department have reviewed the request and had
no comments regarding occupancy. Kane: the occupancy requested was based upon the applicant's
needs. They are never permitted to exceed the occupancy limit established
Public Comments:
Basim Azar, owner of Christie's: have had issues with parking. When he opens the business at 6 a.m.
there is no parking. He has six tenants on Hatch Lane that have complained to him regarding noise. 5
a.m. is too early in the morning for classes. Believes complaints were made to the Police Department .
Should leave the parking in front of Christie's available and park at Parking Lot B.
City Attorney Kane: noted that payment for parking is not required before 8 a.m. The substance of the
complaint received by Code Enforcement was that the business was exceeding the terms of the
conditional use permit; classes earlier than allowed and exceeded the limit on the number of patrons in the
class.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Was there a restriction for the 225 California Drive construction crew park at another location?
(Kane/Meeker: will need to look into that matter. Kane: Public Works oversees issues related to parking
impacts.)
>Would like more information regarding any noise complaints before taking action.
>There is a case to be made for the additional hours. Seems that there needs to be more actions on
the part of the applicant to regulate noise.
>Concerned regarding the increased number of members; could be an impact on the other businesses
open during that time. How is parking being impacted; are the patrons driving to the business? Perhaps
come up with a parking plan.
>Most concerned with the potential for noise early in the morning.
>Is there a way to place more handicapped parking in the area for patrons of the other business?
(Kane: Public Works oversees the restrictions on parking. Can follow -up. However, changes made in one
parking area can be spread out to other areas.)
>Agrees that more information is needed.
>Regardless of the number of patrons at the business, the owner of Christie's has also expressed
concerns regarding noise impacts upon his tenants. Need more information regarding how the extension of
hours in the morning can be managed.
>Perhaps 5 a.m. is too early for the classes to start.
>Must be able to find that the expansion of the use is not injurious to other properties in the vicinity .
Need to address this finding.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue
consideration of the application, with direction to the applicant as noted in the Commission's
discussion.
Discussion of Motion:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Requested clarification regarding whether parking should even be an issue. Can't control
where the patrons park. Problems may be created by other uses. (Kane: the parking required per
code is not an issue. However, parking could be discussed based upon the change in the
number of patrons and whether this is a negative impact upon the neighborhood.)
>Would this still apply if the hours are increased, but not the number of patrons? (Meeker:
under that circumstance parking becomes less of an issue, though noise could still be an issue.
Kane: is still within the Commission's purview to ask the question.)
Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd.,
116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for
Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi
Family Residential, Variance for Rooftop Projection and Density Bonus Incentive for a
New 138-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. (Fore
Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G .
Ohlund Et Al, Doris J. Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP,
architects) (160 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
920 Bayswater- Staff Report 07.10.17
920 Bayswater Ave - Application
920 Bayswater Ave - Env Info Form -CEQA Checklist
920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor ltrs
920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Comments
920 Bayswater Ave - Notice-Aerial
920 Bayswater Ave - Downtown Plan Ch 5 excerpt
920 Bayswater - plans - 07.10.17
920 Bayswater - renderings - 07.10.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Comaroto and Chair Gum met with
the applicant. Vice-Chair Gaul met with owner of Burlingame Garage.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Purpose of the hearing
is for environmental scoping and also design review study. Comments could lead to modifications to the
project which could lead to a second opportunity for scoping and design review study. No action will be
taken this evening. He read the names of individuals submitting written comments prior to the hearing into
the record: Lynn Feeney, Stephanie Sciacero, Dennis Xifaras, Rae Martin, David Davenport, Michael
Zygarewicz, Ellen Florio, Anne Toschi, Lynn Ann Howe, Teri Arbues, Sonja Shevalyov, Kathy Pirone,
Frank and Toni Vasquez, Jerry and Maryanne Hahn, Lina Parness, Jaime Smith, Marsha Jurasin, Tim
Smith, Alexis O'Flaherty, Mary-Helen McMahon, Linda Field, Ashley Kline, Leno Bellomo, Monika and
Ralph Froelich, Timothy Hooker, Gig Xifaras, Nicholas Shevelyov, Pam Baker, Steve Barron, Michael
Nafziger, and David Whiteside.
Questions of Staff:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>When were the parking standards last update? (Meeker: within the last five years as part of the
implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mike Pilarczyk and Dirk Thelen represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Generally discourage vinyl windows; why and is there a particular style? (Pilarczyk: not yet decided.)
Generally see aluminum-clad wood windows or more commercial -type windows; can't indicate a preferred
manufacturer. Referred to the Design Guidelines.
>Are building 179 bedrooms; what is the comparison between that number and the number of
bedrooms being removed? (Pilarczyk: unknown. Can get an analysis.)
>How does the architectural design fit with the fabric of the neighborhood? (Pilarczyk: feels it meets
the design guidelines. Have softened the color pallet based upon neighbor reactions to blend better with
Craftsman architecture.)
>Doesn't have a preference for a particular style of architecture. How is the Craftsman style of
architecture represented in the abstract? (Thelen: have included board siding with application in areas
where there is articulation of the facade. Corner boards are also part of that type of architecture as is the
stucco and fiberboard. Are looking at board and batten elements. Also looked at the color pallet in the
neighborhood and carried that into the project. Have done what they can at this scale to mimic the
adjacent design elements.)
>Requested clarification regarding the variance. (Pilarczyk: the air conditioning condensers themselves
alone rise over the 5% coverage. The elevator tower and stair towers take it up to roughly 7.5%.)
>On a project of this scale, it is more difficult to approve with special considerations; has the developer
looked at ways to eliminate the variance? (Pilarczyk: are looking at other methods for installing the
condensors, but not sure what will exist at the time the project is built.)
>Regarding the tandem parking; will the spaces be assigned? (Pilarczyk: will have a parking
assignment plan for the development. The tandem stalls are geared to the two and three bedroom units.)
>How is this project a buffer from the west side of the project to the residential area neighboring it?
(Pilarczyk: is multi-family use against multi -family use, the rail line also acts as a buffer. Considered the
transition from four to three stories along Bayswater.)
>Did the applicant look at other means of breaking up the height rather than a consistent four story
profile. (Pilarczyk: have not due to the State Density Bonus provisions.)
>Requested clarification regarding access to the roof deck. Does it run fairly close to the neighboring
properties? (Pilarczyk: explained and noted that it is possible that one could see into the neighboring
properties.)
>Was any thought given to including a commercial use? (Pilarczyk: are more than two blocks off of the
main Downtown area, there is not much need in this area.) The Specific Plan encourages commercial
uses.
>Asked if infrastructure analyses are forthcoming? (Pilarczyk: yes.)
>What is the wood-like composite siding? Provide a sample.
>Seems that the trees on the property could be saved; concerned that nearly every tree on the site is
being removed. Would be a nice nod to the neighborhood to save more trees.
>Why is the breakdown of one -bedroom and studio units important? (Pilarczyk: promotes greater
affordability and reduced use of cars. Given the prevalence of car -share services, car ownership is not as
important today to persons who may live in the development. The development is close to CalTrain which
will likely be more heavily used by residents. Are still providing adequate parking.)
>Is there hard data to back up the claim that the studio and one bedroom units will result in less use of
cars? (Pilarczyk: a number of parking demand studies exist to support this claim for Transit -Oriented
Developments.) Should reference that this is a Transit-Oriented Development.
>Is guest parking provided; how many spaces? (Pilarczyk: have 190 parking spaces which includes the
guest parking.)
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>How many below market rate units are provided? (Pilarczyk: thirteen.)
>What are the qualifiying incomes for the affordable units? (Pilarczyk: will research and provide.)
>Has any thought been given to provide art as a public benefit? (Pilarczyk: will review.)
>When performing the traffic analysis, take into consideration the other projects in the Downtown area
that are currently in the pipeline and being constructed.
>Whatever ends up on this property needs to serve as a buffer between the Downtown area and the
residential area.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: presented a petition containing 215 signatures from the neighborhood and Burlingame in
general in opposition to the project. Met with the developer very early with a very similar plan. Is concerned
that all of the trees are being removed. There is another Redwood and a Pepper tree that could be saved .
The applicant implies that since he's doing affordable units he gets four stories; this is not a guarantee of
the Downtown Specific Plan. The design needs a redo.
Linda Field: attended the May community outreach meeting. Strongly opposes this project. The project is
too massive for the neighborhood; it combines too many lots. Believes the number of vehicles that will be
owned by tenants will exceed the supply. Parking is heavily impacted in the neighborhood. The design is a
cookie-cutter version of many other multi -family developments proposed throughout the Peninsula .
Thanked the staff for its assistance.
Juergen Pfaff: the project is too massive for the neighborhood. It does not work with the neighborhood .
Biggest concern is that the increased traffic will severely impact the neighborhood. The transit system in
the area does not function well for serving a development of this sort. Concerned about where traffic will
be directed through the neighborhood.
Laura Hesselgren: Agrees with others' comments regarding the project. Lack the infrastructure to serve
the development. The parking provided is unacceptable. Disagrees that the tenants will use transit; they
will need parking. Bike storage will not likely be used. Will impact the Lyon -Hoag neighborhood. Past
decisions of the City of Burlingame have impacted the neighborhood. Make the project fit into the
neighborhood.
Monica Freolich: represent fourth and fifth generations within the neighborhood. A large -scale rental
development will not result in occupants that have a vested interest in the community, they are transient
residents. Are not opposed to any type of development; just needs to be of a smaller scale that fits better
into the neighborhood, perhaps a two -story design. Desire a concept that will result in long -term residents
that will contribute to the community. Deny or redesign.
Lynn Feeney: referenced 888 San Mateo Drive with 150 units; this project is similar in scale. Should be
brought down to two stories. Seems like development at all cost. Concerned about pass -through traffic in
her neighborhood; pets and pedestrians have been hit.
Susan Houston: lives a block from the development. Too big, but the change in the design still doesn't fit
with the neighborhood. Parking is always a struggle in the neighborhood. Will still not be enough parking
provided with the proposed project.
Rebecca Haseleu: has lived in Burlingame since 1955. This project is too massive for the neighborhood .
Something half the size would be better. Parking and traffic will be issues. Traffic from Burlingame Point
will severely impact on Peninsula Avenue; this project will contribute to the problem.
David Harris: supports everything that's been said so far. With other development that will be built and
currently exists in the area, will create a canyon along Bayswater. Not certain that a project of this size
can be accpeted by the neighborhood.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Betty Norton: was at the neighborhood meeting. Most concerns were about the number of units. Parking
is severely impacted in the area. Studio and one -bedroom apartments will still have people doubling up at
times. Occupants will still have cars. Design the project thoughtfully.
Alec Hui: the project will impact schools; don't know how many people will have children. Doesn't know
where the kids will be put into schools. Parking is occupied by people that work at the dealerships.
Unnamed Speaker: people are very upset about the development. Will likely double or triple the number of
vehicles in the area. Will severely impact the Lyon -Hoag neighborhood. The design would fit well in San
Mateo from a design and scale; doesn't look like Burlingame.
Jimmy Chan: glad to hear all of the feedback. Moved to Burlingame because of the quality of life. There is
a lot of development happening in the area; if he had known this he may not have moved to the area.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Commission has an obligation to consider any project before it. There will be an extensive
environmental evaluation.
>Has serious concerns. The neighborhood is a transitional neighborhood, but not a neighborhood in
transition. The Downtown Specific Plan identifies the area as a transition between Lyon -Hoag and the
Downtown district. The design is not consistent, nor compatible with the neighborhood, nor is it
compatible in mass and scale. Feels that the applicant has misinterpreted the language of the Specific
Plan; the design acts more like a barrier. Are looking for a "graceful" transition between the two areas of
the town. Need to transition from the two and three story buildings within the neighborhood, not just a
token setback of the portion of the structure on Bayswater. Referenced Summerhill's approach to the
transition from the single -family area. Need to revisit the massing. The courtyards are a great addition,
except they may be intrusive and impactful to the neighbors due to the sound; perhaps look at more of a
courtyard type approach to the development with courtyards facing the street; there are only token breaks
in the facade.
>Doesn't see an argument for the variance; should reduce the height of the building to stay within the
limits.
>The courtyards should be redesigned and reconsidered in order to try to save some of the existing
trees, particularly along the perimeter of the buildings.
>Look at providing some community gardens within the courtyard areas.
>The fire lane will be an odd vacancy along the street; caused by the massiveness of the buildings.
>Project has some great merits. Agrees with the neighbors that there are tired, beaten up properties
within the area. Likes the smaller units and the provision of affordable units. Likes the amenities being
provided. Just thinks that the project needs redesign before proceeding with environmental analysis.
>Wants the environmental analysis to compare the density to other developments in the area. What
does medium-density mean?
>Recent parking trends to not match the observations of many Commissioners; would be interested in
seeing studies referenced by the developer.
>The project feels more like an incursion of density into the neighborhood.
>Was surprised when walking the neighborhood that there are some three story buildings. The Specific
Plan encourages respecting the lower one and two story existing residences in the area.
>The design feels like it is bursting at the seams; is maxed -out. Doesn't believe the variance findings
can be made.
>The rooftop deck needs to be oriented more toward the street and away from the adjacent residential
area.
>The project is too massive, not broken up well. Is too modern; could achieve this style in more
traditional ways. Would like to see more landscaping and add more around the outside to make it more
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
pedestrian-oriented.
>The sheer number of units is too large; the parking is sufficient for the number of units though.
>The design sets a new precedent that doesn't fit with the neighborhood. Needs to fit better with the
neighborhood. Perhaps break it into smaller sizes. The variance request is because the project is too
large. A lot of the trees on the site could be saved.
>The units will still not be affordable.
>This is a great area to do some development. However, the project is too massive. Feels that no more
than three stories is appropriate; don't need to maximize the site development. Encouraged doing a
shadow study to see how properties are being impacted.
>Make a 3D rendering from all sides to show how it fits with adjacent properties.
>Doesn't know for sure how this project would impact traffic and parking. Is certain that there is a
housing shortage and things are changing in Burlingame. Need to solve the housing problem somehow .
This project wouldn't solve the problem, but need to address it somehow. Doesn't hate the project; is
agnostic to the style. What does Burlingame get if the project is built; the developer needs to outline the
benefits very clearly.
>There is an artificial articulation in the design that is intended to somehow fit with the surrounding
area, but is not successful in doing so. Will need to break down the large blocks and the heights. Doesn't
like the proposed vinyl windows and wood-like plasic cladding.
>Lets design the project intelligently and thoughtfully. Is a matter of crafting the project in a way that will
fit with the existing neighborhood.
>Could have perhaps fit into the community at another time; there is no desire in the community for a
project of this scale.
>Concerned about school impacts; where will the students go that move into the new projects.
>A buffer is an incompatible thing that protects things from one another.
>Would be great to see some of the trees saved.
No action was required at this time.
b.1029 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached
garage. (NOTICE: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 26, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant
and architect; Sherman Chiu, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1029 Paloma Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
1029 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones recused himself from the discussion of this item because he lives within 500 feet
of the subject property. He left the Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto reported that she had spoken with
the applicant and the neighbor on the left side at 1025 Paloma.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Has the architect seen the neighbor's shadowing plan? Design may impact the neighbor's solar
panels; could impact the exception from declining height envelope. (Chu: No, have not seen shadowing
plan.)
>How tall will the Red Oak get? This may also impact the neighbor's solar panels too. Could the
driveway be flipped?(Chu: Will look into this. If driveway flipped, we will have to deal with the existing street
tree in the front. Existing driveway is on the right side. Neighbor's driveway is on the right. There's
approximately 20 feet proposed between the two properties.)
>Was a single shed dormer considered on the front to de -emphasize the design. (Chu: The property is
zoned R-2 but have proposed a single-family home.)
>Feels the architecture in the neighborhood is a mix that doesn't include many Craftsman -style. Doesn't
fit and is massive for the neighborhood. Is nearly at the maximum FAR, lot coverage, and height. Was any
thought given to how the mass and scale fits with the neighborhood and how the declining height envelope
request could be reduced or eliminated? (Chu: Will look at lowering finished floor elevation and lessening
declining height envelope impact. Similar colonial siding and front porches on the block inspired design.)
>Noted a tree that was removed from the front, right corner; what was the height? (Chu: Eighteen feet
approximately.)
Public Comments:
Mahesh Patki, neighbor at 1025 Paloma: Concerned about the massing of the project. The design is
incompatible with the neighborhood. Most homes have the second floor pushed back. The declining
height envelope encroachment affects his property. Would significantly impact the light and air for his
property. Referenced a shadow study showing how the home would impact his solar panels. The Red Oak
will also impact the solar panels.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The front dormer makes the home look larger than it is.
>Is a little uneasy about requiring significant design changes on adjacent properties to control
shadowing whether or not there are solar panels; not something that we typically do. The impact is very
late in the afternoons; there is likely plenty of sun on the panels most of the time. Encouraged the
designer to work with the neighbor.
>Overall likes the design.
>City Attorney Kane referenced the special permit findings.
>Who prepared the shadow study; a reputable source?
>Have approved special permits for declining height envelope for this type of design before. Merits
further study.
>Look at an alternate design that doesn't include the declining height envelope exception.
>The setback between this property and the neighbor's property is pretty significant and could be a
mitigating circumstance.
>The Bungalow style is a classic-style.
No action was required at this time.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to continue Discussion
Item. Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Regular
Action
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
c.729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
single family dwelling and detached garage (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729
Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report
729 Walnut Ave - Attachments
729 Walnut Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse from participating in the discussion of this item
as she sold the property to the buyer and may be listing it for sale in the future. She left the Council
Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Where are the existing elevations? (Hurin: is a complete demolition, typically existing elevations are
not required.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Courtney Harrison represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was there any desire to keep the large Redwood tree in the rear? (Harrison: to meet the average
setback the tree needed to be removed.) Was a variance request considered? (Hurin: could do so.
Courtney: noted the findings of the arborist report; it leans toward the home.)
>Were any other options to break up the sides of the building? Is two stories on all sides with a broad
eave line. (Harrison: didn't look at a lot of articulation on the sides because they are trying to
accommodate the driveway. Tried to do a couple of interesting things, but were told not to do them. Noted
instances where there are some areas that pop out slightly.)
>What is the purpose of the large area of flat roof? (Harrison: done to accommodate solar panels.) The
large, flat area is not an appropriate design solution for a traditional home; the roof would have peaked at a
greater height. (Harrison: played with plate heights and roof pitches and arrived at this design; felt it was a
good solution.) House has nice detailing, but the house appears too massive.
>Has the same concerns about the vertical feeling of the design. Look at plate heights.
>The chimney appears like a water heater enclosure; perhaps add a chimney that pierces the roofline
and consider a treatment like the other chimney, Clinker Bricks. Could help break up the elevation.
>Design is boxy and vaguely Gothic. The combination of roof pitch and plate heights makes it look
boxy.
>Overall feels like the design will fit within the neighborhood.
>Encouraged trying to save the Redwood tree and addressing the boxy appearance of the design.
Public Comments:
Karen and Bill Crandle, 733 Walnut Avenue: Concerned about the removal of the Redwood tree. Its
removal will have a significant impact upon the character of the neighborhood; it is part of a cluster. Hopes
that the tree can be retained. (Harrison: the tree leans toward the home and affects the foundation of the
existing home.)
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 10, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion:
>Feels the designer has the ability to make appropriate changes without a referral to a design reviewer .
Needs significant attention.
No action was required at this time.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the
Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the
motion carried by the following vote: Regular action.
Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais.
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Meeker noted that the regulations regarding the placement of
mechanical equipment, commercial linkage fees were adopted by the City Council and will become
effective on August 3, 2017. Also, authorization to proceed with a review of hotel parking standards was
given.
a.1417 Vancouver Avenue - FYI for as -built changes to a previously approved Design
Review application.
1417 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum & AttachmentsAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones pulled the item for a future public hearing and expressed concerns about the
glass railing, elimination of the arched opening details and the vents, the color of the garage doors, and
the garage structure appears taller than what was approved. Commissioner Gaul noted that he would
recuse himself on this item as he was the original designer.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:29 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 July 10, 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 July 17, 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.
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 16City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017