HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.11.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 13, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner,
Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Comaroto was not present at roll call but was expected to arrive later in the meeting,
Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent5 -
Gaul, and TerronesAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, and Kelly3 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
a.October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 11, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 23, 2017 Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 8f (300 Airport Boulevard) has been continued to the November 27th meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: Lives next door to a proposed 5-story condominium with two levels of
parking at 556 El Camino Real. Area is a moderate liquefaction earthquake zone and flood zone .
Underground garages in the area have flooded. How will a metal parking system work in water? Proposed
vegetable garden, but garden at 524 El Camino Real was decimated by deer. 550 El Camino Real and 530
El Camino Real are pretty and 3 stories, units are beautiful. Condo owners pay more property taxes than
longtime homeowners, volunteer in the community. Wants attention and protection of property. Too
ambitious for the lot, too risky, too much at stake.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and
Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. (Craig Ranier
Gadduang, applicant; Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699
Bayshore LLC, property owner) (17 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Confirming, a variance goes with the property not with just with the project? (Gardiner: Yes, but it can
be specific to the type of business .)(Kane: While it cannot be specific to a particular entity or person, it
can be attached to a particular use category such as commercial recreation. A different commercial
recreation use could come in and assume the variance that runs with the land. The variance is judged on
the category of use and its impact on the community.)
>Can staff elaborate on the nature of the code enforcement complaint and where it originated?
(Gardiner: It was related to a report that the space was occupied without obtaining a Conditional Use
Permit. Operator was cooperative upon learning of the requirements to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.)
>Did any of the complaint have to do with parking? (Gardiner: Not aware that it included a parking
complaint. The inquiry was more general, related to whether the use was permitted .)(Kane: The business
was originally at a another location, and was looking for a more suitable location.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is this the same ownership that was at 384 Beach Road? (Gadduang: Yes, worked with Code
Enforcement officers to find a suitable space once notified of zoning. Low inventory and high costs in
Burlingame made it challenging to find a space. Provided regular monthly updates to Code Enforcement
staff.)
>Was the business aware of the zoning process beforehand? (Gadduang: In first location thought it
was an acceptable use as a service -based business. Upon learning this, worked with Code Enforcement
and Economic Development staff on finding a new location. As lease expired at 384 Beach Road, looked
for a temporary location but had difficulty finding a space. After finding a space, there was delay in
submitting the application as the architectural submittal was put together.)
>What is the justification for the Variance? There needs to be something unique about this property to
justify the variance. Not comfortable with the overflow parking being a justification for a variance. The
justification for the variance in the application needs more work.
>How is the business able to operate currently without obtaining a CUP? (Gardiner: In code
enforcement matters the City tries to be patient and cooperative with uses that are trying to come into
compliance. The operator was cooperative with submitting a CUP application in a timely fashion, and it
was determined there is not a life safety issue. If the operator was not cooperative, there would be
enforcement.)(Gadduang : Chose to move to this location since it has the potential for a CUP, whereas the
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
prior location on Beach Road did not have that potential.)
Public Comments:
Eric Schlenzinger: Found Marvelous Performance two years ago. A desire to build a sense of community
around cross fit. Supportive environment, forging a sense of community.
Jeremy Bender: Entire family belongs to Marvelous, it is a big part of their lives, second only to the school
system in creating a sense of community.
Store Manager of Lululemon Athletica, Burlingame Avenue: Has worked with Marvelous's instructors and
members for several years. Marvelous stands for community, camaraderie, and best -in-class instruction .
Real change and progress only come about as a result of consistent good work.
Ashley Mason: Marvelous gives back to the community. Has developed the "box in the box" to collect and
donate clothing for LifeMoves in San Mateo and Veterans Affairs in Menlo Park, has been very effective .
Gives back to the community in ways that are not immediately obvious.
Joaquin Bautista: Coach at Marvelous Performance, works each day in San Francisco then goes and
coaches at Marvelous. Lots of camaraderie. Part of a community, would like to be allowed stay.
Antonio Landgrave: From Los Angeles, moved to Northern California alone and did not know anybody .
Was overweight trying to better himself, has now lost weight and become healthy. The members have
allowed him to become a better person, and better in his community. These kinds of niches and
institutions in the community make the world a lot better.
Ranier Gadduang: Has 43 additional letters from members to submit to the commission.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Appears to be a beneficial use in this area. Applicant says it is enriching the area - would be helpful
to solicit letters of support from other businesses that share the block of commercial space.
Chair Gum re-opened the public hearing to allow an additional question from the commission:
>How many people are on the site on a typical day? (Gadduang: Runs on a class basis, with 60-minute
classes at 5 am, 6 am and noon, and 5 pm, 6 pm and 7 pm. Class sizes are limited, anywhere from 10-20
people.)
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Since this is a Study Item, there was no action from the Planning Commission. The item will return on the
Regular Action Calendar.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly4 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e) (2). (J
Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Salima Fassil, property owner) (48 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
472 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report
472 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments
472 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Terry and
Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect )
(56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report
125 Crescent Ave - Attachments
125 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>What is the allowable fence height without a fence height exception? (Gardiner: 6 feet plus 1 foot of
lattice.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Page A1 note 3 says the fence will be 7 feet high with one foot of lattice. Needs to be 6 feet high with
1 foot lattice. (Pearcy: That was what was meant. It is an existing fence and is 7 feet total including 1 foot
of lattice.)
>Was the garage revisited? (Pearcy: Thinks has designed a neighbor -friendly garage. Set back 2 feet
from the property line, 8 foot plate height, ridge is below maximum, lower ridge for first 6 feet, and screen
trees. There are also three mature trees on the neighbor's property which do a nice job of screening. But
has not made changes since the last submittal.)
>What is the height of the garage? (Pearcy: 14'-8" upper ridge height.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the changes very much.
>Garage pattern meets the pattern of the neighborhood. Is similar to other projects that have been
approved. The garage pattern could be pulled from the pages of the design guidelines as an example of
what is encouraged in the community.
>The window added to the north driveway elevation makes all the difference.
>Likes the changes to the main house, but wished there was a way to lower the height of the garage .
Did not see too many 14'-8" or 14'-9" garage heights in the neighborhood, most are one -car garages in the
10-12-foot range.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
Nay:Gum1 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
b.1341 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This
project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Victory
Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1341 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report
1341 Vancouver Ave - Attachments
1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project 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.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions of the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion:
>Nice project. The changes are an improvement, and though still a little awkward it's approvable.
>Much improved by the changes, does not feel like a layer cake anymore. No longer has the extensive
metal roof.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly4 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
c.521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Patrick R.
Gilson, applicant and property owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (56 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
521 Burlingame Ave - received after documents
521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the study
meeting but watched the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. She noted five letters received after the
distribution of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
John Stewart, Stewart Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>With the stucco pattern under the eaves, what happens at the corner? (Stewart: It angles out 4-6
inches.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the addition of the porch. Much more inviting.
>Nicely crafted project. Changes that were made are very good, especially the front porch.
>Fits well into the neighborhood. The mediterranean style is consistent with several homes with the
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
same character. Fits within the declining height envelope and the setbacks, and the plate height has been
reduced. Interfaces well and respects its neighbors.
>Appreciates that the plate height was reduced on the second floor. While there are some tall homes in
the neighborhood, the majority are pretty diminutive and many single story with 8- or 9-foot plate heights .
Does not think the higher first floor plate height will fit into the neighborhood.
>Believes the reduction of the upper floor and the addition of the arches on the ground floor change the
proportions significantly. It looks like a much smaller house than before. The proportions look good.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
d.1304 Mills 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren
Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report
1304 Mills Ave - Attachments
1304 Mills Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project 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.
Melina Copass represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions of the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Changes are good. Much improved over the initial application. Considerably less boxy.
>Stair window is an improvement but the belly band does not seem to engage the stair window very
well. It's minor but it's a missed opportunity. Could look at where the belly band hits the vertical trim.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Side elevations are much improved.
>Front door is odd in how it's offset from the stairs and the railings, but that's how it is now.
>Fits the required design review criteria.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly4 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
e.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit
for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex
residential units on two separate lots. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner )
(70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the average front setback? (Grange: 34'-11" based on how the Planning Division calculates
it.)
>Sheet A1.1 the setbacks are shown as both 15 feet and 20 feet. (Grange: 15 feet to the first floor and
20 feet to the second floor.)
Public Comments:
Martin Alexander, 1020 Capuchino Avenue: Huge shortage of street parking in the neighborhood. Large
amount of workers and patrons from the Broadway district parking on the block. Project won't work in the
space on the block. County Clerk item 2014-067-626 memorandum of option in lieu of owner's death within
90 days. One year after agreement was signed, the Littles applied for a financial need grant and accepted
thousands of dollars of grants to improve the property. Intensive work was conducted on the property.
Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: Capuchino has not been widened, and there is a lot of parking on the
street. When there is a high row of hedges too close to the street it affects the driveway. Hard for a car to
open up its door, and is restrictive and not attractive on the street. Would like to see the hedge taken
back 30 or 50 feet so it is easier to park.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Roberta Alexander: These are McMansions, are they allowed? The duplexes are so disparate in looks, do
not fit side by side.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>For each project the commission looks at the fabric of the neighborhood and how the proposed
design fits into the neighborhood, and how it complies with the design guidelines. These fit into the
neighborhood and are true to the design guidelines.
>Commission also needs to look at zoning issues such as variances, and what is unique about the lot
to justify the variance. 10-foot culvert running through the middle of the project is unique, so can make the
findings for the variance.
>Very unique lot.
>Changes to the long elevations are good, especially the 1025 Capuchino elevation. One will be hard
pressed to see the length down the driveway. From the front the buildings appear to be relatively small
houses. Massing works well.
>Buildings would fit into the neighborhood, are well-crafted.
>Both projects are architecturally diverse in materials and layouts. They complement each other, and
will complement the entire street.
>Likes how they look from the front, that they fit into the neighborhood and have good interface with the
neighbors. But concerned with what they will do to the neighborhood. Increase in parking. From any other
angle they do not fit with the look and architecture of the other homes in the neighborhood. Most of the
other homes are single story or split level, and on the duplexes the front unit can be distinguished from the
back. Massive building for this neighborhood. Would forego the parking issues if the building was more
compatible with the neighborhood. More like apartment massing.
>The community would not have as much of a parking problem if cars were parked in the garages. In
this instance there is overflow parking from Broadway.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly3 -
Nay:Gum1 -
Absent:Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto3 -
f.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review
approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment
Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (This item has been continued to the November 27, 2017
meeting)
Continued to the November 27th agenda at the request of the applicant.
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.133 Pepper Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
basement, first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling with a
detached garage and a Conditional Use Permit for an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit
(Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jennifer Colvin Trust, property
owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
133 Pepper Ave - Staff Report
133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 1
133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 2
133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 3
133 Pepper Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
133 Pepper Ave - Rendering - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant, with property owners Eric Klein and Jennifer
Colvin.
Commissioner Comaroto entered the meeting.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was there consideration of a modern interpretation of a tudor design, such as with a steeper pitched
roof? (Grange: Considered it initially, but it would be harder to distinguish it from the original. Would have
to water it down to meet the Secretary of the Interior standards, for example not having half timbering .
Examples in European cities where new modern additions are attached to old buildings. The addition is not
really part of the neighborhood, since it is tucked away and hidden.)
>There was another example in Burlingame with a shingle -style house, and the addition had only very
subtle changes in the shingle pattern. It does not seem that the difference needs to be drastic. (Grange:
That is an approach, this is another approach. It's a design preference and an aesthetic.)
>If utilizing a modern design approach, would encourage looking at working with traditional forms
further. Seems like it would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
>In other projects the argument that nobody will see it from the street has not been considered
sufficient by the commission. The clash seems too great with both the existing house and the
neighborhood.
>Why are eucalyptus trees being removed? (Grange: They are not native, they shed, and they are a
fire hazard. They would be replaced with new trees. The landscape architect says they need to be
removed, and the City Arborist is in agreement.)
>Is there an arborist report? (Grange: Yes.)
>What will the replacements trees be at the front of the property? (Grange: Will check with the
landscape architect when the project returns.)
>If replacing eucalyptus trees, would expect to see large replacement trees.
>The narrative describes something different than the visual, in terms of architectural style. Seems
anachronistic - out of place and time. Was there a thought to make the front view more in keeping with the
tudor style, and have the back be more modern? (Grange: Pursued those avenues early on, but this was
most exciting to the owners.)
>Seven trees are proposed to be removed. Any chance to save some of them? (Eric Kline and Jennifer
Colvin. Kline: It has been a big concern. There is a 100-year old redwood in the back is being preserved,
but the eucalyptus trees are not healthy. One had to be nearly completely removed, and the arborist report
identifies two others that are in bad condition. The others trees to be removed are not mature; they are
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
bushes that have grown to the size of trees .)(Colvin: Concern with the safety of the eucalyptus trees .
Intent is to replace them with other large trees to have the same look and feel from the street, but address
the safety issue.)(Kline: Had evaluated mirroring more of the tudor image on the modern wing, but it did
not look right. It would take away from the original building. As proposed it would be a very environmental
addition with living roofs and green components such as the heating system, the water catchment system,
and solar. Could be a zero-emission building.)
Public Comments:
Tim (no last name provided): Does not seem to fit correctly. As an analogy, thinks of the original building
as a trusted favorite coffee cup, then cut in half and glued to a Starbucks cup. Looks like a combination
of the two, and doesn't fit quite right.
Martin Alexander: Project has been described as a little addition. Does not like to see someone change
the character of Burlingame for financial gain.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Does not think the project fits into the neighborhood. Would like to see a more traditional addition that
fits better with the original home.
>Concerned with the compatibility with the neighborhood.
>Finds the applicant's argument about moving the original house compelling.
>Likes the addition. The commission approved a modern addition on another house nearby, and this is
a better piece of modern architecture than that one was. This is a classic approach seen across the world
to adding onto historic structures. It is a delicate addition to the building.
>Akin to living in a traditional home but driving a contemporary car. Would not expect to have an
historic car sitting in front of the historic house. Modern architecture is not as dramatically transformative
as people tend to think.
>Design guidelines are specific about example houses in the neighborhood. Outliers are meant to be
discounted, if not disregarded.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to have the item
return on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Terrones2 -
b.1465 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC- Application for Commercial Deign Review and
Conditional Use Permit for a new full service restaurant. (Josh Stumpf, Chef & The
Butcher, applicant; William Duff Architects, architect; Mengshi Shen, property owner) (30
noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1465 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report and Attachments
1465 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Does Bay Area Air Quality Management District get involved with smokers? (Keylon: They will as part
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
of the permit through the health department. Prior to issuing a building permit, the Building Division will
require approvals from any outside agencies to be provided showing justification of approval for County
Health. The equipment will have some type of rating for compliance.)
>Is it conceivable the Planning Commission could approve the project but then would not be allowed to
install the smokers? (Keylon: This came up with another restaurant a year or so ago with the same issue .
This has been discussed with the applicant and they are working with the manufacturer of the smokers.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Chris Telles, William Duff Architects, represented the applicant, with business owner Josh Stumpf.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions of the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Great-looking project.
>It will be a great addition to the neighborhood.
>Are signs under the purview of the Planning Commission? (Gardiner: No, sign permits are issued
administratively. Anything shown on the plans is for illustrative purposes only; the permit will be processed
by staff.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to Place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul, and Terrones2 -
c.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Design Review Study for a new four -story, 26-Unit live/work development with retail
commercial space on the ground floor, which requires applications for Commercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and
Lot Merger (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property
owner) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
619-625 California Dr - Staff Report
619-625 California Dr - Attachments
619-625 California Dr - Plans - 11.13.17
619-625 California Dr - Rendering 1
619-625 California Dr - Rendering 2
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had a discussion with the
applicant regarding the project, and Commissioner Sargent met with the applicant regarding the project.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ellis Schoichet, EASA Architecture, and John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose, represented the applicant
with property owner Ed Duffy.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the entire project clad with Trespa panels? (Schoichet: Yes, using a palette of six colors .
Board-form concrete for the planter areas and some of the walls in the rear.) Exposed or hidden fasteners?
(Schoichet: All hidden fasteners. It is a rainscreen with all concealed fasteners.)
>What is the detail between the brownish wood -like Trepa panel and the white band? (Schoichet: Has
not been detailed yet.) Concerned the texture will be flat, not with the depth implied by the renderings. It is
graphic in nature. (Schoichet: Intent is to give a punched opening look. In some areas there will be a full
panel return to achieve the depth wanted to be achieved.)
>Likes the generous setback of the fourth floor on the front, making it look like a three -story building .
Any ways to not have the front corner appear four stories? (Schoichet: A lot of effort to was taken so it
would not look like a tower. The elevator is hidden back inside to keep it low as possible, and the stair is
pushed back past the third floor. The horizontal bands from the rest of the building have been tied in and
are intended to make it look less vertical.)
>Could residents park in the retail spaces? (Schoichet: Parking would be reserved for retail spaces
during business hours. Could share after hours.)
>How would deliveries be handled? (Schoichet: Curb space is increased since existing curb cuts are
being eliminated. Could suggest some green or yellow or white delivery spaces.)
>Are the stackers exactly the same as anything going into Burlingame currently? (Schoichet: Owner
has used them previously, and has chosen the largest profile available. The owner has them installed at a
building at 2299 Market Street in San Francisco. Will contact the manufacturer representative to identify a
location with the same specifications as is proposed here.)
>What is the depth of how far the parking goes down? (Schoichet: The pits go down 7 feet.)
>Do the windows on the back look into any windows on the adjacent property? (Schoichet: Eight of the
units in the adjacent building face this way, and of those six have their primary windows facing this way. It
is not a unique condition in Burlingame to have side yards lined up like this. Has set the windows back,
articulated them with a different kind of color so it not as visually intrusive, included sun shared, and
stepped the building back to mitigate.)
>Could there be more vegetation between the buildings? (Schoichet: Restricted by area needed for the
the stormwater treatment. Cannot put large trees in the same area where water is being treated .)(Tom
Conroy, Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group: Needs to capture 50% of the roof area in bioretention filters. The
retention planters are 18-inch in depth and fully lined. Not enough soil profile for big deep -rooted trees.
Has carved out a few areas for smaller trees, and long linear planter of bamboo that should grow 20-22
feet tall. It will be a filtered tall screen punctuated by pockets of smaller trees .)(Schoichet: In discussions
with neighbors some said they did not want too much tree canopy that would block light either.)
Public Comments:
Bobbi Benson: In favor of the project. People want to live downtown or close to it. There need to be more
spaces close to the center of the city. Bamboo can be very invasive - could substitute a fence with a
trellis on top. Likes how opening to the parking is set back from California Drive. This is a good place to
put a building with this height; likes how it is cantilevered. Hopes the panels will be able to hold up over
the years.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Diane Shonwald, 1209 Oak Grove Avenue: Represents the owners and residents of the building .
Appreciates adding the parking spaces, but not as happy the height has increased. The driveway will be
difficult, as it is at 1209 Oak Grove Avenue, particularly when the schools lets out. Eight units will now
have views looking directly into other windows and their living quarters, rather than the existing trees .
Thinks building is too big.
Jennifer Pfaff: Proposal is bombastic. While there is not a distinct style on California Drive, it does not
mean it is an open door not to do good projects. The design does not need to be traditional, and there is
nothing wrong with the use, but this does not have a sense of place, no warmth and is too sleek. Should
be reduced in size so there is room for some respectably sized trees between the buildings. The panels
are so cold, what about wood or wood -like material rather than metal composite? There is very little of
interest for pedestrians, just small cut -outs on the California Drive side, but the cutouts could be five feet
with enough room for sculpture or landscaping.
Mary Jane Cerelli: Project seems out of place for the location. Does not seem to take dynamics of the
location into account. Does not see how the location close to the train tracks, high school and bus stop
factors into the design. Oak Grove Avenue is busy all the time, such as Wednesday between 8 and 9.
There will be problems with the location of the driveway. Parking is not adequate for the number of units,
there will be spillover into the neighborhoods. This is a major pedestrian corridor with the schools,
dangerous with location of the driveway.
Laura Hesselgren: Residents will never get out of the commercial parking spaces, unless there is a
separate area for commercial.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Will the excavation of the parking stalls be evaluated? (Gardiner: Engineering and Building will review
as part of the building permit.)
>Can below market rate housing be discussed? (Gardiner: Regulations are not required to provide
affordable units unless a density bonus concession has been requested.)
>Pleased to see the ground floor commercial spaces. Great opportunity for this corner with all the foot
traffic.
>Design is progressing, fits with the adjacent building.
>Good opportunity to make a mark on the California side to add an element to jazz it up for the
pedestrians walking by. Seems plain with regards to pedestrians.
>Likes the project, and this is the appropriate place for a building like this. Traffic will be considered in
the environmental review.
>Ground floor retail is the right thing to do.
>Concerned with the use of the Trespa and how the project presents itself. Feel cold and very sheer .
Presents itself as a traditional modern building with horizontal banding at the floorlines, which would
ordinarily imply a concrete frame, but instead they are just Trespa panels. Could end up looking like a
caricature of a building, "cartoonish." If it were not all Trespa panels it would be moving in the right
direction.
>Fills entire site, feels a bit big and massive. Could consider eliminating two units on the back and add
a green roof.
>There is no good solution to the Oak Grove /California intersection, but it is not reasonable to move
the entrance to California either. Not everyone will leave at the same time, particularly with the units as
live/work.
>Likes the setback in the front.
>Suggested brick previously - doesn't need to be brick necessarily, but wants something warmer.
>Would like more consideration to the rear facade to help the interface with the adjacent building .
Perhaps screening or pushing a wall back to create a deck with a solid railing.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Explore an art feature or something on California Drive to make it more interesting and break it up.
>Struggling how the height of the building fits in, since there are no 4-story buildings in the
neighborhood.
>The material does not fit with the neighborhood.
>Other apartments in the area have courtyards and outdoor open spaces with greenery. Would be more
marketable and fit in better with the neighborhood with more greenery and open space.
>Concerned with the traffic, and the numbers of cars versus parking spaces with units having two cars .
Expects people won't use the spaces in the garage, they will prefer to park on the street.
>Would suggest considering the possibility of a pass -through driveway entering from Oak Grove and
exiting on California?
There was no action, as the environmental review requires the application to return on the Regular Action
item.
d.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, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-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 Ave - Staff Report
920 Bayswater Ave - 7.10.17 Minutes - Response letter of changes
920 Bayswater Ave - Application Materials
920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments
920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Ltrs from 7.10.17 mtg
920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Ltrs for 11.13.17 mtg
920 Bayswater Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Can the commission request an increase in affordable units? (Keylon: The affordable units are based
on the state density bonus regulations. While a request can be made, it cannot be a requirement beyond
what is provided in the regulations.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Mark Pilarczyk, Fore Property Company, represented the applicant, with Derk Thelen, Withee Malcolm
Architects.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions to the applicant.
Public Comments:
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Jennifer Pfaff: Concern in the neighborhood with the density of the project, but the numbers of units has
been reduced and the developer has been responsive to neighbor comments. The neighborhood needs
traffic calming, not just from this project but from everything else coming forward, and there needs to be
traffic studies for the project. Some of the gables look like they are hanging - needs posts on both sides
of the gables, or the entire porch needs to wrap around the corners, or recess the extra post. Also the
shed roofs under the small gables are off center or not terminating at the right places.
Susan Houston, 821 Bayswater Avenue: Looks a lot better than last time. Still too big. Parking in the area
is a struggle, people from other apartment buildings park on the street. Not adequate parking for this
many units.
Bobbi Benson: Would like head -in parking for guests. Would like to see the roof deck eliminated
completely so there cannot be parties and noise on the roof at night. Suggests more setbacks on the
side, and for peace and privacy would prefer solid balcony walls where the two buildings are close together
facing each other.
Monika Froehlich: Applicant has done a great job in incorporating concerns of the neighbors. Traffic and
parking will still be an issue, needs to have a traffic calming study done. Bayswater and Bloomfield are
like highways, not like a neighborhood. Concern project will add more congestion, traffic problems, and
parking problems.
Mary, Bayswater Avenue: This version is much better than the first one, but still concerned with the size
of the project. Myrtle and Bayswater is not a commercial area like California Drive or Peninsula Avenue
where there is a lot of traffic. This area is residential. Even half as big would be too large for this area .
Merging properties together creates a massive building. Myrtle and Bayswater are walking streets.
Laura Hesselgren: Originally opposed to project. Still concerned with the scope and density, but developer
worked with neighbor concerns and took suggestions into consideration. Doesn't want large apartment
complex in the neighborhood but developer has taken the time to break it up and try to make it fit in the
neighborhood. Still concerned with traffic and parking - lots of traffic at Dwight and Bayswater on busy
mornings. Plus Peninsula overpass and downtown construction, needs traffic calming in the neighborhood.
Tony: Chose this part of Downtown because it is flat and can walk. Neighbors have young children .
Concern with how to facilitate a building this size in the schools. Most people use Dwight Way to access
Peninsula Avenue and the highway. Where will people go when they go onto the highway - across to
California Drive and back around, or up Bayswater? Nothing in this area this size. 128 units is too many,
by a few factors.
Gilbert Cappellini: Myrtle Road has parking problems. During the day auto mechanics and auto body
businesses use spaces, traffic will be a problem. Concern with safety.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Vastly improved since first iteration.
>Reduced in size and while not to extent neighborhood would like, some great concessions have been
made.
>Rooftop deck will be a valuable amenity for people living there, and noise issues after hours are a
police matter. It is appropriate that it has been moved to the Myrtle side.
>Would like more green space in the middle of the project if possible.
>Would like more space on the Bayswater side so it is not so close to the adjacent property.
>Architectural details in the roofline.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Agrees with suggestion of having solid walls on the balconies, especially those close to the other
units on Bayswater.
>Not sure about the windows.
>Believes there is only one electric charging station. Would like more stations.
>Wants tree protection measures for the existing trees to remain so they are not damaged.
>Suggests permit parking for the area, with permits for residents. (Kane: Members of the neighborhood
can bring a request to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. It requires the concurrence of a
super-majority of people in the area.)
>Outreach to the community has been very impressive.
>Still does not think it is the right scale and scope for the location.
>School enrollment concerns.
>Four stories does not fit this neighborhood; there are only a handful of four -story buildings in the area .
Most in neighborhood are two and three story.
>Concerned there is not enough parking, would expect 200 spaces.
>Concerned with the scale of the lot consolidation. Seven lots with space and air between them,
combined into one.
>Would be helpful to have the environmental review to bring some science and metrics.
>Shares concerns with the size but also understands the need for housing in the city. The City is
expensive, business owners can't find people to work here, and people have to drive from far away to get
to jobs here.
>Refreshing to hear that the applicant has reached out to neighbors as much as they have, and tried to
incorporate their concerns.
>There are quite a few three story buildings in the area, and designers have done a great job making
the four-story building blend in with the three-story neighbors.
>Concerned with the window style, they still look contemporary in a craftsman -styled building. Would
like more information on the sound ratings next time.
>Does not seem like craftsman or bungalow. First version was "over the top," but this is an
overreaction. While it is good to obtain lots of input, still needs to be a coherent and compelling project .
Acquiescing to a style but not holding to a strong vision.
>Floating gables need to be addressed, as well as columns and wrap-around porches.
There was no action, as the environmental review requires the application to return on the Regular Action
item.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
No commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1411 De Soto Ave - Review of requested revisions by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
1411 De Soto Ave - Memorandum
1411 De Soto Ave - Plans - 11.13.17
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017
November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on November 13, 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 November 27, 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 18City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2017