Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.12.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 11, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Abstains Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the minutes of November 13, 2017. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Abstain:Gaul, and Terrones2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Constance Quirk, 605 Lexington Way: expressed concern regarding noise from the pile driving at Burlingame Point. Neighbors disappointed nothing has been done to mitigate noise from the pile driving . The work is anticipated to end by mid -January. The City regulates loud music and leaf blowers but not this kind of noise. Suggestions have been made on NextDoor. Is concerned for the hotels, offices in the area . Something this large should have included residents in the discussion regarding noise mitigation . Technology exists to mitigate the noise. Did not mitigate the noise during the planning process. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2018 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2018 Planning Commission Memorandum 2018 Planning Commission Schedule 2018 City Council Calendar - Draft Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve The Commission's Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.1122 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for One-Year Extension for a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two -story single family dwelling with Special Permit for a basement with a 9-foot ceiling height and Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Greg Beall, applicant and property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report.pdf 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments.pdf 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 12.11.17.pdf Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Item 7b (1122 Cabrillo Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Kelly1 - c.2115 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Right Side Setback Variance for a major renovation, first and second story addition and modifications to existing detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect; Christopher and Tracey Papazian, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Attachments 2115 Roosevelt - Renderings 2115 Roosevelt - Revised elevations 12.11.17 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7c (2115 Roosevelt Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - d.1465 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC- Application for Commercial Design Review and Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Conditional Use Permit for a new full service restaurant. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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 1465 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1465 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7d (1465 Burlingame Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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 CEQA (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jennifer Colvin Trust, property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 133 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 133 Pepper Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 2 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 3 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: >How substantial will the fascia detail trim piece be on the addition? (Grange: Very minimal. There will be the shingles and a small trim board.) >Confirming that the screening in the front will be from vegetation, and that the new stucco wall will be low? (Grange: The screening will be from the vegetation, not the height of the wall.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The difference with the added gable roof is subtle but significant. >There are different interpretations of the Secretary of Interior standards. Wants to make sure there is conversation/dialog between the existing and the new addition, and still be good architecture. This achieves that. >The front piece has a "pavilion" quality, and a "bookend" feel to the rear elevation. >No issue with relocating the structure - the significance of the historic structure is architecture of the structure, not the specific location or position on the property. >Likes the offset view into the property. Makes a nice transition. >The changes that have been made are exquisite. >Blends well but with the dichotomy that works well together. >Some concerns with the Page & Turnbull positions as it relates to the project. >Consistent with the commission's approach to modern architecture in traditional neighborhoods. >Does not see the landscape trees as hiding the addition - they provide a delightful transition in how one experiences the house and addition on the property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Gum1 - b.1333 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (fitness). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Shane, BBC Inc., applicant; Shawn Anderson, MSA Architecture + Design, architect; Michael C. and Athia M. Giotinis TRS, property owner ) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1333 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1333 Howard Ave - Attachments 1333 Howard Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with the exterior architect. 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 represented the applicant, with architect Mark Bucciarelli. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is the darker material sample the preferred choice? (Bucciarelli: Yes.) >How far back from the exterior facade is the supporting frame? (Bucciarelli: About a foot.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Changes are nice. They tidy the facade up. >Substitution of the metal panels and elimination of the protruding wing walls simplifies the facade . Facade is sophisticated with being able to see through to the frame behind, has some depth. >Conditional Use Permit is easily justified based on past decisions of the commission. No detriment for this use versus prior uses in the building under its most recent iterations. >Nice clean facade and the applicant has made a good argument for the 9-foot entry doors. Commissioner Terrones 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 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.821 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technoogy, Inc, designer; Craig Mercer and Gina Corsetti, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 821 Maple Ave - Staff Report 821 Maple Ave - Attachments 821 Maple Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Chair Gum was recused because he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. 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. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stauchniuk, KWS United Technology, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the small door on the right -side elevation an access door? It does not have the same type of siding finish that the rest of the house has so stands out starkly. Can something be done such as continuing the siding on the access door? (Stauchniuk: It is the access to the small basement and utlity room. Proposes Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to keep it the same with the new trim around it. Will wrap the trim all the way around the door.) >The new vents on the right and left side elevations at the top of the first floor seem off center from the peak of the roof. (Stauchniuk: Drawing error, should be centered.) >Is Hardie Shake a cementitious shake, like Hardie Plank with a wood texture? (Stauchniuk: Yes, it is a composite cementitious material and can be either smooth or textured.) >Does it require corner boards? (Stauchniuk: Customer does not want corner boards. The shingle needs to be to be mitered. It is a difficult installation but it is possible. Originally had the corner boards on the design but the customer requested they be removed.) >Was real wood shake considered? (Stauchniuk: Preference is to use the Hardie product. It works for years to come and less maintenance.) >What windows are specified? (Stauchniuk: Anderson E-Series aluminum-clad with the metal muntins inside.) The plans should note that the windows have simulated true divided lites. >Where is the basement on the plans? (Stauchniuk: Pages A1.0 2 of 7 and 3 of 7. Only the outline is shown, not the floorplan.) Should it be shown on the plans for potential impact on Floor Area Ratio? (Hurin: If it's a utility basement without a full stairway, it can just be shown with a dotted line. It should be clearly labeled as a utility basement. Up to 100 sq ft can be exempt from FAR.) >On the front porch there is a 6 x 8 Hardie beam and a 10-inch square post. Are these structural members that are wrapped in Hardie? (Stauchniuk: It is wrapped and is not structural.) Will those be mitered or butt joints? (Stauchniuk: Probably both.) Details should be decided now so there is not a problem later on. >Wants to see a sample of the siding material and trim material. Encourages consideration of cedar wood shingles - can get them already pre -dipped in paint several times, and they are maintenance -free and last a long time. They are much easier to install and have a good look. >Existing fascia boards are shown on the plans as 1 x 8, but in the field they look like they are a 2 or 1 1/2 inch finish thickness. If Hardie is mixed with wood, there will be a significant observable difference . Encourages the details to be in wood rather than Hardie; the posts would be nice and simple if they were something like a knotty cedar 10 x 10, just stained and only needing maintenance every couple of years with a sealer. >There are some knee braces /corbels on the front porch, but not anywhere else on the house. Would be a nice detail to have some knee braces under the eaves at the gable ends. Would add a lot to the detailing of the house at some of the other bays, to tie the design together. Would encourage those to be in wood. (Stauchniuk: The corbels will be wood.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely, but the details are a bit lacking. >Repeating the corbel details on the long side elevations will help. >Project would be better served with the wood products available. Concerned with the execution, running into problems and having to default to corner boards and added trims. It could be a nicely shingled house, but could fall apart with the details. >The cementitious material feels like plastic rather than wood. The massing is handled well and is nicely sculpted, but concerned it will not look as good when it is built because of the materials. >Wants to make sure the new projects fit with the existing neighborhoods, and the traditional homes in the neighborhoods. Traditional homes are characterized by wood products. >Windows in the existing first floor that are not on the front facade would be allowed with a new addition because the grids are only between the glass panels. Important that the new windows are clearly specified on the plans. >If using the cementitious product, wants to see a physical sample or a local application. The cementious shingles have been prone to break or snap, and they are difficult to replace or repair. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Gum1 - b.1455 Cortez Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Art Lierman, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1455 Cortez Ave - Staff Reports and Attachments 1455 Cortez Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. 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: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant, with property owner Arthur Lierman. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the new dormer on the front create any light below? (Geurse: No, it is just a pseudo dormer to break up the roofline and tie into the existing house.) >Is the fireplace woodburning, and if so does the chimney need to be altered? (Geurse: It's a gas fireplace.) >Have the neighbors seen the proposed addition and the rear deck? (Geurse: No.) The uphill neighbor may not have an issue, and for the neighbor on the downside the deck is shifted over and shielded by the wall of the bedroom. It's not a large deck and it's off of a master bedroom rather than a public space, but should check with neighbors. >Will it be possible to cricket at the wing walls, and with the roof tiles? (Geurse: Yes. There will be galvanized crickets installed behind the tiles.) >What is the square footage of the rear deck? (Geurse: Approximately 120 square feet.) Concern with sound traveling to adjacent neighbors - talk to neighbors, or try to make it smaller. >Was there consideration of doing something over the right side of the house? The addition has not done any favors to the right side of the house. (Geurse: Had considered introducing a pitched roof to dress it up, but didn't want to disrupt the structural integrity of that part of the roof with new tiles.) Struggling with the massing - a perspective rendering could help. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Looks like a box dropped on top of a box with a bit of dressing. The parts do not blend together as well as other houses on the street. >Appreciates that the right side has not been increased since it is already a relatively steep wall, and the house next door is lower. It respects the house next door. >Concern with the size of the deck. Should consider the potential impact on the neighbor. >It's not a deep deck but it is over 100 square feet. Should be revisited. >Likes how the design is massed. It is nicely composed. Not sure anything needs to happen on the right side. >Likes how the dormer breaks up the roof mass, and is repeated on the left side elevation. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.624 Lexington Way, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Dave and Kelsey Armstrong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 624 Lexington Way - Staff Report and Attachments 624 Lexington Way - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto reported ex -parte communication with one of the neighbors. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What is the distinction between Planning and Building in considering the building new construction? (Gardiner: For noticing purposes, the major renovation /addition is meant to convey that elements of the original house will be retained, as opposed to new construction which would convey a completely different structure.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant with property owner Dave Armstrong. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the east and west elevations it appears the shutters tuck behind the facia board, or run into the fascia board. They are a nice detail and want to make sure they are not forgotten. (Wehmeyer: The fascia board is extended out. Will need to play with the sizing a little bit, based on the window company being used and the window sizes. On the tighter ones on the other elevation, there is a larger window where the shutters may come off depending on how close it is. They will be board and batten style shutters.) >On the right side, has there been any thought to adjusting so it does not present a broad face to the neighbor. Perhaps a dormer? (Wehmeyer: With the Cape Cod style, it is important to balance the house and carry the look through and keep it consistent rather than cut it back on the side. On the second floor with the sloped ceilings the rooms are more gracious at certain points because of the volume, but in other parts are tighter because of the cuts and ridges. Having a dormer would complicate it, and take away from Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the traditional look of the Cape Cod.) >Discrepancy on plans: A1 at the plate shows Lexington Way existing one story, and on A 1.0 shows existing one story. >Has the house at 612 Lexington been referenced as an example? It could be referenced in a follow -up presentation. >Elaborate on the comment about massing problems in the neighborhood that are trying to be avoided in choosing this design? (Wehmeyer: Received reaction from neighbors for the house at 612 Vernon. A farm house-style modern house down the street on Lexington also had a lot of push back from neighbors . 600 Vernon has received comments from neighbors regarding the size, however it is on a pie -shaped lot so fronts differently on the street. The neighborhood is sensitive regarding second story additions and houses becoming bigger.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. Trying to look like a one -story house with a second story tucked under the roof. >This is the type of design for which the Special Permit is intended. >612 Lexington has a second story that probably violates the Declining Height Envelope but the massing is handled differently and does not have the same type of "pure" design in terms of the cape cod style. >This type of traditional design with the roof coming up from the first floor plate with the second floor tucked underneath is found in a lot of Burlingame neighborhoods, but would not strictly comply with the Declining Height Envelope requirements. The Special Permit process allows for this type of consideration, with scrutiny. This type of massing is responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood and is handled gracefully. >Likes the commitment to the stone base extending around the house. >The garage has its own presence adjacent to the house. >Declining Height Envelope exception works well with the design of the house, and it will fit in with the neighborhood. >Declining Height Envelope exception has been approved in the past for this type of circumstance. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the item is ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Gaul1 - d.1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Parking Variances and Lot Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Attachments 1500 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 105 El Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that one of the letters sent to the Planning Commission was from her husband Peter Comaroto who talked about the project. He speaks for himself only, and Commissioner Comaroto's view will be unbiased. 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. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, represented the applicant, with Wayne Hu. Commission Questions/Comments: >South elevation has a portion of blank wall right in the center. It stands out because everything else is so detailed and complex. Suggests using 6-inch tiles like in the front. (Gee: Could embellish it to make it integrated.) >How are the roof decks accessed? (Gee: The skylight over the staircase slides open. There is no stair penthouse. Has used them in other jurisdictions. Can also consider a hinged option.) >The turning radius from El Camino Real onto Cypress is a sharp right turn. Are any issues anticipated with cars parking at the corner? (Gee: There are two or three cars parked there already typically. Has not discussed restricted curb parking with staff, but it could be discussed.) >What is water table? Concern with basement water. (Hu: Has discussed this with a civil engineer and does not anticipate a problem since there is not a driveway going down into an underground garage. Has designed the front of building with a low landscape wall.) >Will there be drainage problems on the Cypress side? (Gee: Cypress is downhill. The driveway is at the highest point and it slopes down towards El Camino. There are two catch basins, one on the corner at El Camino.) Even the higher elevation properties experience issues with ground water. >Will the deep-set windows be only on El Camino Rea? (Gee: No, on all sides.) >What is the exceptional circumstance justifying the variance? (Gee: Does not have access for vehicles on El Camino Real, and does not want the driveway on Cypress close to the intersection. Tried to provide as much covered parking as possible, but could not provide the guest parking.) >How is the common open space at the corner used? (Gee: Landscaping with rocks, planting and seating. It is a passive seating area and is gated. The tree line extends over the open space.) Suggests a vegetable garden or bocce court - any way to activate it, or relocate it to to make it more active. (Gee: Anyone walking to their units needs to walk past the open space, which will activate it. Ties it closer to the residents. Could sit and watch children at play because it is enclosed. Can look at other possibilities.) >Average unit sizes? (Gee: 2511, 2611 and 1785 square feet.) >How would the style be described? (Gee: Spanish Hacienda or Revival like courtyard housing in Pasadena and Boyle Heights in Los Angeles.) >It is a difficult style unless willing to commit to the details that are necessary for the style. (Gee: The juliet balcony would be expressed correctly, maybe raising it so the floor of the balcony matches the floor of the window rather than the floor of the sill. Can provide more details in the next pass.) >How tall is the planter wall that screens El Camino? (Gee: It is approximately four feet. The shrubbery is meant to create a screen or visual filter between the inner walkway and the roadway. Storm water runoff Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the roof will be fed into the planter as well, so the planter needs to be a certain height to provide storm water filtration.) >How tall is the curved wall? (Gee: The outer part is just a wall; the other part is a planer. About 30 inches high. The rendering shows an earlier design and needs to be updated.) >Which will be higher, the wall along El Camino Real or the curved wall? (Gee: The wall along El Camino Real.) >Have there been studies of sight lines for the roof decks? Should be included with the next submittal . (Gee: Yes, they were requested by the neighbor at 1508 Cypress. Did not include them in the submittal.) >Is there a guard rail around to the deck? (Gee: It is a clear 42-inch laminated glass rail with a dark bronze/brown cap fastened to the side of the deck. It will prevent people from using the rest of the roof.) >If guests park along the 1508 Cypress fence side will there be enough turning radius for cars coming in and out of their driveways? (Hu: The driveway width is 24 feet. Tested to see if a vehicle could be moved in three maneuvers, and it fits. It would be temporary parking, and could work out among neighbors for guests and the service parking.) >Would spaces along the back wall be marked? (Hu: No, they would not be designated.) Public Comments: Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Concerns with privacy, noise, and parking. Windows facing will look into living spaces of home. Three levels looking into the home. Driveway of project will be next to neighboring driveway, so will be facing parking garages with people coming in and out. Very little parking on Cypress Avenue, needs to be sure there is parking in front of her house for van with grandson in wheelchair. Winnie Tungpagasit, counsel for Fredy Bush. Has submitted letter with requests. Opposed parking variance, there are no extraordinary circumstances. Huge family room windows facing into client's bedroom, requests minimize the size, location height of the windows. Letter suggests a sound barrier wall with landscaping and trees of sufficient height to provide privacy on both sides. Concern about garage door openers; can be minimized with the type of opener. Requests site evaluation from the balconies and windows, suggests move decks closer to El Camino Real for more privacy. Request solid /opaque rails on south side of roofdecks. Concern with construction noise, requests construction fence with sound barrier . Would like weekends and holidays excluded from construction. William Stoyle, 1510 Cypress Avenue: Does not believe can turn a car within the amount of space. Cars will end up parking on Cypress Avenue. Busy intersection, a lot of parking demand on intersection . Two-hour parking on Cypress Avenue helps but still gets shoppers parking there. Commission should account for overall parking situation in the neighborhood when considering the project. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Appreciates early outreach, plans look much better than original submittal. Cypress Ave has only a small window on first floor, would like it treated so it does not look like a blank wall hiding a garage, make it look more like a house on the street. Will be looking at the building from Cypress Avenue, not El Camino Real. Two scrawny street trees with small planters, request the developer take out concrete between the sidewalk and the curb to allow better trees with irrigation. Would like the fir tree trimmed around the streetlight. Drainage basins along El Camino Real do not work and there is standing water when it rains; if water is pumped out from the project it will add to the problem. Lots of Caltrans poles and boxes on the corner, narrows the sidewalk and hard to pass by - could be a nice gateway to the neighborhood. Assumes only the residents of 1500 Cypress would be able to get permit parking. Krista McCutcheon, 1512 Carol Avenue: Agrees with the neighbors regarding water accumulation. Does not like the architecture. Improved and the drawings look good, but in the rendering the building looks huge with big white concrete walls. Does not see the recesses and archways. Very tall compared to the surrounding buildings, concerned it will not look like the neighborhood residential. It is a gateway into a historic neighborhood. There could be additional improvements on the sidewalk, could widen it. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes James Baleix, 831 Edgehill Drive: Two homes were put onto one lot, and faced away from each other . Likes the design, wondered why not underground parking like the one across the street. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Has an issue with the parking variance. Does not see the exceptional circumstance, just because there is not access from El Camino Real. There is not a nexus with not being able to provide guest parking. >Can't accept that cars will park along the fence, would block others and lead to irritation and eventually people will park on the street. >Difficult architectural style to achieve unless can commit to the details. Risk is a watered -down Spanish-style building. 1512 Floribunda Avenue is a good example - a lot of timber on the balconies, ceramic tile, details that make it stand out and give it texture and richness. Still lacking on this proposal, such as the square windows without muntins. >Would expect wood-stained garage doors, but note specifies painted wood flush panel garage doors. If they are plain white or beige it would not contribute to the architecture. >Fence along the west property line looks like a common wood residential fence. Needs to go the distance for the Spanish Revival style. Has plaster details instead of wood corbels and wood timbers. >Needs to see more information on the roof decks, such as the handrail and sight lines. The glass rail does not fit with the architecture. >Feels like the variance has been backed into based on the development program, not site -specific. Feels like it is bursting at the seams. >Has the opportunity to be a really nice project on the corner if the architecture comes together. >Feels like it is turning its back on the corner, isolating itself behind the walls and hedges. The hedges will grow tall and hide the front doors, and will not give back to the street. >Two parking variances being requested. Can't see the unique characteristics of the site. Needs to address both variances, not just the guest parking. OK with the concept of tandem parking, but it still needs to be an approvable variance. >The building is in scale with the building to the right, and the building across the street. However the unit sizes are large, which drives the problem with the variance. >Applicant could revisit underground parking, like the building next door. >Likes tree being on the corner being retained, but makes it hard to use open space. Will be hard to grow things under the tree. >Design of the open space needs to embrace the tree or the corner more fully. >Windows in the family rooms are very large, could be reduced in size or modify the floor plans. Would appease the neighbor if bedrooms were on the back side. >Consider solid balconies for privacy. >Neighbor privacy issues are noted but it is a difficult balance. Roof decks seem well-positioned. >Nice design, appreciates that it does not need to have drastic changes. >Appropriate site for the project, on El Camino Real. >Commission has approved tandem parking previously. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - e.1300 Bayshore Highway, zoned SL - Design Review Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Building Width and Retail Use, Parking Variance for tandem parking configuration and Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot Merger to demolish the existing structures, and construct one 8-story building and one 9-story building (connected) totaling 258,612 SF; the new buildings would include 238,162 SF of office space, 11,840 SF of restaurant space and 8,610 SF of retail space. (Steve Porter, applicant; Nardi Associates LLP, architect; Fox Bayshore Investment, property owner) (20 notices) Staff Contact: Sheldon Ah Sing 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Was a different transportation demand management plan submitted previously; is this a new plan? (Gardiner: there was an earlier iteration, this represents the latest plan.) >Can a parking valet service be a condition of approval? (Gardiner: yes, but can be a bit tricky.) >Has providing a shuttle to BART been considered? (Gardiner: will need to get more information from the applicant.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. John Ward represented the applicant, with Omer Tamturk, Steve Porter, and Orhan Tolou present from Fox Investments (property owner). Also present were Gary Black from Hexagon Consultants; Ed Conlon, Hathaway-Dinwiddie; John Pappas, mechanical engineer; and Augustin Maxim, project developer. Noberto Nardi, Nardi Associates, made a presentation as the architect. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will Building B access to retail along the front? (Nardi: yes.) Will the public be able to access the rear area? (Nardi: depends on the type of use; it is a control measure. Noted that 60 bicycle parking spaces and showers are being provided within the building.) >The parking management plan is a great addition to the application. Is there a commitment by the developer to provide managment to ensure that the plan is implemented properly? (Nardi: yes.) >How does the structure of the building work? Doesn't see columns, implies clear span. (Nardi: structural engineer is designing by combining major porticos on the first three floors with an ectoskeleton . Two facades create the structure of the building that eliminates the needs for interior columns.) Touches down at 8 points? (Nardi: yes, within the view corridor. Past view corridor, the exoskeleton is touching the ground.) >How far along is the geotech analysis? Going down to bedrock? (Nardi: yes. Avoiding underground parking due to the water table. Already have the preliminary geotech report and are going down to bedrock.) >Is there an example of this type of building being done before? (Nardi: there is an example of such a building at Olympic and Figueroa in Downtown Los Angeles, 60-story building. The building includes an exoskeleton. This type of construction is not always feasible from a cost standpoint, but works in this instance due to the configuration of the building.) >The aerial rendering is confusing, it shows building encroaching into roadway. Please revisit this exhibit before the project returns. (Nardi: the exhibit is actually to be a location plan, but the rendering is improperly placed on the plan.) >How much of the ground floor is accessible to the public? (Nardi: about 50% of the site, not including Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the enclosed spaces. There is a secondary access that acts as a fire lane. Ideally want people to be drawn to the center of the building.) >The glass and steel are faceted, not curved? (Nardi: no, both are faceted.) >Are the meeting areas in the back only accessed through the building? How high are the glass walls? (Nardi: walls are five feet tall.) Is there a concern about intruders? (Nardi: expects that there will be guards present on the property.) Public Comments: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road: Is in favor of the project. Includes dramatic architecture. Is the highest and best use of the property. The location is within walking distance of the Broadway train station, proximity could help mitigate traffic. Gay O'Brien, Neuchatel Avenue: The project makes a statement; it will remove drab and tired buildings that block views of the Bay. City can endorse a modern office building that will connect with the Bay. The revised plans improve this vital connection. Encouraged approval as soon as possible. Jim Baylese: Agreed with prior speaker. Excited by a building of this calibur. Wishes it were surrounded by other beautiful structures. Pat Giorni: Can see that a lot of work has been done since initially presented. Totally content with the bike path and sidewalks, raised view portal, long -term shower, parking, and restroom facilities. Suggested approval of the applications. Should move the application to the Regular Action Calendar to streamline the project approval. Developer should talk to commute.org to get on the route. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Previously had concerns with pedestrian circulation. The renderings reveal that the pedestrian experience will be less brutal than initially thought. >CUPs are supportable. Taller buildings exist around the site, there area also constraints on the width . The retail adds to the appeal of the project.. >Variances supportable with creek and BCDC constraints place on the property. Does a good job of balancing street frontage with retail and creates a cradle in the back where pedestrians experience the Bay it should be experienced; this design approach supports approval of the variance to permit parking in the front setback. The parking management plan will mitigate the Variance. >Appreciates the additional renderings. >Not sure about the glass pods. 6 feet fence wall might be better. Worries about transients or kids. >Newly forming and intensifying issue with transients. Higher fence will not be as effective as security. >Mix of ecological, pedestrian. Should be standard for the rest of the Bayfront. >Does not do what it needs to do for the pedestrian realm. Adds to the diversity of the architectural styles, but does not address. >First office level is 50 feet above grade. >Expensive to build a 250,000 square foot building in the Bay Area, and less convinced this is feasible. >Does not contribute to the pedestrian realm - wants to be the center of attention. >Nice pedestrian-sight connections to the Bay, but expanse of building is not welcoming. Does not do much for the pedestrian life of the city. >Dramatic architecture, a lot to like. Could be a major iconic draw to the Bay Area. >Odd that this decision is being made in advance of the General Plan Update. >There is a lot going on in Burlingame already. Will exacerbate, serve to be detrimental. >Is exciting and unique, but does not fit into the neighborhood. >With height two or three examples does not make a pattern. There are lots of shorter building. >Other buildings with same heights don't have the same width and presence. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Parking excessive for the space. >Can't find exceptional circumstances that doesn't effect other properties in the area. >Each project should be evaluated on its own. Can't negate the merits of one project because there are others. >Not sure would want to fit in with the surrounding buildings since they are dated. >Variance supportable with creek running through the middle. >Concerns with parking management plan but details can be worked out. >There are enough tall buildings to support the height. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted a recent study session with the City Council regarding new housing legislation. Noted a recent newspaper article that addressed the session. Will be a similar discussion with the Commission at some point in the future. a.1417 Vancouver Avenue - FYI for review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1417 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum 1417 Vancouver Ave - Attachments Attachments: Pulled for a future public hearing. Does not see anything changed, still concern with glass railings. Also not sure about door. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:47 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 December 11, 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 December 21, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2018