HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.11.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 14, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and GaulPresent5 -
Bandrapalli, and SargentAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
Abstain:Gaul1 -
a.Draft October 11, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.Draft October 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Request to move Item 8a to the beginning of the agenda for accommodations. Chair Loftis accepted the
request.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
No public comments, non-agenda.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1530 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling with an attached garage (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and
architect; Gemmy Tsai and Karen Tsai, property owners) (46 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Ryan Morris represented the applicant, with property owner Gemmy Tsai.
Commission comments/questions:
>Have you had a chance to go inside the neighbor's house to the right and look from the front left
windows towards the Bay? (Morris: Has not, nor has the client .)(Tsai: Most of the windows on the
neighboring house are further back.)
>Why was the floor plate on the second floor not reduced to 8 feet? (Morris: Currently the first floor is
8 feet. The second floor was 10 feet but has been reduced to 9 feet. Did not want to have 8 feet on both
floors.)
>Have you heard anything from the neighbors? (Tsai: Spoke to them at the beginning and showed
them the plans, before the story poles were put up. They did not express concern with the addition at
that time. Has not heard from them since the story poles were put up other than saying hello in the
driveway.)
>While you don't want to block the view from the neighbor from the back, is there possibility to adjust
the massing to push the second story back from the front facade? Would help with the massing. (Morris:
The two story wall in center is determined from the location of the stairs as they come up to the second
floor. There were multiple studies for the location of the staircase and this location was most desirable
for the flow from the interior of the house. To compensate the family room on the left has been pulled out
so there are not three sides of the house that are two-story vertical walls.)
>On Sheet A3.2 the entry tower is clad in clapboard siding, but when going around the corner it
shows as stucco. Is it just clapboard on the front and stucco on the sides? (Morris: It would be siding on
all sides.)
>On the right side elevation there is a stucco wall on the second floor situated above a clapboard box
below. The clapboard and stucco are in the same plane with a band between. (Morris: Correct. Trying to
break up the two-story elements.)
>Is the intention to have two different types of clapboard siding? (Morris: Yes. One will be a tighter
pattern, the other larger. Possibly also slightly different colors as well.)
>Is the rendering done so that all sides of the house have been modeled? Would it be possible to
show images of that as well? It might be helpful. (Morris: Yes.)
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Story poles have helped in understanding the massing.
>The lower roof pitches help, particularly since the site is on a bit of a peak.
>Fits in well.
>Oblique renderings are more telling than from the straight -on front view. They show the plane
changes and variation that enhance the design.
>Bringing the awning down has helped with the scale.
>The garage is subdued.
>Massing is characteristic of other homes in the hillside area.
>Skeptical of use of second story deck - it will be in shadow much of the time.
>Likes the house overall. Rest of house does not hang together as well as the front facade because
of the use of the various materials. Volumes don't complete themselves the way might be anticipated
with the elements being interlocking volumes. Would be useful to see the complete house in renderings
of other sides of the model.
>Nicely massed, nicely articulated.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concern with the 9-foot ceiling on the second floor. Wants to see what the south elevation will look
like. Don't typically see a taller floor on the second floor.
>Would like to have a photo taken from inside the neighbor's home to see if the view is blocked.
>Landscaping looks like a nice house in Scottsdale. Traditional landscaping with modern homes
makes them fit into the neighborhood better. The landscaping and the architecture together make it
stand out in a negative way.
>Applicant should engage with the neighbor on right to see if there can be a photo. Direction to the
applicant to leave the story poles up for 7 days.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar.
The motion was amended with the condition that the story poles remain standing for 7 days.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
b.1326 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area - Application for Conditional
Use Permit and Parking Variance for a new food establishment (Tian Hong Tan,
applicant and property owner; Kevin E. Stong Architects, Inc ., architect) (81 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Do parking in-lieu fees only apply only to Downtown or do they cover the whole city? (Gardiner: The
fees only cover the downtown district. Broadway does not have a parking district so does not collect
in-lieu fees.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Kevin Stong, Kevin E. Stong Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Will there be seats inside? (Stong: Yes, per the floor plan. There will be meals prepared, but also
display cases with baked goods and grab -and-go salads. Both hot entrees for sit down, and
grab-and-go.)
>Where does the rear exit go to? (Stong: There is a large yard in the back. The owner hopes to put a
gate in the fence.)
>Will the garbage go out the front or the back? (Stong: The front, like the other businesses on
Broadway. There is a garbage room inside.)
>What is back area used for behind other properties? (Stong: It is vacant.)
>Is this something similar to Jimmy Bean's in Berkeley at 6th & Gilman? (Stong: Unique with lots of
display cases for baked goods and grab -and-go salads. Like a high -end grocery store with a lot of
grab-and-go food as well as entrees including a complete breakfast and a complete lunch and dinner.)
>Are there any other locations? (Stong: No, but the owner is very excited in making it a success.)
>Would it be possible to re -address the parking variance? For the record, there are exceptional
circumstances. The City Council has acknowledged that by removing the moratorium on restaurants
there will need to be parking variances since there is no opportunity to provide on-site parking.
>For the other variance question related to the necessity of the variance, the business would not be
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
viable without the variance. Similar to other food establishments on Broadway, which would not be viable
without the variances. This should be represented on the variance application for the record.
>Typically employees park on neighboring city streets, but there could be a condition to require that
they park in city lots rather than parking all day on city streets.
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>When the city changed the zoning to encourage additional restaurants it understood there would be
variances necessary to accommodate restaurants.
>It is impossible for almost anyone doing anything on Broadway to provide parking, including both
retail and restaurants.
>This seems like an unnecessary and time -consuming process to get something that is otherwise
encouraged.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on Consent
Calendar with corrections made to the Variance application. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1122 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Special Permits for a basement with a direct exit and with a
9' ceiling height. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Mark Robertson, applicant and designer; Greg Beall property owner) (61
noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon -REQUEST MADE TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO
BE HEARD AS THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE STUDY
Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications. Commissioner
Gaul was not at the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Why does the basement need direct egress? (Robertson: Owner is a contractor. There is a large
crawl space at the base of the stairs. Wanted ability to have access directly from his truck, to unload
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
tools and gear. Having stairs off the driveway doesn't interfere with anything, and it is at the rear of the
house.)
>Most of the upper floor windows appear to be covered by eaves. Will look fine from the street but
from the inside will be looking at the underside of the eaves. (Robertson: Has provided double -hung
windows so there is no conflict. The owner prefers the awning look, and for having larger eaves for the
craftsman look.)
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>In past projects did not want stair access to the basement. Not sure about it because of potential
problems. Trying to make it part of the house, not something separate from the house.
>Not sure about having an outdoor shower. Appears to be setting it up for a full bathroom.
>Appreciates revisions and elimination of some of the special permits.
>OK with the shower in the accessory structure since it is an exterior shower. Does not presume
there will be an illegal maneuver in the future; presumes it will remain an exterior shower and be used as
such.
>Typically allows for basement stair when there is a grade change or topography issue where the
basement is almost at grade and stepping out into a yard area. Intent of the basement exemption is to
add accessory space to the house, and the exception is because the basement is kept within the
confines of the house without adding mass and bulk. With the exterior stair it intrudes on the confines of
the house. It could become a party room and function independently from the rest of the house,
potentially intruding on the neighbors.
>Can make findings for all parts of the application except for the direct exit from the basement.
>Would not want high traffic on the side of the house off the driveway, similar to concerns with a side
porch.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application with the exception of the Special Permit for a basement with a direct exit, with the
following condition:
>Revisions to the plan with basement access omitted shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as an FYI item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
b.1140 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and applicant;
Richard Sargent, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Why was the material of the chimney left in stucco? Most chimneys in the neighborhood are brick,
and here a brick chimney with the twisted clinker bricks would fit in well. (Chu: Thought about stone as
an option, and could accept it as a condition of approval. Chose stucco over stone because the interior
designer thought it looks better and would be different.)
>The shoulder of the chimney does not appear to have changed on the rendering. (Chu: Sheet A.5
shows the revised chimney. However it is not shown on the rendering. The only thing changed on the
rendering was the porch.)
Public comments:
Peter and Natalie Klestoff, 1136 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: Wants to make sure the arborist is
there when the garage and the concrete in front of the garage is demolished. The tree roots are there,
and don't want the tree damaged. Also there are mature shrubs on the border of the properties so wants
to make sure there was a survey. (Keylon: There has been a survey and it can be reviewed at the
Planning Division.)
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Requests from prior meeting have been addressed.
>Would prefer stone on the chimney, not stucco.
>Likes change of chimney to the same color of the house. Could go either way with stone or stucco -
not a "deal-breaker."
>Porch nestles into the house nicely. Has had a ripple effect on other items.
>Refreshing design, different but still fits in nicely.
>Applicant may chose whether or not to add stone to the chimney. If changed to stone, it should
come back as an FYI.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the Action Item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
c.Consideration of a Proposed Amendment to Title 21 – Historic Resource Preservation
of the Burlingame Municipal Code adding Procedures for Granting Approval of
Conditional Use Permits for Adaptive Reuse of Historic Properties
Commissioner Gaul was recused as he owns a property that would be subject to the ordinance.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Does this apply to any work being done on a historic building? Minor vs. major work? (Gardiner: The
amendments are related to the use of the building, as opposed to how the physical resource itself is
utilized. For example, an office use be allowed on the ground floor of a historic building where office
would not be allowed otherwise. The physical aspect of the project would still be subject to design
review.)
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Allows for additional historic preservation options for any property listed in the inventory that might
not be viable in its current state. This could help make an historic adaptation viable.
>Well-written document. Makes a lot of sense.
>Concern with the word "necessary" on page 3 of the staff report in that it is not defined and could be
abused. It might encourage another use that would not be desirable, even if a conforming use were
viable. (Kane: Could say "promote" the economic viability of retaining the economic resource. It would
not be an all-or-nothing criterion, and would preserve the commission's flexibility to determine whether it
is the kind of promotion of economic viability it would want to support. It is a finding that would need to
be made.)
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to recommend
approval to the City Council with the following change:
>Change the word "necessary" to "promote" in Section 21.04.120(4)(B).
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2721 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one -half story
single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant
and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2016 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Why does the attached garage have to be at the front? How about the back or side as shown in the
design guidelines? (Grange: Looked at a hammer-head in the back, but it would pave the back yard .
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There is no other way to have an attached garage unless it is in the front.)
>Could the attached garage be pushed further back on the site? (Grange: Would work better with a
one-car garage, otherwise there is a lot of pavement going back. The house would end up being a split
level since there is no way to drop down far enough to get it to the next lower level. The garage would
then take up a significant portion of the back of the house.)
>Why did the owner buy a house with a detached garage if they wanted a house with an attached
garage? (Grange: Does not know.)
>How will the revisions to the terrace on the side of the house be handled? (Grange: May move the
bedroom and bathroom accordingly.) The revisions have the potential to have a bit less impact,
particularly if the dimensions are reduced to where it is just providing access. As it is now, there is room
for tables and activities that could become more intrusive on the neighbors than what was shown before.
Public comments:
Nicole Koblis, 2711 Easton Drive (house to the left): Main concern is the garage. Prefers a detached
garage - all of the garages on the block are detached, with driveways providing room between houses. If
there has to be an attached garage would prefer it be pushed back, particularly in relation to the
neighboring house since when they come out of their house they would face a large garage.
Sandy Moore, 2723 Easton Drive (house to the right): Appreciates the change to the architectural style
so it looks more like the traditional old houses on the block. Main problem is the garage in the front -
changes the character of the six houses in the row. The detached garages on the other houses are
functional and the driveways provide space and privacy between houses. Does not understand why
there could not be a garage where the one -car garage of the existing house is currently located; it was
not shown as an option in the presentation. Likes the existing house and would like to keep as much of
the character as possible with the neighborhood.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Empathizes with the issues and concerns raised. Neighborhood has some eclectic styles, however
the design guidelines encourage detached garages. Prominent two -car attached garages in the front are
discouraged; offset, setback garages are encouraged. Maybe a compromise would be a single -car
garage or two car garage pushed back.
>The standard location for a detached garage in the rear yard is difficult for this site.
>Appreciates the change in the architectural approach to better harmonize with the neighborhood .
The architecture is handsome but there is still an issue with the two-car garage being right out in front.
>Given the challenges there could be justification for a special permit or variance for a different
location of the garage, whether attached or detached. The site has unique and extraordinary conditions
that are not typical.
>Lots with slopes require more work to come up with a solution.
>The block sets the pattern, and the houses on this block are all the same genre and character. The
design nods towards that, but the garage at front does not fit in - it covers the whole front of the lot. It is a
big lot with room to work with.
>There was a house on Pepper with a two -car attached garage that was not on the front of the house,
as well as other projects.
>The front attached garage is not the pattern of the block.
>There are grounds for the Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope because of the sloping lot .
Almost any second floor no matter how stepped back will intrude on the Declining Height Envelope.
>House does not fit in, but the architect's analysis of the challenges is compelling. Having the garage
at a lower elevation at the rear could discourage its use.
>Massing and presentation is like a suburban country club house.
>Direction is to go back and look at it again. There is not support for the current design.
>Could consider two single car garages, or one attached and one detached. The spaces do not need
to be contiguous, and the requirement is only for the spaces to be covered.
>Page 22 of design guidelines provide direction for low-impact attached garages.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
b.1241 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates,
applicant and designer; Greg and Alison Powell, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the applicant. Commissioner
Terrones indicated that his office is close to the site but does not own the building, so does not own
property within 500 feet of the project.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Greg Powell.
Commission comments/questions:
>The stormwater retention well is unusual. (Deal: It was a requirement from Public Works. Cannot
pump to the street - needs to be retained on site. Have used these on projects in the County.) Is there
an estimate of how much water will not be pumped out to street? (Deal: No. It's whatever rainfall falls
onto the roof.)
>Could front porch column be wood instead of stucco? (Deal: Yes, that was a mistake on the plans.)
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Remarkable transformation of the existing building to a very nice house.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
c.1333 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture, applicant and designer; David Armanino, property owner) (77 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as his office is the architect for the project.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the next door neighbor at
1332 Paloma Avenue. Commissioner DeMartini was unable to visit the back of the site.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the studio loft becoming a fourth bedroom make a difference with the parking requirement?
(Gardiner: No, it would be a 4-bedroom house. A 5-bedroom house would require an additional parking
space.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant, on behalf of property owner David Armanino, who could not be
present.
Commission comments/questions:
>How does owner get down the driveway currently? There are tables and chairs and pots in the
driveway. (Furlong: There is no requirement that a car be parked in the garage, but the driveway could
be tidied up.)
>Will the rock wall in the front remain? It is not shown on the plan. (Furlong: All existing landscaping
will remain including the rock wall.)
>Any thought to having more windows in loft for more light? (Furlong: Looked at a number of options .
Providing egress -sized windows in some areas. Limited by dormer size. Not sure if skylights have been
completely ruled out but are not shown on the current plan.)
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Fits in well with existing house.
>Driveway does not appear to be used but the city does not have a requirements otherwise.
>Front element looks a bit tall. The proportions are nice now.
>Wants feedback on the garage and access to the parking space for the secondary dwelling unit .
(Gardiner: There is a standard for the driveway width, and the secondary dwelling unit is required to
have a parking space.)
>Nicely done addition.
>Space upstairs is exciting, as opposed to just adding more bedrooms.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
d.136 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu
Design Associates, applicant and designer; Frank and Maureen Cafferkey, property
owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item as the applicant is a family member.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 132 Costa
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Rica Avenue.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>What type of fence will be on the right side? (Chu: Wood fence.)
>Any concerns that the front of the house looks very similar to the adjacent house to the left at 140
Costa Rica? (Chu: Had not noticed.)
>Were any other landscape treatments considered other than synthetic lawn in the front of the
house? (Chu: Does not know. Bruce Chen is the landscape architect.)
>On Sheet A.4 there are sections through the bedrooms. Is there a purpose for showing those? (Chu:
Response to comments from Planning staff.) The sections are useful for showing the benefit of being
able to have taller ceilings with a pitched roof even when the plate height is 8 or 9 feet.
>Will the street tree be replaced? It looks like it was just planted. (Chu: Not sure, does not show on
the site plan.) Given the tree appears to have just been planted, perhaps it could be relocated.
Public comments: None.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Handsome design, fits into the neighborhood, and is compatible with the neighborhood design
guidelines.
>It's a nice design, but it looks very similar to the house next door. Questions whether it is the best
design to put two houses next door that are so similar.
>Concerns with neighbors windows looking into windows. Would be helpful to locate the outlines of
neighbors' windows particularly on the left side.
>Synthetic turf in the front yard is not desirable. Less objectionable in the back yard. It is such a small
piece, the amount of water saved would be minimal and there are other options for drought -tolerant
landscaping. While there are some good authentic -looking turfs available, they are expensive; less
expensive turf may not wear well and could look bad.
>15-gallon maiden tree for the street tree will be inadequate. Very slow growing.
>The house is well crafted and the massing is nice. If the house is too similar to the neighboring
house the designer should revisit and ensure the house is what the applicant intends.
>Concern that the house designs are looking very similar over time - "cookie-cutter " quality. Here a
small house is being replaced with a big house that looks like lots of other new houses.
>If changes are made to the landscape plan and synthetic lawn is replaced, it would be helpful to
show on the plan what is existing and what is new.
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 -
Absent:Bandrapalli, and Sargent2 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission DeMartini reported that the General Plan Update Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
met in October. The meeting focused on reviewing an outline and organization proposed for the General
Plan, and briefing of the City Council direction.
a.Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes - November 3, 2016
Planning Manager Gardiner noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee is proposing that
the Planning Commission hold a 6:00 pm study session to discuss commissioner sentiments towards
attached and detached garage standards. Subcommittee members suggested commissioners review
the standards and design guidelines prior to the study session so they are familiar with the regulations.
There was further clarification with regards to screening of mechanical equipment, in that the
subcommittee suggestion is to specify screening from adjacent streets. There was also clarification of
whether the discussion of upper -story decks specified whether there would be a different approach to
decks in the back versus front of a house.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.225 California Drive, zoned HMU - Report regarding an Addendum to the
Environmental Review for a previously approved 4-story commercial building (DLC
225 California, applicant and property owner). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Planning Manager Gardiner noted the submittal of the report.
Commission questions/discussion:
>Will there be a parking in -lieu fee paid to the City for the additional parking requirement? (Gardiner:
Yes, in order to meet the parking requirements for the use. The in -lieu fee would satisfy the
requirement.)
>Do we know how much is in the parking fund, and feasibility of having a facility built? (Gardiner: Prior
to the approval of 240 Lorton Avenue there was approximately $300,000 in the fund. That project added
approximately $1.6 million to the fund, and this project will add a similar amount. The fund is now at a
size where it could make some progress towards a garage such as funding the design or contributing
towards construction.)
>Is the intent of the in-lieu fees only to construct a garage? (Kane: The original Council resolution
creating this system referred to a garage. If the Council wants to change that, it would still need to be
parking-related . If a static garage was no longer the primary option it is something the Council can take
up again. As of now, it is a massing towards a garage, or seed money towards financing a garage.)
>In the 240 Lorton Avenue approval there was discussion that the funds were going into a dedicated
escrow account, and that a garage would cost between $10-$15 million.
>There has been discussion that the funds could go towards another facility, such as a garage in the
Lot F & N project. It would not need to be its own stand-alone garage.
>Was the 10% reduction in parking for carshare proportional to the increased parking requirement or
was it specific to a set number of spaces? (Gardiner: Yes, it is up to 10% so there is discretion in the
exact amount. Had it been significantly more spaces it might have warranted another carshare space.)
> Neither the original or updated traffic studies showed traffic impacts. Why wasn't the
Highland/Howard intersection studied? Was it peer reviewed? (Gardiner: The scope of the study starts
off with the same criteria as the original study. Had that indicated a change in significance it would have
warranted further study. In this case the updated study was reviewed by Engineering staff and peer
reviewed by the CEQA consultant team, and the conclusion was the original methodology was still
applicable.)
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016
November 14, 2016Planning 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 14, 2016. 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 28, 2016, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/19/2016