Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda FS - PC - 2020.02.24CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, February 24, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner Michelle Markiewicz, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Present 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Draft February 10, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft February 10, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Comaroto, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1034 Morrell Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael and Erin Boros, property owners and applicant; Mia Zinni, MZA, Ltd., designer) City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 (81 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1034 Morrell Ave - Staff Report 1034 Morrell Ave - Attachments 1034 Morrell Ave -Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff. > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Mia and Mark Zinni, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the rear elevation, there is a tiled awning style roof over the mud room door and adjacent window. Would you consider adding the same type of roof above the Juliette balcony along the left side of the house? It might help bring a one-story element to that side. (Zinni: I don't think we would have a problem with that at all.) > There is a consistent eave line on the second floor that is broken up with gables; the right side is broken down further with the first story roof line. Stair enclosure along left side of house is a tall element. This is not a deal -breaker, but would you consider extending the roof down rather than pop it up as a gable? This makes it an even taller space than necessary being that is a one and a half story space above the landing. (Zinni: We did consider this, but after some discussions with the design consultant, we landed on this design. We thought the eaves weren't broken up enough and therefore decided on the gables instead.) Thought that if it had knee braces, it might help break that line. Something you still may want to consider. > Concerned about how the front left corner of the second floor comes down in the middle of the archway. Realize you can make anything work structurally, but placing an apparent load on that arch is very odd. (Zinni: The client wants that side stair because they prefer to enter the front of the house when bringing the kids in and out, but we can take a look at that.) Won't make suggestions about how to solve it. Not a deal -breaker, but you may want to study it further. > On one of the elevations, the handrail is noted as being metal. Is it safe to assume that metal handrails will be used throughout the house? (Zinni: Yes.) > Outriggers/corbels under the eaves are noted as wood. However, will pre-fab stucco be used for the window sills? (Zinni: Yes. We brought with us a pre-fab sample to share. We chose this material because we're looking for a sharper edge as opposed to rolled stucco, and we'd like for it to be smooth. We also thought about using pre -cast stone, but we didn't want the textural change. We're trying to make it so the stucco is more consistent.) So will it be the same finish as the rest of the exterior siding on the house? (Zinni: Yes, we want a shadow line in a bigger profile with a sharper edge. The other options of wood can have some maintenance and technical detail issues.) Is that going to project from the sill of the window a couple of inches? (Zinni: Yes. We were pushing the windows slightly back, and then how that sill will work is it gets notched in so well get a nicer shallow line on the windows.) > What is the size of the second floor deck at the rear of the house? (Zinni: Approximately 130 square feet.) We've been consistent in asking applicants to look at reducing the size of second floor decks to be smaller than that. Usually the limiting factor we have looked at in the past is to keep it a place that's big enough for coffee for two, but not that it can become a gathering space and infringe on the privacy of neighbors. If that's something you could look at, that would be great. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Like the changes that have been made, think the house has a better scale. It's benefited by going through the design review consultant process. The issues we have spoken about tonight are revisions that can come back and be reviewed by staff, and if they think those need to be elevated to an FYI, they can make that judgment, but the project should move forward. > Would like the applicant to revisit reducing the size of the deck. Design guidelines are clear in that allowing decks that create platforms to peer into neighbor's backyards is not encouraged. > It's imperative the deck is reduced in size, especially because a lot of decks we're seeing are off bedrooms, and that's more of a private space. In this case, it's off the tv room where you're going to have more people gathering and looking for another place to escape from the crowd. The deck should be reduced to be no greater than 100 square feet in size. > Findings for the Special Permit request for declining height envelope are acceptable in this case. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: > Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following revisions shall be reviewed by staff: - that a clay tile awning roof be added above the French doors and balcony on the southwest elevation; - that the front corner of the second floor shall be revised so that it is not located above the middle of the archway along the left side of the house; and - that the size of the second floor deck at the rear of the house be reduced to 100 square feet or less. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis b. 1415 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Parking Variances to reconstruct an existing detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, InSite Design, applicant and designer; Liza and David Levitt, property owners) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1415 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1415 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1415 De Soto Ave - Plans Commissioner Tse recused because she has a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the January 27, 2020 meeting but watched the meeting video. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 Questions of staff.• > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. David Levitt, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Appreciate the items that were addressed in the re -submittal. Revisiting the front gables as the Commission had suggested are acceptable. Don't think that the subsequent window revisions are a detriment, in fact they're an improvement to the front elevation. Appreciate applicant revisiting the variance application by removing any references to budgetary issues, as those reasons can't be considered in our review. > Request for the parking variances to reconstruct the existing detached garage is supportable given the uniqueness of the existing construction and proximity to the house. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis Recused: 1 - Tse C. 3016 Arguello Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kim Yee Lee and Seow Hui Yeoh, applicants and property owners; Ha Nguyen, Ha Nguyen + Designs, designer) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 3016 Arguello Dr - Staff Report 3016 Arguello Dr - Attachments 3016 Arguello Dr - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had communications with the adjacent neighbor to get access to his home and view the new story poles. Also had various e-mail exchanges with the applicant and their architect, mainly on the status of the updated story poles and not the details and merits of the project. Commissioners Gaul, Sargent and Tse noted that they had separately met with the neighbor to the left to get access from the house and view the story poles. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present for the meeting on January 27th, but did watch the meeting video. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she spoke to the neighbor to the left, visited his home and was able to access the room to view the story poles and had an e-mail exchange with the City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.• > Was there another received after about the trees being planted at the back of this property or was that for another project? (Hurin: Those may have been e-mailed to you earlier. We only make copies of correspondences that are submitted in the afternoon before the meeting.) The e-mail came in the afternoon today. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing Jax Lee represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Totally sympathetic and fully understand this is a somewhat complex process because it's a hillside area site. The hillside area permitting is not extensive and so it's an abstract concept. Were you at the design review study meeting here that we had last time? (Lee: Yes) The reason for the question is because it was fairly clear that the bay views were the consideration. The commissioners here pointed out that there were bay views being blocked. Upon visiting the neighbor's house, there was an airplane over the bay behind the story poles landing at the airport. Regardless of what Mr. Joe said to you or what you're understanding was, the considerations that we consistently have for hillside area construction permitting are distant views of the bay, the East Bay, East Bay Hills, San Francisco skyline, those sorts of things. Not the views of the street, nor the park or trees across the street. (Lee: So from this picture, you can see the red is the original view from Mr. Joe's property and the green is after we cut the garage and you can see the bay.) Hurin: Through the chair, would like to provide clarification to the commissioner's request regarding the e-mail submitted today. It came in after close of business day at 5:40 this afternoon, so that explains why you don't have a copy. It's from the rear neighbors, Mr. And Mrs. Lazarus. They're concerned about the proposed landscape plans, particularly the row of Cypress trees along the rear and they're asking if applicant can reconsider that landscaping as part of this review. Public Comments: > Howard Joe, 3024 Arguello Drive: Want to thank the commissioners for making the site visit and educating me about the codes that relate to this project. There are a couple of neighbors of mine who had written letters opposing this project and 1'd like to make that as part of the record. There were some inconsistencies in the previous meeting minutes. (Kane: The minutes are not supposed to be verbatim. The minutes have already been voted on, but you can still make comments now.) Applicant mentioned that he talked to the neighbors, but did not specify which neighbors. The applicant also asked me to send him a number of pictures from different windows in the house for the purpose of his architect reviewing them, and to revise the plan. I did exactly that. Per the meeting minutes, the applicant used these pictures to misrepresent to the neighbors that no view was in fact being blocked. I think this is deceptive. The blocking of view has not changed. This is an important point that I refuse to let him in the house. > Pat Lazarus, 3061 Rivera Drive: Want the new owners to know that we're not happy with their landscaping plan and the way it's going to affect us. Would like for them to reconsider their plan especially the row of Cypress trees along our common fence line. Hoping they'll be more creative about what they're planning and will consider my view, which is a wonderful view now. 1 don't have the bay view, but I have a view across the valley that would be blocked if they plant this row of trees in my backyard. Want to protest what they're doing with their landscape at this point, and ask them to reconsider. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 > Mr. Lin: Am a very good friend of the applicant. Understand that they moved to Burlingame because it is a city of trees, has friendly neighborhoods and is family oriented. That's what we're known for. I also am an owner and resident in the same neighborhood and have a nice view in the back of my house. When we bought it four years ago my neighbor added a row of trees for privacy. After four years, the trees are grown and are blocking my view. Don't have a problem with my neighbor and with the trees growing. We cannot force the neighbor to cut the tree down because we're living in the city of trees and we value the trees. My point is that although views are valuable, they can be blocked by trees and vegetation in the future. Please be considerate of your neighbor and let them build their home. Share the neighbor's happiness and enjoy the neighborhood together. > Jake Bauer, 2990 Arguello Drive: Want to first correct the applicant, he said he rang my doorbell between a period of time, it could have been accurate. They have made no other attempts to get a hold of me. They said they e-mailed me but I received no e-mail from the applicant, saying you e-mailed when you didn't is devious. Common theme here is a lot of show for concern from the neighbors and addressing design, but there's very little action taken on their part. Think the challenge with the design and why it's blocking the views is the mass and bulk of the property because of the minimal setback. Should move the house back further. The complication is the hillside and you have the floor area ratio which is the metric and an ordinance, but that's assuming that you can accommodate that. Am sure if any of you were consulted when the applicant purchased the property, you would have said we're going to have a problem blocking this view. That's the fact. Its hard to move this without blocking that bay view substantially. That's probably why the applicant hasn't reached out to many neighbors because it's something the neighbors don't agree with. > Manhi Yueng, 3072 Arguello Drive. Opposed to the project because it's very massive compared to the regular houses in the neighborhood which are around 2,200- 2,500 square feet. Don't believe we need a mansion in the neighborhood. Moved into Burlingame about 30 years ago when our two sons were four and six years old. We did not have to increase the size of our house from the 2,400 square feet and we have been living comfortably. The house is very front end heavy. Noticed the story poles and the marking they made on the roof. House is massive and it's going to block the view and sunshine into the house to the left. Don't think story poles are a true representation of the proposed house. Most of the commissioners visited the house next door and you have seen it yourself. > Emilio Rossi, 3019 Arguello Drive. Live across the street from this project. Have lived there for 43 years so I know almost everybody there. Want to welcome this family into our neighborhood. Of course I wish them to build a house of their dreams, but the house of their dreams could become somebody else's nightmare because this structure is very big. Know it's going to affect someone, next door neighbor's view is going to disappear. Other next door neighbor has a one-story house next to them and soon they'll have a two-story house next to them and some of their privacy will disappear too. I have no problem because I have a tremendous view from where I live, and I had a lot of privacy and I still do. The only thing that might affect me is the privacy from my pool, but can plant screening to provide privacy. Am concerned that next door neighbors will lose their privacy and view unless something is done. > Miss Yap, 3088 Rivera Drive: Think the owner made adjustments to the original design and trimmed part of the bedroom upstairs to accommodate the next door neighbor's concerns. Think it's acceptable because although there are some parts of the neighbor's house that may be blocked, you'll still have a useful house. If you look houses next to Franklin Elementary School, there are two, two-story houses being built and they're right in front of the other houses. Don't know why there is an issue with this house being approved. Is there any discrimination? > Lance Heinig, 3027 Arguello Drive. Did speak to the property owner, want to welcome him and his family to our neighborhood. Living across from the next door neighbor and seeing this go on, I feel for everyone here. He did knock on my door and showed me the plans. This is prior to any revisions or the story poles and before I talked to our neighbor, Mr. Joe. Think that the design looks like a beautiful City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 house, but at the same time I can completely understand Mr. Joe's concern with his views being blocked. Understand this is the process on how you determine what the right outcome is, but want to acknowledge that I did speak to the property owner. He did show me pictures, but didn't have a chance to see the story poles. > Lee: Have a picture showing us standing in front of 2990 Arguello Drive, also went there on Saturday to ring the bell. I talked to the neighbors. Don't think my house is too big. For comparison, it is proposed to be 3,700 square feet where 2990 Arguello Drive is 3,600 square feet. > Kane: Want to note while understandable, everyone feels strongly about these communication issues, it's not actually the basis on which the commission will be deciding this project. Commission will be looking at how the project relates to the distant views of the bay, and its design characteristics under the design guidelines. Whether there may be neighbor to neighbor issues that need to be worked out over time, the Commission is most concerned with the design itself rather than the communication issues. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > There is a nexus between mass and bulk when something adheres to the restrictions of setback, floor area, lot coverage, and what we need to consider is the hillside construction permit. What we're required to consider are issues of view corridors that are protected in the hillside area. As mentioned before, there is nothing specific in the hillside area construction permit in regards to what views are protected or even the fact that views are protected. It's inherent in the permitting itself. For the last 15 years, what this Commission has consistently applied in regards to views are views of the bay, of the airport, of the east bay hills, and of the San Francisco skyline. We don't necessarily consider views of nice trees across the street or views of a nice house you like to look at. So in visiting the property, adjacent to this one, in looking at the views from the home that the neighbor likes to enjoy from the office looking out to the bay, one could see that the views are still blocked by this application. Fully understand the fact that the second floor addition has been pulled off the garage, but there's still a massive house that's over that porch area. If you look at the views being considered, it's not views looking down at the street or across at the entrance to Mills Canyon Park, it's views looking out to the bay. While at the site looking out at the view, an airplane was landing at the airport and it was behind the story poles that are there. So it is a filtered view. It's not a broad -sweeping view like we have from some houses, but it's a blockage of a view that we typically consider. Still have difficulty approving the project in that regard. Again, don't have issues with the mass, specific size, and square footage of the house, other than where it comes down to the hillside area construction permitting and the protective views. > In all the hillside construction permit view issues we have considered in the past, it has never been in an adjudication that we have to compromise in the middle. Don't think we have looked at these applications in that way, and that's the point that my fellow commissioner was trying to make to the applicant. The Commission has been consistent in that we cannot make findings for a hillside area construction permit if there is a view blockage. The application, as it's currently presented, still makes significant blockage of existing views. The applicant has made changes, but don't think they go nearly far enough that I could make the findings for the hillside construction permit. We've really never looked at size in terms of square footage or relation to FAR or lot coverage limitations, we do look at it in terms of the design guidelines in mass, bulk and articulation. This project does a very good job of meeting the design guidelines, but it doesn't do a good job of meeting the hillside construction permit guidelines as we have interpreted them. > While walking through the neighborhood, most of the second story additions are a box on top of a box with a covered front porch that used to be the existing roof. It is a nice looking house, but unfortunately observed that although the distant view is filtered by the trees, one can see airplanes landing, the bay and the east bay hills and now you can see them through the story poles. Think there are other options for this addition, specifically, it can be moved further back on the house where there's a one story portion of the house that doesn't have a second story, and it seems that the forward portion of the second story can be City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 flipped to the back, and we can achieve a lot more of retaining the distant views. The only other comment to make is that we've been focusing on these distant views and appreciate the neighbor from behind coming forward and pointing out a landscape plan. My neighbor has Italian Cypress trees and has them growing to 40 or 50 feet. They come down along the left-hand side of the house which is going to continue to block any future views or the existing view as well. Would really encourage applicant to revisit the landscape plan, and as a courtesy to the other neighbors, keep the foliage down and the trees down to a livable and workable level so other people aren't going to have their views blocked. As the project stands, because of the blockage to the distant views, I don't think can support the application. > Didn't get a chance to visit the neighbor's house and look out the window. Watched the previous meeting video and found something odd, it looks like a bedroom window. Understand it's an office, but with respect to the zoning code, would like to ask if it is a bedroom or is it a public space? Because one thing we had consistently applied over the past several years, we read habitable space as not bedrooms. We have regularly said that views from bedrooms are not protected. Want to ask if this room is a public space, a living room or a bedroom, is it open 50% to the adjacent space or how do you read that? > It seems that the space was originally a bedroom but is now being used as an office. Particularly with these 1940s, 50s, and 60s ranch style homes, the bedrooms have high sill windows because they are more meant for light, air and some privacy along the bed wall. This is clearly a view window. It has a sill that's above desk height, similar to the windows along the front. But it's neither a huge window nor a picture window. > The point is it doesn't matter what it's used for if other circumstances make it a bedroom by code. A desk height is 29 to 30 inches and is not an uncommon bedroom sill. Some bedroom windows are taller, but all the bedrooms that I grew up in are 29 or 30 inches, sometimes lower but they're not view windows. Feel uneasy and will have to defer to my fellow commissioners who have looked out the window. Understand the interpretations and the concerns about blocking the views, and certainly understand the emotion surrounding all this. It's important that we recognize that we have traditionally, over the past five years anyway, historically paid special attention to protected views from public spaces not private spaces, and so one might even argue that an office is a private space, even if it didn't matter how it was being used. By zoning code, would suspect this to be a bedroom. Raised this issue because wanted to make sure and understand why we're interpreting this one this way as I thought we typically interpreted them. (Hurin: Code just generally says, views protected from habitable areas which would include a bedroom or office. The idea was if somebody said they had a view from a backyard that would not apply. So this really applies to habitable areas within the house.) > Kane: Over the last several years I have been here listening to these discussions, the Commission has not taken the position that any diminishment of whatever size of any view from a habitable space means that you automatically deny a project. What the Commission has done is you have allowed some cases where there's a true de minimis impact on a view, so if it's the bottom three percent of a view that's impacted, you allow a design to go forward especially if the design made all the modifications it can make to accommodate the view. You have also said where there has been a conflict or claim where there's a de minimis impact from a closet window, you have given that less weight than if there is a picture window in the living room looking out over the long distance view. Think as a part of the decisional law, a precedent on this is that there has been some elaboration about what the most privileged views are that make the most difference to the value, both economic and personal of the property, that is being affected by the proposed design. If you go back and look through some of the decisions, there is a tendency to value certain views from certain places, more strongly in terms of expecting the applicant to adjust to that. But I don't think there's a clear rule about bedrooms versus living rooms if it's habitable space. It comes under the code and it's something that the Commission considers. > Struggling a lot with this project because we all know how expensive it is to buy a property here in the bay area, and in our city, and this young family has purchased this property with the intent to make some improvements and enjoy this space for their family, from the floor plan there's a number of rooms being allocated at different functions for their lifestyle. Obviously, they have that right to add onto their home and expand upon it. However, the massing and design of the house looks nice from the rendering, but in reality is oversized or over massed for that location. A lot of the second story on the two-story homes in the neighborhood don't have gable roofs on the second floor. They do, but they're oriented toward the property sidelines and we see a shed roof along the upper floor, and it can make a huge improvement to help City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 balance the amount of view to offer to the Joe's next door. Also along with what one commissioner was saying about setting the massing of the house back on the second story, just to minimize the amount of view that is being blocked by the addition. Certainly want to see this family have the ability to add a second story to the home based on what they paid for the house, and it's not the same price that people bought in the 50s and 60s and 70s, I want them to be able to enjoy the house. > There needs to be a careful consideration of the neighbors' views and trying to find a balance that makes everyone happy. Was able to take a look at the view through the office, and next door at the neighbor's house, it's oriented toward a southeast direction as opposed to the north towards the city. Once again, substantiating an option to push the massing of the second story towards the back of the property along that right side wing of the house. In looking at the elevations being proposed, the window sizes seem to be small on that right side, and they're not giant view windows looking over the bay and they don't look to be the type that's intended to look over a neighbor's property. So cannot support this project and the way it's currently designed, but want to support a second story addition for this project. Encourage the neighbors to be supportive of each other and allow each other to have what you most want, but in a way that you can compromise and make each other happy. I'm sure the Joe's are not trying to claim or hope they're not trying to claim 100% of their view, don't think that's a fair request. It seems that Mr. Joe wanted to protect the area in his southeast direction from when he sits at his office working and gets to look out his window. > Would like the neighbors to work together and there can be a solution to this. Do believe that the view from that second -story office should be protected. It's the only room they have with a view, and if the applicant could try to work with that by pushing the house back a little bit. There are a lot of e -mails that are going around, and it's really in the purview of the Commission to apply the codes that have been given to us to implement those for the projects that come before us. It is hard at times because we do value new families in our community and we want to see you here. Try to work with your neighbors and be kind. Do like the house and really don't oppose it. Like the design, but unfortunately do not support the project as is currently proposed, with the main reason being the view blockage. Please also reconsider the tree species to be planted in the rear yard and try to keep the trees along the side of the house trimmed so they never really grow so high. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Terrones, to deny without prejudice. > Concerned about Cypress trees in both the rear yard and the side yard because we're looking at view issues now, but those Cypress trees would grow up and block that view. Don't think it's a decision that should be made lightly. For the Cypress trees, it's not like you can trim them. You can top them, and they become ugly. > Have done remodels like this before and they take longer to do than a new house. They cost equally as much and they become very problematic and sometimes you're handcuffed with what you're given. I don't generally encourage tearing down older homes, but what's happening here and what you want to do with this house, applicant may want to consider starting from scratch and you could solve a lot of these problems. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis d. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 District Regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off -Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The proposed amendments are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15282 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 Attachments: Staff Report Redline Version - Amendments to Title 25 Clean Version - Amendments to Title 25 Resolution Newspaper Notice All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.• > Staff report says ADUs up to 800 square feet are exempt, is that supposed to be 850 square feet or up to 850 square feet? (Hurin: State law says you can have up to 800 square feet for an ADU, which in that case you have to exempt it from lot coverage and floor area. There's some discrepancy between 800 square feet and 850 square feet in State law, so to avoid any confusion staff is recommending that it just be 850 square feet.) > So we're bringing 50 square feet more permissive as to lot coverage and floor area? (Hurin: Correct.) > Just a couple of clarification questions because we're generally trying to come in compliance with State law and not asking these questions to disagree. In regards to the setback issue, if we have a lot frontage of more than 50 feet and therefore needs to have a 7-foot side setback, and an application was specifically being submitted for an ADU, they can be within four feet of the side property line, is that correct? (Hurin: That's correct. State law says you cannot require more than a four -foot side or rear setback.) > Also, the State law says "no replacement parking for the primary dwelling can be required if an existing detached or attached garage is converted to an ADU or junior ADU," does that mean we can convert garages? (Hurin: You can take an existing attached or detached garage and convert it to an ADU and not have to require the displaced parking for the single family dwelling. In some cases, you may not have to provide parking for the ADU if you meet those certain criteria that State law sets out.) > Can parking for an ADU be provided in tandem in a driveway and no additional parking is required for a general ADU? (Hurin: That's correct.) > Is another justification or reason for the additional changes requested by staff to avoid situations where you have an ADU or a junior ADU that's coming before the Commission and it's approvable, as allowed by right, but because they have these other things like windows within ten feet, it would have to come for a discretionary review just for that reason if we have these restrictions in our ordinances? (Kane: That's right. We're trying not to create inconsistencies with the way these things are processed, nor are we trying to create incentives to lie about what the use is. We don't want people submitting for ADUs because they get more with an ADU than with a regular addition and we want to make sure regular additions or conversions are processed appropriately. We don't want to create a reason to cloak things and get advantages by doing that, and you don't by the other. Having said that, with all of these mandated relaxations of the city's local control, we want to make sure these ADUs are occupied as ADUs and used for their intended purpose. And just to note, we have had questions from the commission and the public, ADUs that go under these provisions are not allowed to be used for short-term rentals such as Air8NB. Enforcement of that might be a challenge in many ways, but it is something that is not allowed under the law. Also, if there's an ADU proposed and an existing accessory structure, that for building code reasons required secondary egress, we cannot force it through a CUP process. It has us violating the 60 days, so we would have to ministerially allow it. Under certain circumstances, if there's a secondary egress within ten feet of a property line that would require a CUP, that's something we couldn't force through the CUP process. If there was another way of meeting the secondary egress in that same structure, if we don't go for this version where the CUP is required, we can ask them to locate that egress in a second place. If it's something like an attached garage with an entrance from the front, there's only so many ways to exit it.) > So you can take an existing detached garage that has one parking space in front of it, that satisfies City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 the parking requirement for a single family home, turn it into an ADU and add zero parking. Is that a State law or is that something we can work on? (Kane: That's State law.) > On page 7, under Code Section 25.59.070 (i) "an expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the existing single family dwelling or accessory structure is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU'; does that 150 square feet need to be within the allowable amount? That's not an additional 150 square feet to the 850 square feet or to the 500 square feet for the JADU, is it? (Hurin: This section here applies to ADUs that are created within an existing space. So the 150 square feet was put in to allow for things like a stairway and a landing.) Does it count towards the 500 square feet for the JADU? (Hurin: It does not. If it's an exterior stairway, it would not. The State law is a little vague and we were hoping they would provide some amendments and clarifications to this, but the intent is to allow, for example, if someone is converting a space within a second floor house, or at the rear of the house, and it might have a slope on a sloping lot, it's there to give the ability to provide access to that ADU because now the ADU requires a separate entrance.) (Kane: But the way that the State law reads, that's the example that was provided, but the law just says 150 additional square feet if you're in an existing structure. So when you add these all up, if you're in an R-1 District and you have a JADU that's 500 square feet, and you add 150 square feet and you also build a two -bedroom ADU free standing that's 1,000 square feet, then you end up with a lot on what could be a small property.) (Hurin: I would point out that the JADU is only permitted within an existing single family home or within a proposed new single family home, if the ADU is 850 square feet or less. If somebody had a 1,000 square foot ADU now, they would not be able to do a junior ADU because it's over 850.) > On sheet 8 on the last paragraph, it says the maximum allowed building height for a detached ADU is 16 feet. Then on sheet 14, paragraph (3) the roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of 15 feet above grade. (Hurin: If you keep reading it says "except," because State law specifically says 16 feet is allowed for ADUs. This particular section speaks about any other accessory structure or detached garage to have a 15 foot height limit, except accessory structures used for accessory dwelling units which are allowed to go up to 16 feet. We still did incorporate the 9-foot maximum plate height and pitched roof on at least two sides to bring that massing down.) (Kane: That interpretation where it states 16 feet at the height of the gable is staffs interpretation because the State law is vague.) > The ADU can only be one story, correct? (Hurin: Yes, that is correct for detached structures. If it's attached to the house, you can have it as part of your second floor.) (Kane: This is why we interpreted that as a sloped roof rather than a 16-foot flat roof with a 9-foot plate height. We're assuming they can't sneak a living space in there. At least as a second whole unit or maybe a loft. That's going to be code enforcement.) > On page 17, requirements for duplexes, apartments, hotels and condominiums. Let's say somebody wants to build a five -unit apartment building, what is going to stop them from calling one of the units an ADU to get around the parking requirement? (Hurin: The ADUs for multi -family are only permitted in existing multi -family dwellings. So you can convert space within an existing multi -family structure, and in addition to that, you can build up to two detached ADUs.) > What if someone builds a five -unit building and a year later they come to you and say we're going to split this unit in half and make it an ADU? (Hurin: State law says the conversion can only take place in non -livable or non -habitable areas. State law says you cannot take a large unit and make it into two ADUs) (Kane: What that would create is a scenario where I'm building a four -unit building with an extensive lobby on the top floor or the recreation room. At the staff level, we're more worried about people pretending to build ADUs and using them as recreation rooms as a way of getting out of the setbacks and so on and not using them for the additional units. At that point, the city and the neighbors have already dealt with the impact required by State law of reduced setbacks or reduced parking requirements. Then the idea is that the trade-off for that is they'll be somewhere for somebody to live that's more affordable than what we can normally get. If we don't get that unit, then really we've gotten the worst of both worlds. That's something we're going to do our best to address from an implementation and code enforcement perspective, and anybody considering that should anticipate we'll be looking very carefully at how these things are ultimately used.) > On an existing multi -family project, can parking in those projects be converted to an ADU? (Hurin: State law does allow garage areas within multi -family to be converted. However, the parking would still have to be provided for the new ADU that's being built unless it falls within those criteria that the project is City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 within half mile of a transit. They may not be able to convert as many garage spaces as they thought they could.) Let's say it's a downtown four -unit building with a two -car detached garage, can they convert that two -car detached garage into an additional ADU? (Hurin: Yes. State law says you can convert up to 25% of the existing number of units or at least one. They're going to let you do one conversion, and then you can take 25%. So in a four -unit building, that would be one, plus if you have room, you can add up to two additional detached ADUs in addition to that conversion.) > Can we touch upon the historical relevance at Burlingame Park in downtown area? We have historical homes that have historical garages. Is there any design review that you are going to implement, how are we going to get around the historical? (Hurin: Any project that is not discretionary, so all of these ADUs are ministerial, will not trigger the historic resource evaluation.) What if you have a garage structure that's a contributor to the historical relevance character of the home? (Kane: That's something we'll have to research further and provide guidance on.) (Hurin: There could be cases where it's an attached garage that's part of the home and it gives some sort of historical character, you could still do the conversion. What that looks like from the outside, we may have to have a consultant weigh in on that.) > Staff report states that ADUs up to 850 square feet in size are exempt from lot coverage and floor area regulations. Does that apply to both detached and attached ADUs and all ADUs in general? (Hurin: That's correct.) > Item 5 in staff report note that the rear setback requirement is reduced for an attached ADU from 15 feet to 4 feet. That's to say rear and side setback, not just rear? (Hurin: Correct. The point was to show you the main difference because that's a big change compared to what we're used to seeing.) We have properties in Burlingame that have three-foot side setbacks, so that would still be honored? (Hurin: Yes. On those lots that are narrow that only require a 3-foot setback, they would follow the three foot side setback requirement and four feet at the rear. Those that require more than four feet, you can only require up to four feet). So 7-foot side setback would now be a 4-foot setback related to an ADU? (Hurin: Correct.) > I'm trying to understand the whole garage conversion. I understand if you want to just take an existing garage and convert it into an ADU. If you wanted to modify that garage, can you add or tear it down completely, locate it at the rear of the property and make it an ADU? (Hurin: Correct and not have to replace the parking. You couldn't convert an attached garage to a family room that's part of your house, and build a detached garage and not replace the parking because the garage exemption is only if you're replacing the garage with an ADU.) > Regarding the logistics of mail with multiple properties and addresses theoretically on the same property, how do people handle their mailbox? (Hurin: The Public Works Department works closely with the post office. Generally, there will be two mailboxes outside. I'm not sure if Public Works is accepting numbers only or letters and numbers and a combination.) (Kane: We're not requiring a separate address particularly for things that are in existing structures. Based on personal experiences, often times the mail can be delivered jointly or separately. In general the official address is the dominant unit's address and the people leasing have to figure out how it's going to be divided up. The one thing that's important, one of the reasons we're making sure we track these and we do want people to come through the process is so that public safety knows there is another unit and how it is accessed. If there's a fire, EMS or police problems, dispatch needs to know that so we want to make sure we have that accurate information. But it may not yield a separate numbered address. > On the food preparation counter area, in relation to the size of the junior ADU, that is so vague. Some cities like San Mateo I know require a six-foot long kitchenette. Do we want to better define it because it's vague? (Kane: We had discussed that and we had looked at different samples. The State is leaning more on the general vague side. Other cities have prescribed it down to the square footage, and we didn't want to go that route. We would rather keep it vague, and have our Building Division take a look at it when they're processing the plan review because if you get it so prescriptive, it may not work. We can't deny the ADU or JADU based on that. We can't invent a standard on which we deny projects which would be in violation of State law. JADUs generally are probably less impactful on the neighborhood because they're inside an existing structure. So the thought was that we don't necessarily want to create arbitrary burdens to creation of JADUs as opposed to incentivizing people to build entire new structures in their backyard. It someone is looking to add a unit to a single family parcel, a JADU is likely to be less of a problem because it doesn't change the mass and bulk of the building and it doesn't significantly change the City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 neighborhood pattern in terms of the architecture and spacing of the home.) > It just seems in some regard to encourage more people to take a bedroom and a bathroom, add a door to the outside and add a counter, and say that's my JADU. But it's not going to be used as a JADU, instead will be used as a family room with a wet bar. (Hurin: JADUs are allowed within existing homes. It someone wants to put in a wet bar, they can do that. It doesn't have to be a JADU. JADUs can have their own bathroom facilities or share with a main dwelling. The State was trying to be more flexible in allowing these units to come on line without making it too difficult for the homeowner to do this.) > The 150 square feet addition for the JADU to deal with egress, you can't add a chunk of space to a home and say that's my JADU. You still have to convert a space within the perimeter of the home, and you're allowed up to another 150 square feet to deal with the external access, and that's it? (Hurin: Correct.) Because 150 square feet is a room and that's pretty big. But could you make that a room? (Hurin: The intent was to provide egress and ingress to the JADU and it can be an exterior stairway or an enclosed stairway. If they're proposing a separate entry room to the ADU of JADU as part of the 150 feet, we would probably deny that and say it can only be for a foyer or enclosure or exterior landing or stairway.) If it looks like a bedroom, it's not going to be allowed? (Hurin: Our understanding was the State was going to provide further clarification regarding that specific item, but we haven't seen it yet.) > You're still requiring an initial application through planning for these ADUs and JADUs? (Hurin: That's correct. but it's still considered ministerial. We thought it would help the applicant because it would get through the planning requirements, so when they apply for a building permit, they have taken care of the requirements and that it would be processed quicker. The ADU permit is still ministerial and there's no public hearing and no neighborhood notification for that.) (Kane: Some cities do go straight to building permit. It was staffs estimation that there are enough issues involving planning that we wanted to make sure it was on the right track and we were able to meet the strict timelines that are set forth in the statutes. The Commission and the public should be aware that we anticipate legislative changes from Sacramento. There were five bills addressing this and they're mutually inconsistent as to certain points. There are ambiguities and we took our best stab at interpreting those ambiguities. Other cities have interpreted them similarly or differently because we are lacking guidelines in some of these details. We tried to look at what's the purpose behind the legislation and what are the city's interest in trying to make sure we don't have, harmful units going in that are hurting people more than necessary, so hence, some of the interpretations like the 16-foot being a gable roof rather than a flat roof.) > How is staff handling all of this? How many inquiries have come up? (Kane: The Planning Division is getting 10 to 15 calls a day about ADUs which is extraordinary relative to the number of projects we have in this city.) (Hurin: Correct. We were getting a lot of these inquiries prior to January 1st when the State law went into effect. So we've been working really hard at coming up with this draft ordinance so we are in compliance with State law.) > A question about occupancy permit for an ADU if a house is under construction. If somebody has built an ADU and then decides to rent it out and they have a tenant in that space, and then they decide they want to expand their house, and the scope of work is such that their occupancy permit is taken from them, what happens to the tenant that's on the property? (Hurin: If I remember correctly, State law just very simply says you cannot issue the occupancy permit for the ADU prior to issuing the occupancy permit for the single family home. My understanding was that's in the case where you're building a new home and an ADU. So you don't want to allow somebody to start living in an ADU while there's heavy machinery on -site for the construction of the new home. So I think at this point, our understanding is this would apply in cases where you're building a new home and detached ADU. If someone is living in the ADU and you want to do an addition to that home, I don't think it affects that particular case. If someone is living in an ADU and they want to tear down and build a new home, State law isn't very clear in that specific case. The city's interest is making sure the occupants are safe during the construction. I don't know if we can rescind an occupancy permit for an ADU.) (Kane: We have to look at that and there may be further guidance coming forward. Generally, from code enforcement, when looking at issues related to this, we try not to create homelessness unless we have to because it's really dangerous for someone to be there. In this case, I think it loses its character as an accessory dwelling unit if you're kicking a tenant to occupy it yourself while you do your main house. It's no longer an accessory dwelling unit. It's something we have to look at from the staffs perspective. It's not incorporated in State law. It's one of the many iteration of things that can happen that we don't have a road map for. But I think the spirit of the law is to create City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 additional units so that people can have more kinds of affordable ways of living in unaffordable cities, and if then the ADU is either reconverted to living space or lower income tenants are kicked out to accommodate higher income homeowners, I'm not sure that's consistent with the purposes of the law. But that's something we can't anticipate in this ordinance. It's not covered in the State law, and it's something we'll have to put in the hopper with any number of different things we have to work out in the iterations of how these principles interact.) > I think people are going to be facing a lot of different decisions on what to do when they want to build an ADU, and if it's serving as housing for oneself when your house is under construction, what's the difference, you're not taking a rental property somewhere else that somebody else can be living in. (Kane: Right. If it's currently unoccupied that's a different issue as opposed to if you're evicting a lower income tenant.) > Page 11 of the redline version states "where an existing single family dwelling is located within the rear 60% of the lot a detached ADU may be located in the font of the single family dwelling, but not in any portion of the required front setback," is there going to be some type of design review guideline around that if it's in front of a house and within setbacks? (Hurin: Again, there can't be any discretionary review on ADUs. They have to be ministerially approved. We do have some guidelines for design in the code that talks about compatibility with the existing home in terms of materials and roof forms, but we can't bring an ADU for design review. State law does not permit that. Again, the idea is to remove zoning obstacles that would prevent these ADUs from going in.) (Kane: There are some cities that allow ADUs to be put in the front setback. We did not make that interpretation for this proposed ordinance. The thought was they're unusual in the city, but there are some single family lots where there's an older smaller home way in the back with the entirety of the lot in front of it between the street and the beginning of the house, and there is nowhere to put an ADU in the rear of those lots because the house is already occupying the rear of the house. The number of lots in Burlingame that fit that description are quite small.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > There was no Commission direction/discussion. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to recommend approval of the Ordinance to City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 2625 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Leonard Ng, LNAI Architecture, applicant and architect; Galen Ma and Tina Shi, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Attachments: 2625 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2625 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2625 Martinez Dr - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones reported that he had a meeting City of Burlingame Page 14 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 with the project applicant and their architect to get a preview of what was being submitted. Commissioner Gaul reported that he spoke with the neighbor that lives to the right specifically about the design and the second floor deck. Commissioners Sargent and Tse reported that they met with the applicant and his architect. Commissioner Comaroto reported that she met with the applicant. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.• > On the summary of proposed exterior materials for the roof, staff report notes painted cement plaster with smooth fine sand finish, is that correct? Will defer that question to the applicant. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Leonard Ng, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Applicant clarified that roofing will be a membrane roofing material. > Concerned about modern design fitting in the neighborhood with traditional ranch homes. Not opposed to modern design. Please explain how this house will fit in with all the existing ranch homes in the neighborhood? (Ng: As some of the commissioners have pointed out, in Burlingame, this is probably one of the neighborhoods that is not historic. Homes are mostly ranch and one story. There are a lot of hip roofs so the fronts are horizontal as opposed to a gable facing the street. We intentionally set back our second story, probably 18 feet or so from the front, and introduced a horizontal element to try and keep that horizontal and one-story reading. The home is of a modern design, wouldn't say updated, but it's moving into a modern direction as opposed to the ranch style from the 60's and 70's. Rather than look at a contextualized strategy, we really tried to look at the layout and massing of the surrounding homes and tried to take queues from that. If you look at our plan, it's exactly like the other neighbors. Obviously we have a second story that we have to integrate, so we're trying to work within that framework to not be afraid of neighborhoods evolving overtime and yet still be true in terms of massing and scale where the garage is placed with the neighbors on the street.) > Had a concern about the second floor deck and spoke with the neighbor that would be impacted on that side. You probably heard from our earlier discussion about the size of second floor decks. Deck is off the master bedroom and will be just for the couple that live there, but needs to be reduced in size to a certain degree. You're at about 150 square feet, think you should look at that. (Ng: We definitely heard the previous discussion, and we're taking it to heart. I would say that this site is a bit unique in the sense that the rear of the property faces the Burlingame Intermediate School play field. The homeowners and adjacent neighbor have discussed the project. As part of the design, we extended the exterior wall as a screening blade that shields that view, and proposing a lot of tall planting in that area so there are no view issues. Most of the deck is for the master bedroom. We're happy to work with neighbor and do anything to mitigate any concerns.) > Recognizing that these ranch homes are long, low and horizontally oriented, how do you feel about the void window to solid wall relationship, in comparison to those in the neighborhood? (Ng: A lot of the surrounding ranch homes have a forward wing with a garage facing the front. We're doing that as well, but we're trying to integrate it into the design and subordinate it into the over all design of the home. The other wing is a punch window, sometimes a tripartite division. Most of the surrounding ranch homes have little glazing facing the street. We're proposing something similar in spirit where we have selective windows, some are divided in two lites, and we're grouping the upper window into a single opening. We are trying to keep the opening towards the front minimal within two or three opening to blend in with the neighborhood and not be too flashy and be more soft spoken.) Public Comments: City of Burlingame Page 15 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 > Robert Elliston, 2606 Martinez Drive: I have two problems with the proposal as planned. One, the two stories is out of character with the surrounding houses. There's one two-story house in our neighborhood which happens to be across the street from ours. We moved in the neighborhood 40 years ago in 1979 and that house was already two stories. The rest of the houses in the neighborhood are all one -story ranch houses. Concerned about the design being very modern. I do like modern, lived in modern houses growing up. But think it's very much out of character of what we have in the neighborhood. Most of the houses in the neighborhood were built in the 1950s era and every house has been remodeled extensively including ours. It's to maintain the ranch look. Unless there's significant design changes maintaining a single floor plan and the integrity of the neighborhood, I would recommend not approving this. > Mariana Karl, 2618 Martinez Drive: Our houses all have A -line roofs. Am not opposed to modern homes. On 6 Karen Court and at the end of Martinez Drive, there are beautiful one story modern homes with A -line roofs. Concerned with the second story and lack of A -line roof in the design. There are other people that remodeled next to our house, it's modern and they kept the same dimensions. Have been in neighborhood for 35 years. This is a big square and there are many A -line roof homes in the neighborhood. Have seen beautiful modern homes done. Am also concerned about the second story. I live directly across the street and I look at it. They say we don't have a view, but in a way we do. I can see the skyline and the airplanes come in. That may not come into consideration with you. I don't know how much shade or shadow would come on our house. Just the shape of the roof is what I'm concerned about. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Swayed by the comments from the applicant that in neighborhoods such as this, where Burlingame as a community, have said modern homes are kind of acceptable. In other words we've had concerns in the past with more modern homes in the Easton Addition for example. Commission has generally determined that modern homes are acceptable if they maintain the character of a house. If something behaves and looks like a house, and whether it's modern or not modern, it's a good neighbor if it looks and breathes like a house. The point is that when something is a little bit more modern and starts to look more like a doctor's office, dentist office and more commercial, that's where we've had concerns in the past. Don't think this is looking like that, but the general scale of a residential structure is very similar in nature and character to an Eichler home. They have become beloved and folks have come to recognize what they represent in terms of character. They work well as part of an enclave, but they're not very pedestrian friendly and forward -friendly. They open themselves to the rear, they are patio homes. They were oriented around the car, but Eichler homes have more character than this home has. Eichler homes have exposed beams, gable roofs and have things to add character and texture to them as pieces of architecture. > In terms of our design guidelines, we have to make the findings for basic issues of compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood and architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure itself. Having some difficulty with those issues. Don't have an issue with the modern style and the massing. But the ranch houses have a lot of texture and character. They have the wood wainscoting, sometimes brick wainscoting or base and window trims, the types of things that add character and texture to that architecture. Not saying this has to be made and turned into ginger bread, but there are things that can be done to the character of this architecture that could help. Perhaps the wood siding can be extended on to other portions of the house and frame that vertical piece around the entry. Perhaps some horizontal awnings can be added over the windows to add scale and character similar to the awning that's over the garage and highlighting the entry as a nice piece of architecture. If those features were added to this house it would take on that texture in character that perhaps the neighbors are looking for that would be consistent with the neighborhood. Would not necessarily be of the same style, but would be similar just in terms of its detailing and how this represents itself. Fully understand that architecture wants to have a certain purity, but it has to behave well in the neighborhood. We don't have historic districts and we don't have anything in the ordinance that says this has to remain one story and has to be a ranch home. We have design review criteria that says it has to behave well and adhere to the City of Burlingame Page 16 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 design standard. That's what the neighbors are getting at whether it's modern or ranch. It needs additional detailing and character so it's consistent with the neighborhood. > In support of the special permit for the attached garage. Think that fits with the pattern of the neighborhood and don't have an issue with that. May have to consider story poles because we don't know what views there might be, and it would behoove us to do that because that's consistent with what we have done in the hillside area. > Quite like the design, in a different circumstance it would be a nice house. Where it's challenged is that there is an enclave of homes with regular spacing and setbacks that are marching along this curved street, with very similar characteristics, and it's hard to see how this one really fits into that regular pattern. In much of the hills this type of house is much easier to accept because there are great variations and different setbacks. That makes it easier to have a unique, sort of eccentric home. This will be seen as eccentric in that neighborhood, and the real challenge is the regularity of that enclave. Like the house but it's a challenge to fit in this circumstance. > Have enclave of Eichler and modern homes in the hills. Homes can be built in a similar fashion or design of an Eichler home, so you have a crawl space and an open web truss in your ceiling to run duct work through. Eichlers were a great movement in American architecture. This house has a little bit more of a commercial feel than a residential feel. If you explore those residential features on modern homes, it would improve the design greatly. The deck upstairs needs to be reduced in size. The rendering isn't helping. It looks more southwest than Burlingame. All the other yards in the neighborhood are lush with lots of greenery, trees, and flowers. Can incorporate those things with the landscape plan to help it blend in a little bit more. > Like the idea of a modern house, but one of the neighbors across the street did say that there are some distant views, so would like to see story poles erected. May also affect someone located a couple of blocks away. > Eichler homes are viewed as modern homes and not mid-century modern. Some of the roof lines can be considered to work with this home. Love a modern design and this commission has approved flat roof modern -style homes in neighborhoods where there is more of an eclectic nature in style. This street has a regular pattern to the enclave of homes. Would request story poles for the benefit of the neighborhood in case there are views that are of a concern to neighbors, maybe not immediately next door, but up the hill across the street. > Applicant should go back to the design guidelines and review the section about decks and views into neighboring properties. Appreciate what was done in terms of screening on the side, but don't think that this deck complies with the guidelines, size of deck should be reduced. Need to look more closely at that going forward. > Like the project. It's a bit industrial, needs to be softened. Some of the landscaping needs to be revisited. Need to also look at reducing size of second floor deck. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been erected. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis b. 1804 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Erwin Tanjuaquio, applicant and designer; Hillary Milks, property owner) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1804 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1804 Devereux Dr - Attachments 1804 Devereux Dr - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. City of Burlingame Page 17 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.• > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Erwin Tanjuaquio, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > There is a discrepancy between the drawings and photo of the house, elevations do not appear to be drawn correctly. Photo depicts that the roof ridge over the garage intersects the main ridge line at the center of the house. But in the drawings it seems to be shown sufficiently lower than the top of that ridge. (Tanjuaquio: Believe that's an issue of how the photo was taken.) Don't think so, visited the site and saw the connection of the roof lines, this affects the windows on the second floor. It misrepresents how the front of the house looks like. There are a number of areas and window sizes that seem to be inconsistent with what is currently there. They're not accurate in terms of an existing plan. You're representing the existing as the new as well with the addition on top. It affects all the elevations with the roof lines intersecting in different locations. (Tanjuaquio: We did take on -site measurements of the house, we will definitely look at that closer and figure out what the discrepancy might be.) > Looking at the existing site plan versus the new site plan, the dimension that's on the left-hand side indicates 4'4" from the property line to the side of the house. On the new site plan, it says 4'-2". Is that wall being changed at all or do you know why there's a discrepancy? (Tanjuaquio: That may just be a typo, there are no changes proposed.) Please correct typo on plans. > Want to understand the character. The notes on the exterior elevation call for the windows to be 400 Anderson series vinyl clad wood windows, but it says with simulated true divided. Most of these windows are either sliders or single -hung. Not seeing any muntins, that would be a simulated divided lite window. Is that a typo or is the intent to have or not have muntins in the windows? (Tanjuaquio: At this point, we have not included those details because planning staff has told us this is done at the next step.) If there's an intent to add some muntins in the windows, meaning grids, those need to be included for us to review. (Tanjuaquio: It would be open pane.) Plans should be revised to accurately reflect windows with no simulated true divided lites. > All of the windows on the existing house are vinyl windows. Were you intending to replace all windows in the house? The note on sheet A3 says "new windows and trims to match existing main house (typical) with new 4" wide stucco foam trim." That's not the detail on the house. The house is a wood stucco mold with vinyl retrofit windows, but your note shows a 400 series Anderson. (Tanjuaquio: I think Anderson series is a mistake.) So you would be installing vinyl windows then? (Tanjuaquio: Yes, we're going to match the existing.) Typically we are looking for a wood clad window of some type, not a vinyl window. You can use any manufacturer. If you just specify you're going to use a wood window, that would be good. > You're going to replace all the stucco on the house with hardy siding, is that correct? (Tanjuaquio: Yes.) So on the second story addition you're going to go vertical and on the first floor you're going horizontal with the hardy siding? (Tanjuaquio: Yes.) Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Very clear that the roof ridge meets on the area above the garage and the two dormers are at least City of Burlingame Page 18 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 halfway or potentially more than halfway up that long slope of the roof. The garage doors are missing windows. The picture windows at the porch, on the far left to the fireplace, and the two side windows are missing horizontal muntins. It is important to see all these drawn properly because that significantly changes the character of the house. The first thing that needs to happen is for the existing conditions to be properly recorded. > The design itself is a very odd solution to the architecture. It may function well internally, but to take that addition and shove it all the way to the back of the house seems very strange. It's as though you're building a separate building in the back of the lot. > The change from horizontal siding to vertical siding doesn't make a lot of sense. Seems that not a lot of attention was paid to that kind of detail. Think this is a good candidate for a design review consultant for all the reasons named. The project is not consistent and the existing conditions need to be drawn correctly. Not having the existing conditions right means the proposed alterations are not related to anything we can assess. > We don't typically delve into business relationships, but am confused and it might be reflected in the project as to who is taking ownership for the design. Would caution the applicants to get a handle on that and make sure the issues that were raised are addressed. > Siding patterns are inconsistent, changing from horizontal on the first floor to vertical on the second floor to not being represented on the side elevation. It is concerning because that makes it look like a paper -thin finish that's adhered to the front of the house. Agree that we have to consider the design review criteria for the compatibility of the architecture style with the existing character of the neighborhood and architectural style in mass and bulk of the structure. It's an addition that has been popped up on to the rear of the house. It sounded like there is an argument to maintain a one-story house towards Devereux Drive, but there's nothing in the design review guidelines restricting a two-story home. There is nothing restricting massing coming toward the front of the house if it integrates better with the massing, the structure of the architecture, and is consistent with that neighborhood character. Think it can benefit both with consistency of the drawings and the design if this went through the design review consulting process. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer this project to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS > Planning Manager Hurin noted that interviews for Planning Commissioner were held on February 21, 2020. The City Council will be voting on the appointment at their meeting on March 2, 2020. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 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 February 24, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2020, 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 $1,045.00, 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. City of Burlingame Page 19 Printed on 511212020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2020 City of Burlingame Page 20 Printed on 511212020