Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.09.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 14, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1341 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation use. (Adna Berryman, applicant and property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1341 Marsten Rd - Staff Report 1341 Marsten Rd - Attachments 1341 Marsten Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Chair Tse noted that she had met with the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Adna Berryman, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >I want to try to understand the scope, did you prepare the drawings or was it Mr. Wong, the civil engineer whose stamp is on the drawing? (Berryman: I prepared them and Mr. Wong reviewed the plans and then authorized and signed off on them.) I am a little confused at this point because I wasn't able to access the interior. Please understand that I am not trying to be picky in terms of the drawing, just want to understand the scope because some of the dimensions don't seem to make sense and don't appear to be to scale. >Are the two bathrooms existing or new? (Berryman: Everything is existing.) Have you talked to the building department about those bathrooms? (Berryman: I talked to the Chief Building Official, we went over everything. We were going to have one of those bathrooms comply with disabled -accessible because both doors are too small, but he said I just need to make one bathroom compliant. So he said to note on the plans “spoke to Rick Caro and will be addressed at the time the building permit needs to be issued .” He said we'll have to bring in drawings at that time and go through it and this is a continuation of what needs to be done.) The reason for the question is not to stick our nose into a building permit, but I want to make sure what we're approving is going to work for you because if those bathrooms have to get larger, you're confident the resulting training area is still going to work for what you're proposing? (Berryman: See where the office is and how they share that wall for both bathrooms? Those are not load bearing walls . Everything has added space above it, so Rick said if you cut the bathroom in half, you can see where the wall would extend out another two feet. We would need to add an approved size door which would have to be accessed through the office. But once again, that is basically having it on the premise so at least I have an option for a person with disabilities.) Then the only caution would be for an accessible restroom, even if it's a single unisex stall, the typical size is an 8 foot square, keep that in mind as you move forward. >Can you describe in a little more detail the variance application? We have to make the findings for extraordinary circumstances. Can you also talk us through, in relation to the variance, how the operations of the auto facility on the right -hand side are going to overlap with your training, because one of the issues is going to be the parking. (Berryman: My understanding is I'm one parking spot short. Adna’s Automotive is required to have three parking spots, the rest is pretty much either used or given. This is supposed to be a drop -off and go, parents are not expected to stay during the training. I'm supposed to be closing down my operation on the automotive side because I only have one other technician with me . The whole plan is to have everything built out and ready to go. So if they're pick up, they're picking up between 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm when I'm at the training facility. Ideally, they are to be picked up before those hours, but obviously at times they will overlap. As far as the variance, if I was either missing all seven spots or missing one spot, I still needed a variance. So coming up one parking spot short, I assumed it wasn't going to be that big of a deal to apply for a variance knowing that, but I'm trying to do everything I can. The other thing is that the class sizes depend on the age group. So as it starts off at ages between 7 to 12, you can go up to 8 kids per class, but more likely it's going to be in the range of four to six kids per class. Especially now because of COVID, my franchise won't let me train more than four kids at a time. So just from that standpoint going forward, hypothetically it's supposed to be mostly kids being dropped off. I don't want people waiting around anyway. But I understand as part of the rules of having parking going on with the business.) >In regards to the overlap or interface between the proposed training facility and the existing automotive business, you have one parking space for Adna's Auto that's located in the garage in front of the adjacent office. So help us understand how that is going to provide an additional parking space to get to the count that we're being asked to consider. (Berryman: Because that's almost considered my driveway area, a car can be moved out, repositioned, and put back if need be. That's dead space inside my shop, right where the racks are. I have one entrance and one exit. So no matter if I park a car there, I have to bring it out into the street and double park, then bring another car in and leave it there or vice versa.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In visiting the site this afternoon, the parking area was essentially full. There were eight cars in there and they weren't all parked in the stalls. Some were related to the automotive operation, maybe waiting to get serviced. Is there some scenario that perhaps you could commit to in which any cars related to the auto body when the training facility is in operation, those would be pulled into the garage? (Berryman: Yes. A lot of it has to do with people picking up and getting cars cleared out. I'm not in a rush to do that right now. But yes, I would commit to keeping the lot clear and not letting people leave cars there for five days; I would have the cars picked up when needed to keep parking at the minimum and keep spots available). >Expected to see an accessible parking space here. Is there something that relieves you of that responsibility? My understanding is that for 1 to 25 spaces, there has to be one accessible space and it has to be the shortest route to the entry. That changes everything here, so walk us through that . (Berryman: When you say accessible space are you talking about the size of a handicap parking spot?) Every parking lot requires an accessible space and that's determined by the number of spaces total, so I don't know how that works and why there wouldn't be one here. (Berryman: So the parking spots that are closest to the building are a little bigger on the ends.) They can't be a little bit bigger, they have to meet the requirement of an accessible space and to have a path to get you to the door and it has to be free and clear and striped. So unless I'm mistaken about that, this doesn't work. (Berryman: So, when you're parked next to the building, how is that not accessible to the front door that's right there?) Well, you need to look at the building code. That's not our business to get into that tonight. (Berryman: Rick Caro told me as long as the path of travel of the exit route of the building, which you see it's straight, you could basically go under the eave of the building that's not in the path of travel where the car backs up from . That's what he was telling me.) The requirements are very specific and you can look them up in the building code. There's a certain clearance requirement and striping requirement, no cars are to travel over that space except under extenuating circumstances. So I don't see how you're going to make that work and not increase the number of spaces. In fact, you're going to lose a space once you've done that. >Hurin: The applicant will need to verify the requirements with the Building Division. Before this comes back for action, those requirements will need to be adequately addressed. If something needs to be re-striped to comply with the accessible requirements, then we'll make sure that the plans show that before it comes back to you for review. >(Berryman: Is the parking variance for one or all parking? If I didn't have any parking, is it still applying for the same variance or is it based on if I'm only missing one parking stall? I'm confused.) (Hurin: Correct. The parking variance is for one parking space because you're one parking space short .) (Berryman: So I thought it went automatically toward all or nothing. I didn't know there's a specific amount that I had to be going after. Sorry, I didn't understand.) >The point is that according to the building codes, there should be a required disabled -accessible compliant parking space in your lot which is a certain dimension that's much wider than a typical parking space, and that's where you may lose another parking space if you have to create a disabled -accessible compliant space which further affects your parking variance, so that's the point the commissioner is trying to make. You'll probably work with staff and the building department to try to assess this issue for your next submission or the next time we see this project again. Do you understand that? (Berryman: Yes. I'm kind of confused because it was not explained that I would be applying for one versus all, because I would have applied for no parking situation in that sense. Would that have made a difference? Because I was never given that option at that time.) No, according to the usage of your application, you have a parking requirement which is one greater than what you're providing on your site. And in addition to that, the potential requirement of a disabled -accessible space, which will take up more space than is available, may reduce your parking spaces by an additional one stall. So you may have a parking variance for two spaces. You need to look into the details further and address this for your next submission. >The parking lot actually doesn't look very leveled, so even if you were to convert one of those spaces to a disabled-accessible space, you would have cross slope problems too. It's going to take a bit more investigation. > As a mother who has spent years driving my kids around to activities, I typically will stay for any drop-off that's an hour and a half or less. Looking at the description, most of your appointments are one hour long and you have a large waiting room in your space, I don't see how you could discourage parents from parking their car and coming in and waiting that hour or maybe seeing what their child is undergoing with their training. So something for you to keep in mind as well, you may not be able to keep all those Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes parents from parking their car and coming in and waiting in the waiting room for that one hour. >(Berryman: The planning department provided me an example of the yoga studio that's located on California Drive. There's not one parking spot available for that unit at all. That's what she was using and she gave me the whole planning layout. This is how they applied for their permit. This is what I'm relating it to when I'm asking these questions, because they don't have even one parking spot available and so they had to apply for a variance for that. That's kind of where I get confused when talking about these types of restrictions, people are getting away with it without having any parking at all.) We can't speak to other properties and how other businesses are run. We're speaking in terms of your project and the limitations that may be occurring with your parking requirements. I would suggest speaking to staff to get some further clarifications and also work with the building department more closely. There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I want to find a way to support an application like this. Just generally speaking and philosophically, the effort to train kids and help them with whatever training skills that you're offering, I am all for that. Would like to try to find a way to make this work. But the project needs some professional knowledge and skill from a design standpoint. Mr. Wong, if he's involved in this and has stamped these plans, that makes me nervous for him because the plans are not to scale and things not being figured out, that's going to complicate this application. That doesn't mean it's complicated beyond approval, but some of these issues have to get worked out and they can't wait until a building permit. >We have to know what kind of variance we're being asked to consider. The way it reads is there are currently nine parking stalls that are being provided, but the application with the intensification of use requires one more stall. That one stall may turn into two stalls because of the layout that has to occur to meet an accessible stall. An accessible stall includes the adjacent drive aisle we have seen when we go through a typical parking lot, then that's going to affect this application. We have to note what that includes before this goes to the building permit. So this needs either the civil engineer or somebody to get involved who can do a more accurate layout before this can come back to us for action. >If the applicant has looked and has been directed to review other applications similar to this, then he should take a close look at the variance application. If that variance application had some exceptionally or extraordinary circumstances that we were being asked to consider and we therefore approved, they weren't “getting away with something ”, they were being approved because we could make the findings. What we have in this application is not extraordinary circumstances that are particular to this project. Meaning we could consider something relative to the users, in other words, youth that aren't going to drive, but we have to be convinced that the people that drive them, as my fellow commissioner was explaining, aren't going to stay and create more parking issues. In visiting the site today, the adjacent parking on the street was really impacted. There was maybe one place to find a parking space, some distance from this location out on the street. So the people dropping off are going to rely or want to rely on the parking area. Those things need to get figured out before this can come back to us for action. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1515 Willow Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Fence Exception to increase the fence height 20% above the maximum allowed. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mika Hamamura, applicant and designer; Jamie Freedman and Jill Loftiss, property owners) (262 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1515 Willow Ave - Staff Report 1515 Willow Ave - Attachments 1515 Willow Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have 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. >Wondering about the nature of this application. Was this a result from a complaint or did the applicant just submit their application? (Hurin: This is an application that was submitted to the Planning Division for a fence exception because it's an eight foot solid fence. The allowable fence height is six -foot solid plus one foot of the lattice. The applicant is proposing eight feet of solid material.) Understand that, was wondering because it has already been built. (Hurin: This was not a result of a complaint. This is something the applicant brought forward themselves.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Mika Hamamura, represented the applicant along with Jamie Freedman, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Did you consider any other options like landscaping perhaps? (Hamamura: There’s only a four foot space between the exterior wall and the existing fence and the idea was not to block out access to blue sky from all four windows. The egress on that side of the house would be a little bit dangerous if landscaping is planted there, just in case firefighters need to pass through. There is about 30 feet of fence that would be providing privacy, so it seemed like quite a tight space to try to put landscaping in.) >There's a steel structure with a metal roof at the rear corner on that same side, was that permitted? (Hamamura: The patio cover was not. It is also being dealt with as a separate issue with the redesign of the backyard.) >Are you asking permission for what was already built or is it an extension of a condition you already have at your left fence? (Hamamura: It's already built.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Having some trouble with this for a number of reasons mainly because it really looks chopped up and out of place. Understand that the building overlooks the house, but the building was there prior to the applicant purchasing the property, so it's not like there wasn ’t an existing condition. Also disturbed by what's happening in the backyard, it seems like things are getting added on. You see this happening in certain parts of San Francisco or bigger cities. It's not helped by the duplex between the two properties, who has constructed an 8-foot solid fence. The whole thing is starting to look like really cobbled together . Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Not sure I can support this application. >Can understand the issue that it's not so much about the height because it is near the apartments . But I don't believe that the materials used and the construction matches anything there, and it's going to get blown over. Agree that it's becoming a hodgepodge of stuff. So it's not attractive and I can't imagine that the neighbors next door appreciate it either. So I could not support this solution, although the height would be something to be discussed if it were done appropriately. >There is a compelling argument that the applicant has put forth in terms of the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances relative to the extreme adjacency of the four -story apartment building. The fact, as they have said, is that it's intruding into the adjacent property that is a bit of a buffer. It's already taking a bite out of that rear yard with the parking for the apartment building. So that exceptional circumstance has been identified, but it's a matter of the solution. Unfortunately it's a fence exception, so it's not really a design review consideration. I have concerns about the stability and the details of what's been installed, the hinge points that are been created. It sounds like with a contractor involved, maybe they're confident in it, but just don't know if this is the right solution in order to address the circumstance that's been identified. Can generally sympathize, but having a hard time with this particular solution. >Agree that there's not a design review issue here. One of the things we're being asked to consider is whether it's going to materially affect or damage neighboring properties. If you're using a material and a solution that isn't consistent with other fences and solutions we see in the area, then I can't make that finding. I do completely agree that there are exceptional circumstances here in relation to the apartment building, and how that situation related to this property could support a higher fence, but don't think this is the solution that could get my support. >(Hamamura: Could a possible solution be to raise the existing redwood fence in the same style and manner that exist to the 8-foot height?) What some of the commissioners have been saying is that's a potential solution that may be supportable, but you would have to submit your drawings again. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - b.624 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Kelsey and Dave Armstrong, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 624 Lexington Way - Staff Report 624 Lexington Way - Attachments 624 Lexington Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have 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. >Are these as-built changes? Does this mean that the siding, for example, was approved as wood but built entirely with Hardie siding? (Hurin: I believe so, we can have the applicant confirm that.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >(Wehmeyer: Yes, the original layout for that was wood siding. They did choose to put Hardie siding in, allowing them to do the other details they hoped to do to make it more of a traditional Cape Cod style. In researching the Cape Cod style extensively, having corner boards are common and in most of the ones you see in a traditional house, that's the way they're built.) >Why was the brick not brought down to the sides of the house? (Wehmeyer: On the side of the one house, the setback there is so tight. If we put bricks on it, it would be covered up by the fence and the utilities on the side, so they chose to eliminate the brick from that area. You're not even going to be able to see it or enjoy the detail at all.) Are those just a face brick? (Wehmeyer: It's a combination of a whole brick and a split brick. It was a little bit of both because of the weight, as well as just making sure they all fit, but they are real brick.) Not used to seeing such a large face on it because it's like a paving brick used on the side. Just used to seeing the edge of the brick as it's stacked, typically like that . (Wehmeyer: We kind of laid it out that way and it looked off. Aesthetically they weren't happy with it. It didn't look right, so we flipped it the opposite way to give it less lines than we would have if it was sitting on a regular standard porch.) >In switching from the wood siding with the mitered corners to the Hardie siding, it looks like it switched from a 6-inch siding to an 8-inch siding. Was there a reason for that? (Wehmeyer: I believe it was 6-1/2 inches, I would have to check.) I measured it today, it has an 8-inch face and the drawing shows 6-inch. (Wehmeyer: I don't have an answer to that, I didn't realize it was set up at 8 inches.) Were you the contractor on this project? (Wehmeyer: Yes, we did build this house.) >Why does this keep happening on your projects, changes after the fact? (Wehmeyer: I don't have an answer for that. We were working through the details and we were hoping to bring this in earlier. We ran into a bunch of things this year with COVID and with everything else, and it just didn't happen.) You're saying "they decided this and they decided that," assuming you mean the owners? (Wehmeyer: The owners, yes.) Are they directing you to make these changes? With your familiarity with us, we ’re now in a position again of having to approve changes after the fact. You have no response to that? (Wehmeyer: I understand it's a change after the fact. We did our best to be able to turn it in for review, we hoped to turn it in earlier. We weren't able to do so with some of the things that popped up, and we're trying to make a point of not having these things going forward with additional changes. I know the Hardie board is a big deal. In this particular case, the way we prepped it and the way we put it together, the key on having the Hardie panel is prepping it and installing it properly, and putting the correct amount of prepping and paint . It came out quite well as far as the finish goes.) So the owners who made these decisions to make these changes, were they the owners of the property when it was brought before us for design review? (Wehmeyer: Yes.) Then why did you show stone on the side of the house, the fence and the adjacent property existed then? (Wehmeyer: We should put stone on the front of the house, yes.) You showed the sides of the house as well. Now the owners are saying and you're asking us to consider the fact that the adjacent house and the adjacent fence are going to block that view, so there's no need to have the brick down along the side of the house like you originally showed? (Wehmeyer: Yes.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Extremely unhappy about being put into this situation again. Can tell that's where my fellow commissioner was headed as well. Setting aside the Hardie siding, which the City Council issued their opinion on that, I don’t feel like arguing about that. But to have built an entire house and with the wrong material, an unapproved material, is unconscionable and it puts us in a bad, difficult situation. We could ask you to remove it. Will we do that? We'll look like jerks, right? I have no problem with the design changes that have been made, but have a problem being put in this situation. I don't like it and am inclined to just not agree to it for that very reason. This is not a fair thing to do to volunteer professionals who are serving the community, it's just not right. I am extremely unhappy about it. The design and Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes construction professionals in this community have a responsibility for managing their clients' decisions to adhere to what is approved by appointed officials. Pure and simple. > Have to agree with my fellow commissioner. Maybe this isn't appropriate, but I am personally offended. For the record, on a prior application, you were grateful for me coming out working with you and the builder for after the fact changes to come up with a solution and we're seeing another situation like this. It's not a matter of personal offense. It's whether or not this is an acceptable process and it's not . With that said, also have to agree with my fellow commissioner that generally, the changes are acceptable for the most part. They're not too offensive. Stepping back and looking as to whether we would have approved these things in the first place, we probably would have but with some exception, from a design standpoint of stopping the brick face at the very front and not turning it around some portion of the side. In terms of a process, it's somewhat offensive to say we're going to submit this and this is what we're going to get approval on, and we'll start the construction, and then we'll ask for forgiveness later. I'm not trying to ascribe that to the builder, but for this to have happened again, it's starting to look that way. In summary, I am accepting of the changes for the most part. For the record, I don't necessarily agree that having the shutters just on the front and them being made better. They're not really a true shutter unless they can cover the entire windows like a true Cape Cod architecture. It's not a true Cape Cod because you go on the side and suddenly there's no more shutters. Can generally accept the design changes for the way they've been done, but am dissatisfied with the process. >Overall I don't think it's a terrible looking house, but it's significantly changed enough from the original drawings. Starting at the base, looking at the stone, seeing it more as a thinner stone that flattens it out and gives the building that base that you're looking for and something that the house can stand on or sit on, like a typical Cape Cod architecture would. I don't think the paving stone material that you used are depicting of those. Have never seen them on a vertical face, but only a pathway which is where you would typically see the top of a brick, not the porch. You would see it on the front of the house or a vertical face . I don't understand why it doesn't follow all the way around the house. Then when you move up to the siding, the 1” x 8” siding makes the house seem bigger. That was part of what we discussed previously were we were trying to make this appear smaller in scale. A 1” x 6” which would have a 5-1/2” exposure would seem much richer as detailed and it would go with that flatter stone on the bottom. There are corner boards on Cape Cods, but a mitered corner looks so much more finished. The other thing is the metal garage door. That's a nice looking metal garage door, but a wood is going to hold up better than a metal one because it's going to dent. I am as frustrated as the other commissioners are and hope the other commissioners voice their opinion too, because this is really frustrating and it's not just that it's happening once or twice, but this is our third one from you just in these summer months, and I don't know what to do with this. I don’t think it's all approvable. >I am pretty disappointed too. Seeing more and more of this from a number of different people that haven't built in our community. This applicant has been a part of this community for a long time, and you know what our expectations are. The one thing that we need to do is set the tone of what we think is important to show. I don't want to get rid of the shutters on the side elevations. You've got shutters in the front and now there's no shutters on the side elevation. That has to be carried throughout. >I will also add my disappointment, and would also second what my fellow commissioner just said about being faced with this issue with builders and architects who haven't worked so much in our city, and not really familiar with the work that we put into the design review process. It is disappointing to see a builder and designer who does work regularly in the area and knows how we work and our expectations, and the disappointment comes in because we all feel played. In the end, it's a number of explanations and you're trying to be true to a design style that's not pure because it's not carried out on all sides of the elevations of the house. Back to the stone cladding or the brick cladding, often times we see that there is a wrap around on the sides of the home, at least to the point where there's a fence or a gate, and that would seem like an appropriate solution if you're trying to save on costs. If the point is you can't see the corners and the immediate area past the corners as you drive by most properties, that might be a solution there for the brick cladding on the side elevations. Agree that the shutters should be carried out across all sides of the house. It's looking like we have a hybrid of some accepted ideas of revisions we may find agreeable, and wanted to see if anybody wants to say anything else or make a motion. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >That prior to issuance of a final inspection, the applicant shall submit an FYI showing the window shutters on the sides and rear of the house to be retained and the brick cladding to be continued along the sides of the house to a point beyond the fence line. Discussion of motion: >I'm not satisfied with the brick at the base of the house in the way it has been applied. To me, it looks very cheap. Before we had a house that seemed to have a lot of detail and it just appeared less massive, it appeared more delicate. I don't think I can support even just adding to the brick. I would rather see the brick removed, and either a stone put on or a proper brick put on as opposed to a paving stone put on the vertical face. >Given that it's not a huge amount of brick we're asking to change, that having a truer size brick go across that front and just turn the corners to the fence line or to the closure line is an appropriate solution to try and bring back some of the that scale. >I suspect that at least some of the changes may have been made for costs. There was the admission by the applicant that they eliminated some of the brick so they can do the other upgrades. It may have been a situation where they had pavers on hand, so they used that as the siding. I know cost is a big consideration, but it's not necessarily a specific consideration that we have to make in terms of approvability. It's a slippery slope when we start to make that a specific criteria to say it's okay to do that. >I don't feel as strongly about the brick, so I would want more feedback from other commissioners about whether there would be enough support to change that. The extent of the brick is not that extensive. It's basically the front facade and a little wrapping around the corners, so from a cost perspective, it doesn't seem like that would be a huge investment in re-cladding. >We can only concern ourselves with the aesthetics issues. The integrity of our process is really paramount to what we do and the trust the community places on us. If we don't agree that what's been proposed or what's been done is ascetically acceptable, but we're accepting it because it's done, that's basically telling every other applicant out there why play by the rules? Do we think it's ascetically better to do the bricks as a ledger brick, rather than on its face as it's done. So that's the feedback I'd like to hear from other commissioners. >I think that would be better, there's no question. Commissioner Sargent amended the motion, seconded by Vice Chair Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >That prior to issuance of a final inspection, the applicant shall submit an FYI showing the window shutters on the sides and rear of the house to be retained, and the brick cladding at the base of the house be changed to a ledger brick and be continued along the sides of the house to a point beyond the fence line. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - c.128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R -4 Incentive District Subarea - Application for Amendment to Design Review and Waivers/Modifications for changes to a previously approved 19-unit residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; SDG Architects, Inc., architect; Thomas Cady, property owner) (202 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 128 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 128 Lorton Ave - Attachments 128 Lorton Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Chris Grant and Lance Crannell, represented the applicant along with Stephanie Gildred, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >In looking at Option 2, why is it that 9-foot high ceilings work at the two lower floors of residential, but don't work at the upper two floors? (Grant: It's a compromise. In looking at the interior volumes, you have 9 feet to the top of the floor. By the time you lay the drywall on the ceiling and add duct work and mechanical drops, you're talking about 9 feet in some spaces and less than that in other area, somewhere in the 8-foot range. So Option 2 is not a great option to be honest. We were concerned about the difference between what was approved and what we're proposing for Option 1, and we thought it would warrant consideration and evaluation of what that might look like as a 9-foot option versus a 10-foot option. The spaces and the volumes on these units on 10 feet would be less than 10 feet given that you have mechanical, HVAC and other drops.) >In typical residential multi -unit buildings, you plan the utilities to occur in certain areas like bathrooms and closet spaces to where even a 7-foot 6-inch or 8-foot ceiling is acceptable. (Gildred: I really feel that with the tall garage being built next door, 10-foot ceilings make any kind of apartment or house look much more spacious. I just don't understand why there would be a problem with Option 1.) The issue is the overall height. How much taller the building has to get. (Gildred: It's not that much considering I have a five-story parking garage next to me. It's not much over what the top floor of that parking floor is .) (Crannell: I'm the architect on the project. One of the things we wanted to make sure we were clear on was the proportionality of raising the height so it will not appear out of balance with the streetscape nor with the adjacent five-story garage that was there.) > Part of raising the first floor on the garage also includes raising the awning, which previously was providing some good human scale. The awning is now up at the top of the transoms above the taller windows on that front elevation, correct? Is there any reason why that awning couldn't be down at a height above those doors and have transoms above the awning? (Grant: From my perspective, that's an appropriate request. It's not completely unreasonable to bring it down, especially on the ground floor to bring the scale back down of that architectural feature.) >Understand the stackers raising the height of the first floor, but can you consider just recessing the building into the ground 4 feet to accommodate those stackers? (Grant: One of the challenges with this structure is that if we get too deep into the ground is the impact it would have on the surrounding lots . We're seeing that even in this design that we're considering, it's not completely resolved how to treat those stackers, and the deeper it goes, the more costs prohibitive and logistically difficult it becomes to design it. The shoring agreements with neighboring properties have become a challenge. I like your idea of going below grade or at least below curb height, but it would be tough to go 4 feet. Something like 18 inches and maybe 24 inches would be really the extent.) The foundation is going to have to go down a considerable amount too with a five -story building, but it would be worth looking at. It would save some of this height we're seeing in this new building, so I would encourage you to look at that. There were no public comments. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Will be going in the same direction as the other commissioners who have spoken on this. Our initial concern with this project was that because it was asking for so many concessions, was it really an appropriate project for this lot and this location. But what they ended up with, as it was approved, was a really nice human -scale building that was going to look good in this neighborhood which allowed me to move past those concessions and vote for approval. It is discomforting when you waive the setback requirements on the upper floor on the right side. When you raise this building up more it makes those impacts, particularly on the right side building, much more significant. It hurts the design by losing that human scale that was so good in the approved design. You can see it in the renderings with the use of the human characters on each of the elevations. Can't see either option right now as they stand as something that is supportable. Option 2 is closer, but the upper floor ceiling heights will need to be revisited. Would encourage the applicant to look at lowering the elevation of the garage slab and looking at changing the awning in the front as my fellow commissioners had suggested. The human scale, particularly at the ground floor, was really an appealing aspect of this building. Concerned that there's a garage on the left side, but the rest of the block contains older stock buildings and they may be redeveloped eventually. If this is going to become the standard for that entire block, then what's the point of having the zoning code? > What we are being asked to consider before are special considerations, waivers and concessions relative to what it would take to get the affordable units included in the project. However, the increase to the ceiling height is a marketing issue and that's not one of the criteria that we have to consider relative to the special permits for height and the concessions and waivers. If that's what's necessary to make this project work, then it's further indication that this may be too much for this lot relative to all the concessions we're being asked to consider. There can be a third option. Can understand and accept from a technical standpoint making the garage floor taller in order to get the stackers and the utilities in. As my fellow commissioner said, some revisiting of the awning and human scale elements can be redesigned and reconsidered in that option. The upper floors can remain with 9-foot ceilings and be sustainable. We have units all over town that have 9-foot ceilings in them and they seem to be occupied. So don't see how that becomes a necessity to make the project work from our standpoint. >Would like to thank the architect for some of the additional detailing and reveals shown in Option 1, they help with some of the elevations that were a little weak in the previous submittal. Looking at the elevations for Options 1 and 2, I am finding that Option 2 looks a lot closer to scale and can appreciate the need for the additional space. Understand that the stackers are complicated, but could not support the height in Option 1 being so far off scale even with the parking garage. It would tower over its neighbor for quite a while. I agree with the human scale comments made earlier relative to the awning at the front of the building. >I am concerned about the stone that's shown on the materials board, I am very uneasy about the stone that's being proposed, the stone frankly looked very cheap. It looked like glue -on stone, it would look cheap on a small surface, but it would look extremely cheap on a very large surface. These are really big stone surfaces, so I'm not in favor of the proposed stone. That's not the right scale or application of stone for these surfaces. >I can't support increasing the building height. With five bonuses already granted, including lot coverage and open space modifications on all four sides, there's a way to make it work with the envelope you've got. Whether it's the ceiling heights or going underground, that's something you can work out to make the project move forward, but can't see increasing the height. >To add to the human scale, have been commenting all along about the paseo experience. It's quite a narrow passage at the paseo between the parking garage and this building, and with an even further heightened structure that takes the project out of scale in relation to its neighboring projects. I would be further concerned about that experience. >I do want to see the project work, it's a good project as we previously discussed. The context that it's in relative to what's happening, and the incentives we put in place in their area is good, but we have to consider the particulars of this lot relative to the adjacent structures. There's a solution here, but don't think what's being presented before us is approvable. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1151 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (major renovation) and Special Permit for a new attached garage. (Warren Huey, applicant and designer; Sapphire Huey, property owner) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1151 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1151 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1151 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Warren Huey, represented the applicant with Sapphire Huey, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are you replacing all the windows in the house? (Huey: Yes.) So those shown as existing will be new windows? (Huey: Yes.) Do you know what type of window you're going to use? (Huey: We haven't picked that out yet. We have not gotten that far down the line. We'll pick whatever we need to pick to make it right.) We typically require a simulated true divided lite wood clad window. >On the Westmoor Road elevation, are you intending to stucco the chimney or would you consider extending the bricks up? (Huey: We could extend the bricks up or we could stucco it too.) It would show better as brick. You’re on a corner lot, so you have two fronts of the building. If you stucco it, it's going to wash it out. (Huey: So you're saying we have to do the brick on the outside of that fireplace there?) It will look more like a house. Not trying to direct you. But in the past, would prefer to see a house that doesn't washout with all stucco, but it has different elements with different materials. It's already a brick fireplace and it would look better if that brick is ex-tended up. (Huey: We can keep it a fireplace.) >Need to work on the detail and show details around the windows, that can help us understand the detail if there's going to be wood trim around the windows. (Huey: We can make the windows wood clad, don't think that will be a problem. Presently, there's no real trim on the windows, so that's why I kept the trim off the windows to try to keep it looking almost exactly like it is now. So do you want me to put trim on it?) It can use more architectural detail and dressing up that's up to you. (Huey: That’s fine. I'll leave that up to the owner, if they want me to do it, I'll do it.) >You have a louvered vent at the top of the upper gable. Have you thought about one that follows the line of the roof, perhaps a triangulated one or something more architectural? You can get a vent that would fit under the eave and look a little more custom. Trying to work towards dressing up the Westmoor Road elevation. It looks like the side of a house, but it's a street view that people will see head on. Those can follow all the way around the house. >It looks like the first floor plate height measures 8’. Are you raising the whole first floor top plate to 9’- 0 3/4”? (Huey: Yes.) And you have 9’-0 3/4” on the second floor as well? (Huey: Yes.) Are you vaulting the second floor ceilings ? (Warren Huey: No, it's a flat ceiling.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >On the front elevation, you're showing the double hung windows in order to get your egress requirement. One of the things that helps with the second floor is if the windows are a little bit smaller and have better scale to them relative to the first floor. Is there any reason why those are double hung when you have other locations where casement windows are shown? If you switch to casement, you can make them smaller and meet your egress requirements. Are you locked into the double hung .? (Warren Huey: I tried to keep the street side on Rosedale Avenue the same kind of windows when you're looking at it . Then when you turn the corner, it's for light and ventilation on the Westmoor Road side. That's why I used casement on that side.) Well, as previously said, there's the issue of scale that we're trying to help you with, just in terms of making this approvable. >The front porch columns are narrow and you have them noted as new stucco finished columns. Would they be narrow with a stucco finish or a turned wood? (Huey: They are proposed to be 8” x 8” with a stucco finish.) Once that gets dressed out and if the drawings are to scale, those are going to have more permanence to them. But you're detailing those with a stucco base and stucco main shaft of the column . Would it be all finished with stucco? (Huey: Yes.) >There is a lot of free board on the front plate of the porch. Is there any reason why that has to be up at that 9' height as well,or could the front plate of the porch height be brought down to give it better human scale? (Huey: I could bring it down a little bit.) >Primary concern is bringing the scale down on the second floor, it doesn't seem right as proposed . Would love to see more detail on the Westmoor Road side. Public Comments: >Comment via e-mail by Gunner and Fay, 1561 Westmoor Road: Good afternoon, we received the public notice hearing regarding our neighbor adding a second floor on their existing house. We have reviewed their plan and are a little concerned for the rear side plan design. It looks like they have a new upstairs windows and doors as well as adding one door downstairs. We weren't sure if the upstairs and downstairs windows and doors are directly or very close to our living room doors. If so, is it possible the downstairs doors can be changed to the left side and upstairs windows and door be moved a little bit to the front because there's a very small space between both houses. The plans for the rear downstairs door right now, we feel like their house is extended to the outside. Please kindly give us advice. We really appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you so much. >(Huey: Today was the first time I heard she said anything. We can move the sliding glass door in the downstairs a little bit.) (Huey: Right now, in the back of our house, we already have existing windows in the same vicinity or maybe a few feet away. In the back of the house in the existing plans, the bathroom has a window. The bedroom has a window and the other side bedroom has a window. We also have an 88” fence that's existing there already, so I'm not sure what the problem is because we already have existing windows on the whole side of the house right now as it is.) So maybe we suggest that you work with your neighbor after this meeting to discuss this matter further between the two of you, and see if you can come up with a resolution amongst yourselves. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >So whenever the tenor of our conversations or question period takes on the shape that it just took on, where we're trying to draw out design from the designer and trying to lead them places, it immediately feels like this is a good candidate for a design review consultant. I realize that this is not a neighborhood where the houses have a lot of detail. This project feels like it has been drawn, but not really designed. It doesn't feel well thought out as a design. It feels highly functional and I can't even be sure of that. It seems like it needs love and care and the design review consultant can get the applicant and the designer there faster than we could. >By moving to the design review consultant, we're making the right decision. It does need some design help so it will fit in nicely and add value to the neighborhood, and not just retaining the old details that are Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes there. >I wanted to give some assistance to the issues that we are looking at for the design review consultant . Beyond just the detailing, there are some specifics that should be reconsidered. One being the second floor plate height. The 9' plate height on the first floor and a 9' plate height on the second floor is giving a lot of mass and making the whole project look overly tall. It suffers from the fact that the building doesn't have an overhang to it in terms of the roofing. So you get a high brow above the windows on the second floor and the first floor with that raised plate height. Since the roof is going to get rebuilt and the whole plate height on the first floor is getting raised, they can reconsider the overhangs which would help with the design substantially. They can reconsider the scale of the windows on the second floor to give hierarchy to the first and second floor. They can reconsider the detailing of the front porch for its plate height at the front edge, as well as the detailing of the columns and introducing wood trim as was mentioned. There's different materials across the facade. They could reconsider the garage door. Right now the existing garage door has what probably originally were windows into the garage door, it looks like they have been painted over or replaced. You can get windows into the garage door and give it more character, since we are being asked to consider a larger attached garage. >Consider cladding on the chimney with brick and looking at some locations for exterior lighting. That would be a nice consideration as well for the exterior elevations at the front and the rear. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - b.1321 De Soto Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; David Welch, property owner ) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1321 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1321 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1321 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Because you are removing trees, please provide a more thorough response for Question 4 in the Special Permit Application in terms of mitigation; note how many trees are being added to mitigate the removal of trees. >Did you prepare the landscape plans? (Chu: Yes, with the assistance of Michael Callan, landscape architect.) Public Comments: >Alex Flagg, 1322 De Soto Avenue: I am concerned about the request for a Special Permit for the building height. Many of these buildings across the street block out the sun, and if this is taller than the Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes standard height across the street, it will tower over my house as well as my neighbor's house. I do have a question about why we need to grant a Special Permit for height. I think it's reasonable to expect that the height can be close to the ones that are already across the street, but I don't think it's reasonable to grant a Special Permit for this house. Also, there will be removal of trees there. I wanted to ask what permits are being granted for removal of the trees; has the applicant applied for a permit to remove the tree? I believe there’s a removal of an Oak tree at the rear of the lot. If it's the large one, that would be a significant impact on the neighborhood. The one in the front is probably okay. (Chu: There were a couple of reasons why we are removing the tree; to create the driveway on the right and due to the fact that some of the trees aren't healthy per the arborist report. We'll plant trees that will fit better on this property. The purpose of the Special Permit is because of the difference in elevation. If you remove that 13 feet height difference in elevation, our overall building height is only 25 feet. Being across the street, we have 50 feet of right-of-way, plus an additional approximately 30 to 40 feet, we're talking about 90 feet difference between our building and the building across the street. To say that it is blocking the sunlight is unreasonable.) Do you happen to know how high the other two houses next to your proposal are, and how will the proposed project be higher than those houses? (Chu: It should be noted on the survey. I can provide that information when the project returns for further review.) >Mark Hammitt, 1326 De Soto Avenue: I live right across the street from 1347 De Soto Avenue. I think the existing house was built in 1928, probably about the same year that our house was built. The proposed house is quite massive; I don't know how big it is. The size has been mitigated by the green space next door, and they have this double lot with lots of trees, a rose garden and other landscaping. I am concerned about the building height, the variance of seven feet on the height because I would hate to see this block of structures all the way across. I don't think it's as high as the adjacent house. It seems like a long house if you look at the total volume going back; it concerns me. We're replacing this green space with a block of houses that will effectively, from Alex's and my perspective, loom down on us from this hill that goes up about ten feet or so. I am trying to avoid that claustrophobia. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's a nice project; like the scale of it. Do agree with the ten foot change in height from the top of curb, that a 25-foot height project is very doable there. Looking at the two adjacent houses, they are actually a lot taller than that. It would be a good idea for the next submittal to dash in the heights of those adjacent houses so it is clear where you are and where you stand to that. It's an excellent project and would like to see it go forward. >We have an application that has typical plate heights; 9’-0” on the first floor and 8’-1” on the second floor. We have a low roof pitch at 5:12. With an overall height of a house of about 25 feet, it's about as low as you can get relative to adjacent grade. They're keeping the house close to the grade at the rear, just stepping out on to the adjacent finished grade the way it stands. The Special Permit in consideration for height is strictly due to the fact that the overall height is measured relative to the average top of curb at the front of the property. So it automatically is skewed when you have situations like this with up -sloping lots. It's nice, well-detailed designed; it should move forward. >This is a great project. It's lovely and will add value to that street. >The height is appropriate for two -story houses. If the applicant could put those ridge heights on the neighboring houses, that would help put it into context on what's there. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - c.3 Cananea Place, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new deck and addition on the main level along the left side and rear of an existing single family dwelling. (Panko Architects, applicant and architect; Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Proeast Properties, property owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 3 Cananea Pl - Staff Report 3 Cananea Pl - Attachments 3 Cananea Pl - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Stanley Panko, Panko Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Can you talk a little bit about the proposed windows that you're putting in? (Panko: The windows are contemporary. They're dark bronze vinyl windows. They will be a narrow style with minimum trim and they're being replaced throughout the house.) They are vinyl not aluminum? (Panko: That's correct.) >I'm sure you're aware that we have the hillside area permit which has to do with views, and in visiting the property, the only place with potential impacts is the view of the neighbor to the left if you're facing the front. Have you shown the plans to that neighbor and are they aware of the addition pushing out to the back? (Panko: No, we have not. The rear has been pushed out and the current living area, kitchen, and dining has been pushed out.) It looks like you're pushing out ten feet and obviously the deck isn't going to be much structure, but there's that volume of the kitchen and dining pushing back out there. (Panko: Yes, that's correct.) >You have 1” x 6” horizontal siding typical. What kind of siding is that? (Panko: That's going to be a Hardie board. Currently, we have Fir and it's pretty badly warped, so we're replacing that with something more stable.) Will it be a 1” x 6”? (Panko: Correct.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a pretty good project, it's pretty straight forward. It's a nice expansion of the apparent one story house. Not real keen on the windows. The windows have gone from simple to being over simple. There are huge expanses of undivided glass and they just feel out of place. They feel commercial as opposed to residential. >We would need some evidence that there are no view impacts from the proposed addition, although no one has stepped forward. It seems that the question is left unanswered, so we have to decide what to do with that. >It's a relatively straight forward and simple design. The concern is relative to the hillside area permit and the view corridor or potential view issues, and unfortunately the only way to answer that is via story poles. The concern is that we move forward and we don't require the story poles, then the neighbor comes forward during an action hearing and suddenly we're back pedaling and having to continue the project and get the story pole installed. It would behoove us to have the outline of the story poles in order to move forward toward action. >Agree, if we move this forward because no one says anything, we run the risk of them saying it later and making this take longer. Would agree that the story poles would help. >Windows are big and there's not a lot of detail to them. It's a simple design and it could benefit with a Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes little additional thought to the windows and/or trims. Because otherwise, it's going to be very simple siding. >Got confused on the design style with the siding on the windows. On the right elevation, it seems like there are a lot of smaller windows randomly sprinkled around and the left side elevation has none. Maybe that is a function of the interior rooms. Those elevations should be looked at closely, as well as the size of the windows on the front and rear elevations, and how they mesh with the siding. A little confused on that. >Agree with those comments about the windows, in particular the right side elevation, it seems like every window type is being specified. We have single hung windows, casements, fixed windows and sliding. Applicant should take a look at the window types and sizes across the board. >Reiterate looking at some more window detailing, either through the use of grids, or trim, or both . Should also reconsider the window material, they said it was going to be vinyl. Typically, we look to match more traditional stock with a clad wood product. 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 installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - d.120 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation to an existing single family dwelling with a first floor addition at the rear, a new second story addition, and a new detached two -car garage. (Form One Design, applicant and designer; RG Developments, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 120 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 120 Occidental Ave - Attachments 120 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 120 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the new masonry in materials a brick or stone? Don't see a note anywhere on the plans. (Raduenz: It's a clinker brick that we use quite a bit throughout Burlingame.) How big are the bricks? (Raduenz: It would be a standard 4” x 8” clinker brick. I can make the scale in the drawings to be a little bit more in keeping with the size.) That's the reason behind the question of whether it is stone or brick, wasn ’t sure because they're big. >Like the fact you're keeping the porte -cochere. The down side is that it makes the building all about the house and the house is all about the car since there's no apparent front door. It's because you walk up the driveway to get into the front door up under the porte -cochere. Did you consider taking out a bit of the wall at the front and filling up the porte -cochere to walk into the house? (Raduenz: We could do that . We talked about opening up the window in the front and making that a larger window to pinpoint where the entry is. We can definitely take a look at removing that small knee wall and creating a pathway to it.) It Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes sounds like you've had discussions about making the entry more clear. (Raduenz: Correct.) >Regarding the new roof section on the porte -cochere, it looks like you're going to end up with a corner there. How are you planning to drain water from that front corner? (Raduenz: What we'll probably end up doing is putting a diverter at the bottom with an internal downspout, and then probably go through the column and then back into the drainage system. That's a pretty minimal amount of water going there, but yes we'll have to deal with that.) > Like the 3D rendering a little bit more than the elevations. Would encourage you to finish your 3D rendering and see how well you can make that work on the two -dimensional elevations so we can approve it. Your hatches are negatively affecting the look of this house on the elevation. (Raduenz: Yes, I understand; we will change the roof hatch so we can distinguish it.) > Are you still thinking of using the cedar shingles on the second floor? (Raduenz: Yes, we normally do that on a lot of our houses. We would be okay doing the horizontal and keeping it a little bit more clean . The shingles usually add a bit of a more expensive look and I'm not going to be against it.) Actually like the shingles as well. It's just coming back to the hatch of the elevation drawings. Struggling to see the richness of the forms, with how busy the drawing is. (Raduenz: I will correct that on the next go around. I will take that under consideration.) >In terms of the window casing, sheet A 5 has your typical window casing with the 2” x 6” and the 5 1/4” x 4” vertical casing. Is that the actual casing that you'll use on these windows, because it looks a lot simpler on the elevations. (Raduenz: I’m going to talk to the property owner about it. We talked about using a 3 1/4”, basically the more larger brick mould that's very traditional and that's what I'm showing on the elevations. I'll coordinate that on the next go around with the details. Is there a consensus on which ones? I don't want to come back and say I put this and you say we don't like it.) With the brick and lap siding you have on the first floor, a simple brick mould could work there. However with the shingles you have on the second floor, I like your typical detail with the 2” x 6” head and the 5-1/4” x 4” verticals. Would leave it to you to pull it together. With the shingles, a more substantial casing would work better. Just want to see consistency on the drawings. (Raduenz: Okay. I'll note it to be consistent.) >What happened to the chimney on the left side of the house? The chimney comes up and stops at the eave. Why not extend it through the eave and make it look like a regular chimney? (Raduenz: It was mostly due to cost savings; you won't really see it because of the neighboring house.) Suppose it's far enough back, but it looks kind of silly. (Raduenz: One thing we could do is apply the lap siding to it.) With the brick at the base, it would look good if it was a brick chimney. You could put a shoulder on it and have it narrow as it comes up and penetrates through the eave, and it doesn't have to extend up to any code requirements since it's going to be a zero clearance fireplace. It would look like it was a chimney if it came through the eave and terminated above the eave. (Raduenz: Can we bring it up halfway right below the two awning windows that we show?) Yes, halfway would be great, that would look like a chimney . (Raduenz: We can do that.) There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a really nice project, like the way it's crafted. Agree regarding the comments made about the two-dimensional drawings, the hatch is not helping it. As soon as you look at the 3D, it feels right and properly scaled. It will be a really nice addition to the neighborhood. >Would like to see the front opened up and the front entry made more clear, it's hidden back there. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020 September 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1 & 45 Adrian Ct - FYI for review of information requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved mixed use development project. 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Memorandum and Attachments 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Plans Attachments: - Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 14, 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 September 24, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 10/19/2020