Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.11.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 8, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Larios5 - Recused:Gaul, and Loftis2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There we no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There we no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - a.100 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for One Year Extension of a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Page 1City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gleason & Gleason Design Partners, applicant and designer; Kristine Furrer, property owner) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 100 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report 100 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments 100 Costa Rica Ave - Plans Attachments: b.1129 Killarney Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Robert Gilson, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1129 Killarney Ln - Staff Report 1129 Killarney Ln - Attachments 1129 Killarney Ln - Plans Attachments: c.2112 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Cristina and Alexey Abrahams, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2112 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2112 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2112 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2829 Las Piedras Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mark and Emily Karbarz, applicants and property owners; Deepak Pantankar, Evocoarch, architect) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 2829 Las Piedras Dr - Staff Report 2829 Las Piedras Dr - Attachments 2829 Las Piedras Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not present at the meeting when the project was discussed as a review item but did visit the project site, watched the video and reviewed the documents. Commissioner Terrones visited the project site and had a conversation with the neighbors at 2833 Las Piedras Drive when accessing the residence to view the story poles. Commissioner Larios wasn't able to visit the site but reviewed the plans and all the pertinent materials. Commissioner Tse Page 2City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes visited the site, met the uphill neighbor at 2833 Las Piedras Drive and was able to access their home to see the views from their windows facing the bay. Commissioner Gaul was not at the October 12th meeting, but did view the video and met with the applicant as well as the uphill neighbor at 2833 Las Piedras Drive and was allowed access in their home to view the story poles. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Mark Karbarz, property owner, represented the applicant. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >In visiting both the project site and the uphill neighbor's property at 2833 Las Piedras Drive, viewing the story poles, can't see view obstruction that would typically be taken into consideration. In fact, the only thing that's slightly obscured are portions of the nearby tree that's actually on the project property, some rooftops in the nearby adjacent neighborhood and maybe some lower portions of nearby trees, but no distant views of the bay, the airport, or the east bay hills. All of those views are still unobstructed from the uphill neighbor. Since the only thing before us is the hillside construction permit, don't see why this couldn't be approved. > Was able to access the uphill neighbor ’s home and saw the story poles from the living room, dining room and kitchen. Didn't see any distant view obstruction. This project is very sensitive to the neighborhood and it was done very well. Don't see a reason to hold this up. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - b.2701 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Alain and Ming Huang, applicants and property owners; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer ) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2701 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2701 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2701 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant, and answers questions regarding the application. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please update the landscape drawings to reflect changes in the elevation along Hillside Drive . Extending the low wall on that side of the house is a nice solution. It finishes the base of the house better. >The project was almost there previously and the applicant has addressed all of our issues. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - c.1221-1251 Whitehorn Way, zoned RR - Application for Commercial Design Review, Parking Variance and Landscape Variance for a new commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, architect; Kevin Cullinane, applicant, Whitehorn LLP property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1221-1251 Whitehorn Way - Staff Report 1221-1251 Whitehorn Way - Attachments 1221-1251 Whitehorn Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer and Kevin Cullinane, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I appreciate the clarifications. There is a confluence of a number of different issues that I see relative to the property. As before, I got the sense and now feel stronger that there's good support for a parking variance. We have a number of extraordinary and unique circumstances, not the least of which, much of this property and the project fronts on a private road. In regard to the landscape variance, since it is on a private road, the public isn't benefiting hugely by landscaping that might front this building or be at or around this building. The only people experiencing it are the people accessing this private road. That, coupled with the 50 foot right-of-way and access easements for adjacent properties and build out from the adjacent properties all the way to the property line, are enough unique circumstances for the landscape variance and the parking variance. That would allow this project to move forward, replace those aging Quonset huts, make things better in terms of aesthetics, drainage and over all construction, improve the parking situation by providing additional spots and maintain the peace, coordination and cooperation that exist in that enclave now. The project is worthy of the variances and the design review. It should move Page 4City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes forward. >I never would have expected all these problems to be solved for this meeting after the last meeting . The applicant is to be commended for solving these sticky problems and coming forward with a project that considerably improves the situation in that little private road and in that little world, so well done. >The applicant did a great job. The shading of the map was very helpful. >The design is very nice. I appreciate the added green wall on the south side, although it doesn't apply towards your landscaping square footage. That's a welcome sight on that side of the property. >I want to commend the developer for doing the outreach piece that's critical and vital. After all the comments we've received last time, it was just amazing to see that you went out and actually spoke to all the folks involved and they're positive moving forward. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1425 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Barmina Design, applicant and designer; Philip Haine and Leslie Chan, property owners) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1425 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1425 Drake Ave - Attachments 1425 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Maria Barmina, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Suggests to make window casing drawings consistent. >Provide window trim details or specifications. >Revisit access of rear yard from the upper floor being that the ADU is taking up the lower level now. >Make sure that the head height of the stairs on the lower floor is appropriately cleared and it works. >Consider a different type of window and changing the sill heights at the upper floor to make them more proportionate with the lower floor windows. >There are some interesting directions that the project is going. The window proportions seem wrong . I’m worried about the 8’- 0” floor heights. It feels mundane and there are blank areas on the facade. It feels like it needs to be refined and could benefit from a discussion with a design review consultant. >The house right now has a lot of charm with the bay windows and the bows in it. It appears that a box was placed on top. I agree with the portions of the window not matching up. The second floor looked disjointed from the first. It appears as very much of an addition where they should be melding together Page 5City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes more. I would encourage the architect or applicant to look at the ceiling height downstairs. I'm sure that's not going to make it with the California Residential Code as a living space height, but I could be wrong. It might be 7 feet, but look into that because that may put the brakes on the ADU addition on the bottom. I agree that this could benefit from a design review consultant. >I, too, am struggling a little bit. I'm a big proponent of really good 3D work because it helps solve a lot of these issues we're talking about right now. Although 3D drawings were provided, it's not helping with the qualities of design that we're trying to discuss, inquire upon and hope will come out in this project. It's a little hard to see how successful it will be given the views we have right now. I would encourage more work on that to help us through this process. I agree that we have some different styles running into each other because the existing house doesn't really look very farmhouse -like. Yet, we're going to a new style in the new design with the thicker roof trims and things. The 3D is not selling me that it's going to come off as a nice quality project that I think it could be, there's work to be done there. Whether it's the design review consultant or not, it's hard to say, but I would need to see more in a next presentation. >I tend to agree with the direction to send this to a design review consultant. The windows are the biggest issues I have. The project could benefit by reconsideration of the bed walls, if they would revisit those. On the side elevations, one of the things affecting or hurting the elevations creating a lot of blank space are these horizontal windows above the head of the bed. That gives it the apartment look with the high window sill instead of doing a taller window, they have plenty of wall space to fit a king sized bed if that's the desire. That's one example of the kind of thing that the design review consultant can help look at and also just pulling the detailing together, to make it a little bit more cohesive. >The key here is the 3D drawing and getting the material out on it because right now, it looks flat. It looks like glued-on material and that's not what we want it to be. We would like it to have a good, rich look and that's really hard to see at the moment from what's being presented to us. It's either going to need to be some good photographs of real materials that we can grasp and feel or they got to do a better job on rendering and showing us that there is more to this than a flat box design. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - b.1423 Montero Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling . (Architecture Allure, Adam Bittle, applicant and architect; Kate and Rob Buccieri, property owners) (122 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1423 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1423 Montero Ave - Attachments 1423 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Anne Ravizza, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 6City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >This is a nice project. I can make the findings for the Special Permit for building height. It should move forward. >It is a very sensitive alteration to a nice building. I like the house; it ’s sort of quirky, the curve at the gambrel is cool. I can make the findings for the Special Permit for building height. >Applicant has done a good job with the design. >The house has some nice balance to all four sides and I like the sensitivity to some of the window sizes, they make a lot of sense. It is very nicely done. I can agree with the findings for the Special Permit for building height. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - c.9 Victoria Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Adrian Hurin, Seasons Residential, Inc ., applicant and designer; Grant Takamoto and Daisy Yu, property owners) (283 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 9 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 9 Victoria Rd - Attachments 9 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Adrian Hurin, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider using a regular skylight into the upstairs hallway, they could give more light than the sun tubes. >This project is more sophisticated than some of the projects we see that try to attach a modernist addition to a pretty straightforward traditional box. With that said, its level of sophistication doesn't feel like it's an appropriate approach to the box. It's not trying to integrate itself with the house, other than by its massing. Sometimes that's enough, but this feels so irrelevant to the existing architecture. It's not just the vertical siding, which is the wrong response and very undifferentiated. It creates a homogeneous mass. It's the metal plate awnings. It feels out of character with the rest of the house. I sort of understand what the designer is doing here, but I don't find myself agreeing with it. I don't find it a compelling addition . It might be interesting as a house type, it's more sophisticated than the stuff that come in front of us. It doesn't integrate with the house and you should try harder to do that. >I feel like it is almost trying too hard. I feel like the house is a traditional Tudor and it's simple in its own elegance. With the siding and the framing over those windows, there's just so many different windows . I feel like it's complicated. So, this would be a good project to go to design review, but would like to see what my fellow commissioners would say. Page 7City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I have similar thoughts to my fellow commissioners that the massing and the detailing of the addition is rather nice. If I look at that left side elevation and bring that porch element over, it's well detailed. If I saw a whole house of that, it could be a nice solution. Maybe it needs a little base to bring down the verticality, but still in and of itself, it's sophisticated and nicely detailed, but it detaches itself to the existing house in an irreverent way. It's described as a digression, but I'm having difficulty with that. >The commission reviewed a similar house that the architect wanted to take the original craftsman and add a more modern thing that slammed into the rear. What they ended up doing after our input and feedback is brought something that had the same materials. What they called playful and contemporary, was more consistent with the existing structure in the materiality and some of the detailing, but it got playful with the windows and openings et cetera. With this one, if I look at that left side elevation and consider the fact that's all one mass, the one thing that's helping breakdown that whole one mass is the change in materials along that side, but it's all in one plane. So because I'm having difficulty with the change in materials, it therefore leaves me to realize it's not a really good solution to breakdown that large mass of house that's along that left side. It falsely resolves itself by keeping that existing gable and changing materials, but it's all in plane. I like the detailing that's there, but I just don't think it fits together with the existing house and hangs together as an overall design in terms of the design criteria we have to consider. >I echo what my fellow commissioners have stated. The backyard may be difficult to enjoy against a really tall, flat rear elevation of the height of this addition. I would suggest on top of the items that have been noted, that there be some consideration for some of the articulation and the massing of that rear wall as it relates to the backyard, which is not tremendously large. It's the Burlingame backyards and would love for it to be better enjoyed if it had a better relationship with that rear side. >With respect to the design review consultant, this is a very skilled designer that we're seeing the work of right here. The designer may be missing an opportunity here. If I look at the massing and the windows and ignore the texture of the wood, I can see this being a very sort of Charles Mackintosh or Gunner modernist. They had modernist sensibility that would fit well with this stucco house. I suggest that the designer go back and look at Charles Mackintosh designs. Very sophisticated modern sensibilities that this reminds me of. It can be a nice project actually. Right now, it's incongruous. >It comes back to the 3D drawing. Looking at this elevation on the left side, it doesn't look terrible with the material transitioned until you step back and say it's all in one plane. If the addition was three or four feet setback from the stucco elevation, then it would start to make sense. When we see this in three dimensions, then we realize that it doesn't work like that. It's not so much the style part of it, it ’s where the transitions aren't there for me. It does feel more like the one we looked at a while back where the back crashed into the front. I can appreciate the attempt to preserve the front half of the house because it's a good looking house and it has good value to it. We're back loading this house with a very big mass and it's creating very unusual elevations in the back which may not be our biggest concern, but yet, it's not working. I'm hoping that we're giving enough direction here for the designer to take another swing at this. >I'm defaulting to the sophistication and detailing that's tying in the addition to where I don't know if a design review consultant is the solution because it could create more tension in having another voice in the room, when we have a pretty good designer to begin with. We often feel that another set of eyes would help with a project, but in this case, it's just a matter of the designer going back and rethinking the basic approach. >It should go back to design review, although I hear my fellow commissioner ’s comments about this applicant being a really good designer. I'm open to having the applicant decide one way or the other, if they would like to go for it one more time and see if they can create something that we can approve, that would be acceptable to me. >This is a good candidate for design review consultant. That would give the applicant clear guidance of moving forward with this project, but I agree with what ’s been said. This is nuanced design and there's definitely expertise there. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the application on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - Page 8City of Burlingame November 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council took a first review of the Zoning Ordinance Update at its last meeting. It was not the formal introduction yet; that will come in the next meeting. The councilmembers were very appreciative of the hard work that the Planning Commission put into the ordinance. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 8, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 18, 2021, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 9City of Burlingame