Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.08.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 23, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and LariosPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Schmid was recused from item because he was not present at the July 12, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Schmid1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.907 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Front Setback Variance to remove and replace an existing nonconforming wall in the same location. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Page 1City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (John Pineda and Heather Wright, applicants and property owners; Kim Green, Drafting Green, designer) (136 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 907 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 907 Paloma Ave - Attachments 907 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1515 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Bryce Dille and Erica Jackson, property owners) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1515 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1515 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1515 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a discussion with the owner several weeks ago. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Rosemarie and John Trucco: Our house is single -story as was mentioned and this house that they're working on has been a two-story occupied house for over 40 years and the windows never faced on this side before. There’s a driveway between our house and then there's a setback. As it goes up the roof line, it's really close to our house and they do look straight down. If you have the two sheets of paper that we've sent to you, hopefully you can see our points of view. In Figure 1, we looked closely at what they gave us and other than raising the two windows on the corner by 6 inches to 39 inches, which is still pretty low, plus they give you a spectacular corner wide view of our whole backyard. Our yard is open partially because our house and garage are separated and there's a straight shot through, we added another window, as you can see. If you look at the color right there, they do show the approximate viewpoints you can get from those windows right at our houses. They are windows one, two, three and four for them and ours are A, B, C, D and E. As you can see, that would be relatively straight into our house. So, I didn't see a lot of changes there. We took another look at the overall approach. The last time, it was mentioned that we could put some coverings over the windows to make them glazed or something. But I think we want to do something different. We'd like to compromise with the architect and the owners and offer some significant changes here. I'd like to suggest that the three windows on our driveway side, one in the den Page 2City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and the other one in the bedroom which has two windows, that they be made two windows there, both of those would be clerestory windows which would be higher up on the roof line and it would be approximately two feet down. I would suggest that they stop at 6 feet. That's not unusual for these types of windows . They do add a lot more light because they're long and wide and also the light will penetrate the room better. It's great for studying and also for students' rooms. Those should be considered instead of the room windows that they have suggested now. They would be wider and if you took the square foot of what they could do with that, the study room would be 6 feet wide by 2 feet, it's 12 square feet. The other point of view, to move the window on the backyard away from the corner a little bit, raise it up so it clears their roof line and that would make it difficult to see our yard at a harder angle. If they would also plant a shrub or bush that would grow up and partially block that view, at least shadow it periodically, it would help us a lot. We would also like the architect to contact us or visit us, rather than just give us a plan. (Chair Schmid: This is definitely something that you can work with your neighbors and with the architect offline . We are aware of your concerns and appreciate the information that you've brought forward and the information that you've sent to us earlier. We appreciate your comment.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the revisions the architect has made. In considering these issues that we face with neighbors, looking at the ordinances, we don't have anything that either restricts or disallows two -story houses or restricts or disallows second floor additions. Furthermore, we don't have any specific ordinance that says windows cannot overlook yards. It's up to neighbors to cooperate, coordinate and reach points of harmony in terms of window coverings and how we work in a neighborly fashion when houses can be close, some as close as four feet from each other's property line fence. In this case, the houses are separated by a driveway. The house is nicely designed. The massing is appropriate. The only thing that we are being asked to consider is design review, so I think the project is approvable at this point. >We can't redesign the house. I don ’t think the neighbors would appreciate looking at a window that was too small and a wall that is too sheer and too blank. As I've said in the past, the site lines work both ways, so the neighbor to the left could also undertake some planting on their yard to mitigate some of this issue. From the site plan, it appears that the applicant's fence maybe six inches on their side of the property line so the neighbor to the left actually has a little bit more room. I find the project approvable. I appreciate the concessions that the neighbor's already made and I don't think that changing the windows to a smaller window is going to help anything. Besides the fact that they do have the egress issues, as well, with sill heights. I don ’t think they should be handcuffed by just the neighbor's desire to have smaller windows. >The applicant has done a great job in redesigning the windows and taking into consideration their neighbor. I could also find the project approvable. >I wanted to just remind everyone again that the architect did already raise some of the sill heights, 4’- 8” for the kid's playroom as well as the two windows facing the left neighbor in that corner bedroom, so it's not really a comfortable window to stand or sit in front of and gaze at one's neighbor. It's also important to allow the homeowner to be able to have some cross breeze in rooms and easily operate windows. The clerestory windows aren't as easy to get to and operate. The architect has made some nice concessions as it is, and I too agree that this project should move forward. >I actually have those windows on the side of my house at a five foot sill height. I’m over 6 feet tall and I can't see my neighbor's roof, so I certainly couldn't see into his backyard. I agree that having the raised windows on the side are a great solution to be able to get in light and make the room not feel claustrophobic, but yet not be a privacy concern for the neighbor. I feel that the architect has done a good job on that side. 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, Schmid, and Larios6 - Page 3City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.164 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, applicant and designer; Kieran Woods, property owner) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 164 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 164 Pepper Ave - Attachments 164 Pepper Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 164 Pepper Ave - Plans Attachments: Chair Schmid was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non -statutory reasons. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Larios opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Kevin Zhang, 1715 Ralston Avenue: Received a public hearing notice. I have been traveling and I haven't seen the designs for the proposal. How do I get a copy of those so I can have a more informed opinion? (Hurin: We can provide you with a copy of the plans if you want to send an email to planning dept@burlingame.org.) I was curious how it affects the view into my yard given that they're building up on that floor and then they're close to the back of my yard essentially. (Hurin: It's something you may want to connect with the designer about and they can share the plans with you and compare that to your property, or you can review the plans when we email them to you to see the positioning of the house in relationship to your property.) (Chu: I just want to point out, besides the master bathroom windows and staircase, we have three additional small windows facing the left neighbors, one from the master bedroom. The second is bathroom number two and the third is bedroom number two. We did consider the neighbor's privacy for a situation like this. We tried to position our larger window facing from the rear on our driveway side.) >Anonymous Neighbor on Pepper Avenue: This side of Pepper Avenue has pretty small houses that fit in with each other. It appears that the plans for 164 Pepper Avenue are rather gargantuan. They don't fit in with the rest of the houses on that side of the street; that's our primary concern. Someone mentioned earlier regarding proportion and I think that's just really something to keep in mind. Several neighbors are concerned about this. >Public comment for the July 12th meeting submitted via email by Ken Noss, 1721 Ralston Avenue: 164 Pepper Avenue fronts my backyard. The existing house is a single story. Two story will tower over my whole backyard, deck, slider to my family room and bedroom windows. My privacy will no longer exist. Can the owner build a single story home? If not, can the building plan be monitored and designed so the windows don't look directly on my deck and family room sliders? Can trees be planted to cover the windows? Thank you for your consideration. >Public comment submitted via email by Ken Noss, 1721 Ralston Avenue: This house is a monster. I ask that they leave my fence alone and have the monster builder plant monster trees to provide privacy. I cannot make the meeting tonight, so I hope you can deliver the message for the right thing to do. >Public comment submitted via e -mail (anonymous): I have viewed the plans for this project. I am not in the construction business, and I have minimal experience as to "reading" house plans, so my perceptions of the plans is admittedly limited. That said, I have some observations. We have lived on Pepper Avenue for over 30 years and remember very well when the new 164 owner constructed a house on Page 4City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes another block of Pepper Avenue, an ostentatious house which has never "fit in" with its situation. Among other things, that house is much too big for the size of the property and it stands out like a sore thumb . The house has barely any front yard, at least in proportion to the house itself. Visually, there is not enough separation from the curb to the house. Minimal landscaping, no trees, nothing to soften the hardness of the large, "impressive" front of the house. It's as if he felt the need to fill up every inch of his lot, with no consideration of curb appeal, other than in the sense that the house is monolithic, hence unavoidably noticeable (which is apparently what the designer /owner wants). I was hoping that since constructing the other house, the owner's aesthetic sensibilities may have changed and that he would appreciate the unpretentious vibe of this block of Pepper. Unfortunately, from my viewing of the plans, it appears that I was wrong. I am also curious as to whether the owner plans to live in the new house or if it is being built to sell. From information I have gleaned elsewhere, it appears to be a spec house. Obviously, that is the owner's prerogative. However, it may be of interest to his neighbors. While change is, of course, inevitable, and generally a positive force, some changes are less positive than others. Unfortunately, Burlingame seems to be transforming from a community that values small -town charm to a community that values "what will sell." Thank you for your consideration. Acting Chair Larios closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider shortening the stairwell windows for the homeowners to have a little bit of a better view of more sky and distant views, as opposed to the roof of the nearby garage. >Consider lowering the 12-foot tall small opening at the front porch leading to the front door as it could feel out of human scale. >The massing is handled nicely. The architecture is well done and appropriately scaled. It may be vastly different than what neighbors are seeing now and may be different than what they expect, but in terms of our design review guidelines and our allowable ordinances for height, floor area, lot coverage, etc., it meets all of those current requirements. The only thing before us that's requested is design review . The floor plates are handled nicely. Nine feet on the first floor and eight feet on the second floor. We see things that are often bigger, taller and higher than that. The project is well -crafted, other than the few tweaks that have been discussed this evening. >I would ask that the applicant and the designer revisit their landscape plan. They have a box wood hedge that's along the backyard of their property, they could perhaps continue that box wood as a concession to the neighbors along that side for the Ralston property. Again, we don't have any ordinance that prevents two -story houses and second floor windows. In this case, those second floor windows aren't looking out to another house. They're looking out to a backyard. They have quite a distance before they even look to the neighboring house that is in the front of those backyards. I think landscaping can be installed and help mitigate, but I don't see any reason to require changes to the windows along that side as the designer pointed out. The windows that face that direction on the second floor are from a master bath, a stairwell and a laundry room. They're not even bedroom or living spaces that someone might be viewing out of, they're to let light into those spaces. The project should move forward to action. >I think the designer did a good job. The windows that are going to lookout into the other yards are not really living space windows. He did a good job with setting the trees behind the house where he brings them back to where the adjacent structure is on the neighboring property. It blocks the house and the views that might be there. The neighbor on the Ralston Avenue side has a lot of yard to work with there and could easily plant something along the fence line that would block the view of the house, if he was really concerned, whereas the applicant has a narrower yard and more limit. I would like to see this move forward as well. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Acting Chair Larios, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Larios4 - Page 5City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Comaroto, and Schmid2 - b.225 Stanley Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, one -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to remain). (Christina Lee and Hieu Bui, property owners and applicants; Jesse Geurse, GCD, Inc ., designer) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 225 Stanley Rd - Staff Report 225 Stanley Rd - Attachments 225 Stanley Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 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: >Revisit drafting errors and make necessary corrections. >Consider enlarging the front porch by pushing the front door and wall further back since FAR is at the maximum allowed. >Should check City requirements regarding storm water going into drain. Encourage storm water to run off into landscape areas. >It is a good looking project. Designer has done a lot for a one -story house to work on this lot. Would like to see this move forward. >Appreciate a one-story house being built. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.312 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Michael Bianchini, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 6City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 312 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 312 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 312 Bayswater 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. Adam Bittle, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Tifani Marsay, public comment submitted by email : We currently live at 100 Stanley Road, which is the corner house next door to 312 Bayswater. We noticed on the plans that it lists the "existing dense shrubbery" as part of our property, but it is actually part of the 312 property. This 'shrubbery' provides a nice divider between our two properties. It gives privacy between the front yard of 312, and our side yard/outdoor space. If the tree is part of the tear down, we would like to see the plans reflect a new shrubbery to replace it. Thank you. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned about the first floor plate heights. The house looks proportioned. but the eave line of the front porch is too high. Ten foot plate heights can work on larger lots, but this is a smaller lot and only 45 feet wide. Revisit and see if there is a possibility of bringing the plate height down to a more human scale. Otherwise, massing and details were handled nicely. Suggest coordinating with the neighbors at 100 Stanley Road regarding their concerns. >The first floor will look tall with a person standing there. Nine foot doors are going to be difficult to find and it will create more cost and challenges to the project. The rendering looks great, it really helps a lot in understanding the materials and the intent of the project. Overall, it works. Consider taking a look at the proportion before coming back. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios6 - Absent:Loftis1 - d.1150 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage . (Quynh and Andrew Legos, applicants and property owners; WH Drafting and Design, designer) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1150 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1150 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1150 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Page 7City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Warren Huey, designer, and Andrew Legos, property owner, 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: >Recommends that the applicant provide renderings to see what the windows will look like. >The second floor deck seems a little large; would like to see it scaled back. Provide additional details and dimensions on the plans. >Concerned about the second floor roof deck, at 260 SF it is quite large. >Can see a larger roof deck being approved. Reconsider the material used for the railings, glass might make the user feel more exposed. >Need to explore more landscaping to address the size of the second floor deck. >Suggests that the designer and property owner check the regulations with staff and revise the setback off Rosedale Avenue. Consider pulling the house towards Rosedale Avenue, it will provide some side yard and an opportunity to add landscaping along that side. >Special Permit for attached garage is appropriate, there is precedence in the neighborhood. The design is nicely done and can fit in with the neighborhood. >Consider bringing down the scale of the front entry. >Suggest providing a 3D drawing to further explain how the entry works. It is also a great opportunity to define the materials. It is a good design. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios6 - Absent:Loftis1 - e.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two -story single family dwelling, and Special Permit and Front Setback Variance for an attached garage. (Erik Chan, Bay 9 Architects, applicant and architect; Thomas Lo, property owner) (136 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1549 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report 1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments 1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Thomas Lo, property owner and Erik Chan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions Page 8City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The reconsideration of the design of the basic layout of the project is much better than what we saw previously. This fits with the pattern that we see in the rest of the neighborhood, with the garage tucked under on the lower side of the house with the sloping hillside. I can make the findings for the variance. >I would ask that the applicant reconsider crafting the variance because the exceptional circumstance is not just the block average with the neighborhood, but also that the property line is set so far back from the edge of the street. The typical front setback is contemplated for the most common condition that we have in our neighborhoods and often times, that's street edge, curb, planter strip, sidewalk and then ultimately, property line. In this case, we don't have that typical condition, so there's some support in that regard for the variance. >I'm glad that the applicant is willing to reconsider the placement of the western bed tree. >My concern for the roof deck is not just the size, but there's a sliding door that actually accesses the roof deck, not just from the master bedroom but also from the landing at the front stairs. In other words, it's not just a bedroom deck, it could become a party deck that's overlooking a neighboring house, it could be a real nuisance. I think they need to pull the roof deck back by two -thirds of what it is now and it would still present itself as a nice opportunity for a viewing deck and still be away from that edge of the house. The deck towards the front, off the master bedroom is well -placed because that affords some nice views from that side of the house. >In regard to the project moving forward, I don't think we have any choice but to require story poles . Unfortunately, the property owners are going to have to find a way, if they want this project to happen, to get those story poles installed so we and the neighbors can see what the potential impact of this project will be. The project can move forward with some of the revisions we have discussed and with the direction of the story poles. >I can appreciate the roof deck, but I also appreciate the point of the neighbors and at the very least, the deck needs to be planned out a little bit more. Just throwing a railing up there doesn't really do it . There needs to be some consideration to what kind of buffers might be in place that we would ask of other buildings that have roof decks, whether that consists of some sort of planting or how you layout the furniture. There needs to be some conscious effort to design that space. >I really like the design and where it has come. That's why we are actually asking a lot of questions because it's different than what we typically get for a lot of our neighborhoods. The detailing is important to make sure that the vision comes out correctly. Just the very point of sloping the flat roofs, that's really going to change the way the fascia trims look, how things get executed and how drainage is handled. More effort needs to be put into understanding those areas, so that we are not coming back much later saying, it's a whole different design now that you have figured out how to drain it and support it. Getting the structure and the drainage in there and figuring those pieces out are going to have some impacts on the way this lot gets used. I'm encouraging this project to move forward, but I also want to see a bit more design and documentation when it comes back to us next time. >We can make sufficient findings for a special permit for an attached garage. It's a common pattern, if not the only pattern for the neighborhood. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the story poles have been installed and the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios6 - Page 9City of Burlingame August 23, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at the August 16th City Council meeting, the Council decided to continue allowing parklets through September 2022, with a review in August 2022. The Council deferred discussion of street closures until the Spring. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 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 August 23, 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 September 2, 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 10City of Burlingame