Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.04.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 26, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Tse noted that this was Commissioner Sargent's last Planning Commission meeting. She thanked Commissioner Sargent for his many years of service and presented him with a Resolution on behalf of the Planning Commission. Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and SargentPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 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 Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent7 - a.1555 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Front Setback Variance 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. (Alex Tzang, Alex Tzang Group, applicant and architect; Fred and Sherry Koo, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 1City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1555 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report 1555 Los Altos Dr - Attachments 1555 Los Altos Dr - Plans Attachments: b.1105 Oxford Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Stanley Panko, Panko Architects, Architect; John and Patricia Jones, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1105 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1105 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1105 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.232 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope 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. (Richard Sargent, applicant; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc .; Glory and Benton Williams, property owners) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 232 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 232 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 232 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused for non -statutory reasons. Commissioner Sargent was recused because he has a financial interest in the project. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owners Glory and Benton Williams. Commission Questions/Comments: >You indicated you were agreeable to planting the Box -Leaf Azara that the neighbors asked for, but the plans show the Pittosporum. (Chu: The plan was resubmitted on March 4th and the discussion with the neighbors happened after the plan was submitted. We’ll update the plans when we apply for a building permit.) We might be able to capture that as a condition of approval. >You have a direct vent chimney. It looks like you could lower that by two or three feet and still break your eave line architecturally but not have it as tall. Is that what I'm seeing? (Chu: Correct.) So possibly this will also be another condition of approval. Page 2City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It was a nice project previously. I'm glad the owners were able to meet with the neighbors and come to some agreements. A couple of those items that were mentioned in our discussion, including the type of hedge along the left property line and lowering the chimney, could be addressed as an additional condition of approval. In my opinion, the project is approvable. >I agree wholeheartedly and I don't have any further comment. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following added conditions: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to show the Pittosporum evergreen privacy screen along the left side property line replaced with Box-Leaf Azara (6, 15 -gallon size). >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to show the height of the chimney along the left side of the house reduced by 2’-0” to 3’-0”. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Sargent2 - b.1320 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling (detached garage to remain). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Brandan Podesta, applicant and architect; Roberto Amijo and Yungting Liao, property owners) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1320 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1320 Mills Ave - Attachments 1320 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Brandan Podesta, represented the applicant. Page 3City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you checked with the Public Works Division about the flood zone in this area? (Podesta: Yes, that was one of the comments we noted on the plans. We had to file an initial application with FEMA, basically stating we are going to be 30 inches above that flood plain. We have to prove that we will build it 30 inches above that.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I want to thank you for the rendering. I really appreciate that because it really does show the articulation along the front. I'm assuming that the material pallet is going to match closely to the original submittal versus one of the plans sets I received; it was an emerald green color instead of a darker green color. It looks good and that really helped sell it for me, so I can support this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. You did a really great job on the project and it looks nice. Thank you for the extra work you did on providing the 3D renderings. I can support this project. >As my fellow commissioner said, thanks for the 3D rendering which did demonstrate that the building is well-articulated and well-crafted. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.949 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ying Ngor Lee and Leung To Chow, applicants and property owners; Inconn Design, designer) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 949 Laguna Ave - Staff Report 949 Laguna Ave - Attachments 949 Laguna Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The staff report says the number of corbels under the second floor overhangs have been reduced. Is it just this number or the number and size as well? (Hurin: It could be both the number and the size compared to the originally approved plans.) >It looks like there's a mistake in the staff report about the wood window trim. It's actually not a 1” x 4” that's there, it’s some kind of stucco mold. It has some profile, but it seems closer to a 1” x 3”. (Hurin: Page 4City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes We'll make note of that in the staff report.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Peter Chow, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >You're the property owner and the architect, is that correct? (Chow: Yes, I am the property owner.) Did you also act as the architect? I know you weren't the original designer, but did you oversee the project as it was going along? (Chow: Yes.) So, you're familiar with the conditions of approval, specifically Condition #2 which states that changes in the materials of finishes should come back to the Planning Division? (Chow: Yes.) Also with Condition #12, did you have a framing inspection to certify that the roof was in compliance with the framing plan provided to us originally? (Chow: Yes, that's correct. So I actually filed a structural revision in 2019. We made the changes to the foundation and the roof framing as well. The original design specified using roof trusses, but we revised it to standard stick framing.) But we have one change, where the dormer was extended or made larger. The roof plan was altered in several ways, with the main difference being the second floor ridge extension of the gable. Did we get notified of that or did someone bring that up to the Planning Division? I'm trying to find the disconnect here where a lot of this dropped off. Planning Manager Hurin, did we have record of that? (Chow: Yes, we did submit a revised drawing for the structural changes.) (Hurin: The disconnect could be that the revision may not have been forwarded to the Planning Division. We can look into that, but staff didn't go out until the end of the project and that's when we noticed the changes.) >I just want to make sure that I'm fully understanding what's going on. This is an entirely new construction project, correct? (Chow: That's correct.) Construction had not started when you bought the property? (Chow: No. When we bought the property and drawings from the original engineer, we stopped the construction about a month after we purchased the property.) So you purchased the property with the plans and then you started the project? Were you aware that any significant changes need to come back to the Planning Commission before the changes were made? (Chow: I was not familiar with that; I thought these were smaller changes.) Was your contractor familiar with that? Does your contractor work in Burlingame regularly? (Chow: No, not really.) Public Comments: >Comments via chat from Dean Peterson, 953 Laguna Avenue: I support the recommendations as made in the staff report. Further, I have no objections to the applicant's proposal and look forward to welcoming new neighbors in the future. >Comments via chat: Does this structure now exceed height limit? (Hurin: Staff report note said there's no change to the height as was originally proposed.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There's one other mistake I noticed in the staff report that is relevant to our discussions, which is that the front porch columns aren't actually square, but they ’re rectangular. I just wanted to make sure all commissioners had that in front of them as we consider this. >Given our discussion at the joint meeting with City Council on this topic, frankly, this looks like a very cheap version of the approved project. I would not have voted to approve this project without significant input on it. But now, we're in a situation where I'm not sure I feel free to make a determination such as this. I feel hand strong again and I don't like it. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. First of all, I would like to say thank you to staff for working with the applicant, trying to make this better and trying to institute some changes. But I understand the applicant wanting to come forward to see if they can get permission for acceptance of these revisions. But Page 5City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes frankly, I can't accept most, if not all of the proposed revisions. What was going to be a secondary gable on the left side is now just an offset piece, I don't know what you call it. That would not have been acceptable. We probably would have sent something like that to a design review consultant to have it worked through and it would probably ended up what was originally proposed as a secondary gable. There are a couple of things that are somewhat acceptable like the front door and the transom windows on the backdoor, but the other issues that are noted are too substantial and not acceptable. I could not approve those. On the porch columns, they may look okay in elevation, but I noticed what my fellow commissioner was pointing out, they're not square columns. They look paper thin when you get oblique to a straight -on view. Unfortunately, the new owners who bought the project have turned it into what was new construction to a fixer-upper now. It's going to have to go through major revision or propose something that makes the design more acceptable. What's proposed is not acceptable in my mind. It's unfortunate, but I think we have to draw the line at some point. >I would agree. The small corbels and the eliminated wood belly bands don't work. The plumbing vents coming out of the side of the elevation and the gable that became whatever it became, none of that works. The stucco trim around the window diminishes the window as well. It doesn't add the value and the charm that the original design had. I couldn't support the changes as drawn and as are there now. >I agree. Specifically the wood trim around the windows and doors is not what we are looking for. I remember this project specifically. It's a big house in a small neighborhood and it's not working. When I drove up the street and turned around, it was even worse. I can't accept the wood trim around the windows . The fascia with the square termination doesn't work; that was a nice little detail. The front porch columns not only are not the size that they were, the capitals at the top are non -existent and the corbels under the second floor overhang looks like something that was left over from another project. The gable trim at the end on the left hand side and the lattice in the driveway side has been reduced to something like a first year woodworking project. I can't accept these changes. It needs to be reworked. >I would agree with what's been said. There may be one or two things that are acceptable, but based on what everybody else said, I would say most are not. The fourth one, the window location at the front elevation, the front door design and the transom in the back are acceptable to me, but I'm open to any suggestions by other commissioners. >I want to just be more specific. The things that absolutely have to be addressed are the window trims, the corbels, the columns on the front and the lattice work. Those things really, really look cheap. If those could be fixed, it could be passable. Those are the minimal changes I could see to require. >We have recently been reopening the public hearing to allow the applicant to say anything that can add to this discussion at this point. Am I allowed to do that City Attorney? (Spansail: That’s certainly within your discretion. If you open it, we should open it to all the public ones that's concluded with the applicant. >Madam Chair, I certainly respect your discretion to reopen the hearing and I wouldn't ask you not to do it. But I would like to make a comment that every time we do reopen these hearings, it's usually not for the applicant to add something, but more for them to question our decisions and raise new questions that could be answered by staff on the following day. So I'd certainly defer to your discretion on this. Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing. (Chow: Thank you for the comments. I'm willing to fix the side trellis and also the front columns to make sure they match with the original approved plan.) You don't have to list for us what you'll be willing to improve. I'm opening the public hearing so you can clarify something or if you have a quick question . (Chow: One thing I want to point out is the gable roof. It would be an issue for me to tear down and then reframe the whole left side of the house. That would cause some difficulty and it would increase the cost on my end. That is the only thing I'm concerned about. The other items that you point out, I'm willing to fix that as best I can to match the approved plan.) Thank you, we understand that. That was why some of the questions came to you at the beginning of this discussion from the commissioners to ascertain your understanding of the requirements. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >It is possible that we'll be denying the request, but we haven't given clear direction to go back and Page 6City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes build it as it was approved. What we're saying is to fix some stuff, but are we leaving open the possibility that the applicant could go to an architect or designer and come back to us with a proposed different solution to the major change to the gable, or we're saying, no, build it the way it was approved? This is an important distinction. >We are saying that what they have proposed as a change is not acceptable. They have two choices, one is build it as approved or come back with an alternative. >That's a point to be made. >It might be a good idea for him to redo the drawings based on the discussion and get them back to us so that we're clear. I don't want him to fix and make changes, then come back to us again and then we say no, that doesn't meet the criteria that we are trying to establish. He would need to bring a drawing back showing the changes that the commission has given direction on. It does have to go back to the original drawing, he can apply again with another proposal with acceptable changes. >That makes a lot of sense that we're simply denying what got built. He's not asking for approval of the drawings. He's asking us to approve what he built. The drawings only represent that. What we would need to see is either build it the way it was designed or come back to us with a proposed solution that we can accept. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - d.1095 Rollins Road, zoned R-4 - Application for Design Review Amendment for exterior changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a 6-story, 150-unit apartment building. (Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for this project.) (1095 Rollins Rd. LP, property owner and applicant; BDE Architecture, architect) (23 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1095 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1095 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1095 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >What is the definition of the spa that's mentioned for the second floor? Are we talking about a hot tub? (Keylon: Yes. It is shown on sheet A 3.32 in the gray area surrounded by the green.) Is it the sunken area on the deck? (Keylon: Yes.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Don Peterson, Jonathan Beaver, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Regarding the green wall, how do you maintain it and how is it watered? Is it potable water or gray water system? How high does this stuff get? What happens if you have to tear it back, how do you get up there? (Beaver: The plants are supported on a stainless steel cable system so it's separated from the building. There's about six inches of relief off the facade of the building. The plants will be irrigated using Page 7City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a drip irrigation system similar to the remainder of the plants on the project, so it will be on an automated system. It's potable water. We have selected plants that meet the low water use requirements for the project. The questions about maintenance, are you specifically talking about the plants themselves?) Yes. Some of these things look like they could be 20 or 30 feet high if they actually grow that high. I've got some star jasmine that's ten feet off the ground and it's out of control. So to cut it back, I've got to get up on a ladder. What happens if you have to get up and cut back, if you're not going to use a lift, are you going to use a ladder? My concern is how certain are you that it's going to work? If it actually works, how certain are you that you can maintain it? What happens if in the future you can't be bothered anymore because it's out of control? Either we end up with it out of control completely or not working because it's not watered enough or for some other reason. >There are pictures on sheet L -1.3 that shows some instances of this stuff growing using the cable system. I understand the cable system, but where were the pictures taken? Are they in this region? (Beaver: I can't answer that question. I don't know exactly where those photos were taken. They're probably global in scope. But growing vines on cables like this has been done on a lot of projects and we're pretty confident in the ability to maintain these. They'll get up 20 to 30 feet on the facade as you mentioned. That is true. We've tried to select a plant material that is not entirely unruly, meaning that it's going to create problems because the owners don't want to create issues with the plant material. We're pretty confident that the system is going to work. We've tried to diversify the planting somewhat because we all know that planter is pretty adaptable to their specific microclimates and we want to create as much assurance that this will be highly successful as we can.) A lot of my questions were driven by the fact that I've done a lot of work over the past several years in Silicon Valley and see a lot of green walls that actually haven't worked. They haven't grown and so I'm trying to get some comfort here. (Beaver: Just to be clear, this is different from a green wall per se which maybe suggest a soil metrics that's on a wall surface. Those in fact are quite difficult to keep maintained and in fact, if you miss a few days of irrigation on something like that, they're pretty unforgiving. The vines and the plant material at the base of the building will all be irrigated so if the vines are suddenly not irrigated, that suggests that the whole ground plane area will not be irrigated as well. We're 100% confident that will not be an issue.) (Kyle: To respond to some of your fears regarding maintenance, we do have a full system of exterior building maintenance provided for the windows systems, controlled ascent tankers with platforms. So the same way we're going to provide maintenance for the windows that are going to be hard to reach from the ground, it should provide the same level of access to maintain these vines should they grow to the full height shown here.) >How long will it take for these vines to mature? (Beaver: They'll go in as five -gallon containers which means they'll be four feet tall at planting. We're still trying to finalize the exact species selection and it depends on the actual species chosen. We're looking at plants that might grow anywhere from three to four feet a year. So it will be a few years before we get topped out to the top of those gables.) How often are you planning to space the vertical wires? What's the grid system look like? On sheet L -1.3 there's the one building. Is it only going vertical? To tell you the truth, I like the crisscross on the wall the best, but I don't think that's what you're doing. (Beaver: We're still working on that and might have been finalized as of today. I can't answer that question because I don't know. I think they'll be some horizontals because we want to make sure as the plants are growing, they're twining plants, and so they'll need those horizontals to make sure they can get a secure foot hold to meet vertically.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I generally like green stuff growing on the sides of buildings. This is really extensive which gives me pause. It's proposed, it's pervasive and it makes me worry about the two things that I've asked questions about. Not taking care of it, it dies, or it gets out of control. I’ve proposed nothing quite this extensive before, but I have proposed green stuff on the sides of buildings and I'm not spending all my money Page 8City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes required to do this. Despite assurances, what worries me is how extensive it is. The building was pretty good without it and it could be good with it. I'd feel more a lot more comfortable if it were limited in scope . But then again, if it works and it's taken cared of, in 20 years it can look remarkable. I'm torn here because I worry about us approving something that then just doesn't get maintained properly. >I don't have any concerns with the pergolas, the material changes and the other things that are proposed. With regards to the vines, my favorite picture that I've seen is the one with the crisscross on a blank wall, which starts to add some value to this. But the one above the building which has as much articulation as the proposed building, I don't know that it needs more complications. I just don't like the picture of the building above with just green stuff growing up. I don't think it adds value to the architecture . I'm concerned that it's not going to look great. The examples are not convincing me it's a value added to the building. As my fellow commissioner said, this is quite an endeavor that is being proposed here across a large amount of building versus just being in the back near one of the patio areas and being an accent piece. I would need to see a lot more on how to put this on the side of a building. Chair Tse reopened the public hearing. >(Peterson: I wanted to add, for those that don't know Prometheus, we're a family -owned company based locally and have been here for 50 years. We don't sell any of these properties, we keep them. We have an incentive to keep these properties over time. If you have concerns, specify if there's a greater comfort level with the extent of the greenery that may help in terms of guiding that specific element.) >I would have been much more comfortable if I had heard, “yes, we've done seven of these installations over the course of the last 12 years and every one of them is thriving and we can bring you photos .” Is that the case? Do you or your landscape architect have specific history and a precedence with this type of installation? (Peterson: We're relying on our landscape architect and our team. We're currently proposing this on several of the buildings we're doing. But I can't point anything that has this extensive greenery on the exterior.) (Beaver: We can show some other examples. We have not done anything this extensive before. This is certainly a bold move, but we have used this cable system in the past with vines. We've done a number of projects where we've done fairly large vine coverings. There's also a really good precedent project in Portland at the courthouse that has extensive vines growing up the side that we could share with you as well. It's a similar strategy of utilizing a variety of species to achieve that effect.) >What we're seeing here is a growth that's proposed, right? It's an instance of growth at some point in the future and so this is unlike many of the architectural things we see. It suggests that wall could be fully grown up 50 feet high and this could be stepped. Is it possible that we're going to see a 50-foot high wall surrounding that courtyard on sheet A 3.33? Or is the stepping a part of the design? What's being proposed here exactly? (Beaver: Stepping is proposed as part of the design. It does go up various heights and it's articulated on the facade that way.) This is not really an artist ’s representation of what it might grow up to be like, it steps up and you have a wall 50-foot height that's all green, that it steps to? That helps me understand what's going on. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >Did I miss that we have a rendering of this building with the material on it? I saw just the diagrams that showed color coding where they would be, but not any kind of rendering of what this is going to look like . That's huge for me because the one building I'm seeing in the plan isn't doing it for me. It doesn't necessarily go against the project that we have here which has a fine elevation as it is. So I would need a little bit more visualization. I agree with the other commissioners on some examples of where it's being successful because going up and down the freeway, the walls that we build to enclose our freeways are meant to have plants on them too, but yet we can't seem to keep those growing either. So again, I need more on that. But I'm fine with the rest of it. I can see that going forward. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I have no issues with the pergolas, they will add some nice scale to the outdoor areas. No issue with the spa, it's a nice added feature. It's a great project. I still believe strongly in it and I ’d like to see this move forward. If we can ask that some additional information and perhaps some more detailed renderings come back before us, maybe as an FYI in regards to the vines. Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Page 9City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application with the following amended conditions: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 4, 2019, sheets AP0.0 through AP0.70, sheets C1.01 through C8.04, sheets AP1.0 through AP8.0 and sheets L1.0 through L2.5; with revised elevations and landscape plans, as amended on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 22, 2021, sheets A3.00 through A3.33 and L1.1 through L1.11, with the exception of the living walls (vertical cable trellis system with vines); if living walls are proposed on any portion of the building, they shall be subject to Planning Commission review as an amendment to this permit. >that the species for the trees along Rollins Road shall be determined with final approval by the Parks Division prior to issuance of the building permit and shall be selected from the example species in the March 22, 2021 plans. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2411 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Hector Estipona, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Philip and Lily Law, property owners) (97 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2411 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2411 Easton Dr - Attachments 2411 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused for non -statutory reasons. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, represented the applicant with property owners Philip and Lily Law. Commission Questions/Comments: >Overall, the design is very well done. The front and left side elevations show the existing windows to remain, is that correct? They are vinyl windows with grids -between-the-glass. Is there a consideration in replacing these windows? If so, would you consider grids on all the windows? (Deal: As far as those windows, my hope is that they will be replaced with new windows to match the existing windows. With regard to replacing all the windows in the entire house, that is a decision that has not been made. That would be quite expensive. The truth is, some of that area will potentially be remodeled in the future, we don’t know yet. I can’t say yes or no on that. I'd have to talk to the owners.) >I was less objectionable to the existing windows with grids -in-between-the-glass, but I do miss the Page 10City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes grids on the new windows that are being proposed. The additional trimwork and details that were added to the elevations work great. It’s just a little bit of loss of character with the windows without the muntins. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I don’t get the sense that Mr. Deal is actually representing the client based on his answers. This feels we ought to have somebody representing the client answering our questions definitively in order to property review this project. Unless we just say, no vinyl windows, no grids -in-between-the-glass . I feel wholly unprepared to make any decisions or give any feedback based on this. >This is one of my favorite houses in the Easton Addition and I thank the applicant for all the work they have done to maintain the feeling of this home. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I ’d love to see if we can get the architect or designer that is actually working with the applicant to come back and have some comments or clarifications about these windows. I do like the other changes but the windows are of concern. Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing. >(Law: To the question whether or not we are replacing the windows, most likely yes. As the architect said, we haven’t gone through the final details as to which window, but we will be happy to work with the City to figure that out.) I don ’t know if that answer helped per se. Considering changing windows is neither a yes or no. Can you be more definitive? Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >It’s a lovely home. I like what they are adding as far as the detail. We just need clarity with the windows. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.728 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Front Setback Variances for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Tristan Warren, Tristan Warren Architect, applicant and architect ); Tuhin and Shelby Sinha, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 728 Lexington Way - Staff Report 728 Lexington Way - Attachments 728 Lexington Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Page 11City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >It appears that there a typographical error in the staff report. Based on the chart, the square footage is supposed to be 2,694 SF and not 2,964 SF because the maximum allowed is 2,700 SF. (Keylon: You’re correct. It looks like we transposed the numbers.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tristan Warren, represented the applicant with property owners Tuhin and Shelby Sinha. Commission Questions/Comments: >I admire the contemporary look, the thorough study, and the residential feel and scale of the project. I like the comments in terms of this being a study and how the forms can be defined by the use of the materials which led me to zero in on the left elevation. It's a little plain and I get it. You've got the nice recess and the application of the wood siding at the second floor bedroom number one, exterior left side wall. Would it be possible to do something similar at the downstairs bathroom towards the back as an offset on that elevation? Maybe even introduce an eyebrow awning over that window, it would help with that facade. (Warren: This is one of those things where it becomes a compositional exercise. We define the materials and set things up. Our design team went back and forth on this elevation quite a bit. Whether to leave it plain and what to do with it; we certainly would be happy to study that area to enliven it up a little bit. Obviously, the fenestration there is what it is after going back and forth with the abutting neighbor to make sure that there were no direct views and that everybody was getting light and air. But adding that accent material wouldn ’t be an issue as long as we are able to handle it properly.) It would help with that elevation because the others are well composed. I appreciate that. >I appreciate all the effort and thought being put into the design. Can you help me a little bit with the various eyebrows and canopies? What is that assembly intending to be made out of? What are the dimensions? It seems light and pretty thin. (Warren: That was the intent. There's a project my former firm did in Palo Alto where they used a thin metal plate as the eyebrow. My intent for those eyebrows, with the exception of the one over the front door, was to keep them as thin as possible. I would think we would have an up-turned edge of half-an-inch on the front side and then we would work to set something up for drainage. I've done this before in the past in other ways. We then would have an up -turned leg so it's a large angle, and that large angle would then have flashing above it and would be bolted on the side so we can achieve a thin profile projecting from the building. At the entry, we probably will use a steel frame and have a little bit more depth, so that we can continue that same ceiling plane into the building back to the face of where the window at the stairs starts. I'd expect that the biggest challenge we'd have, if we look at the 3D view, is that we would have a thin column at the outside to pick that up. If we couldn't do it with lumber, we could do it with a light steel profile. That's the intent there. We're still at the design review phase, so not a ton of thought has gone into it, but I ’d like to have proof of concept before I throw something out there.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's a nice project. I like the study and how the materials can help define the form of the contemporary style because it has good scale. They have lowered the house and the massing is very similar to the existing. So therefore, even though it may not be wholly represented in the neighborhood, there are some precedents and it could fit in nicely. I could find support and make the findings for the variance. I agree Page 12City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with the arguments that have been made in terms of the neighborhood context, in terms of zoning that's been developed over the years, subsequent to the original construction. I also think there's an additional, exceptional and extraordinary circumstance and that is the fact that this lot is only 100 feet deep. We've had discussions before about requirements, but when we look at things like FAR and lot coverage, those things scale with the lot. A setback for the garage of a hardened set 25 feet does not scale with the lot . On a small lot like this, it's an exceptional circumstance and requirement to say the house has to get shoved back that additional seven feet. It can be applied here. I would like to see some additional study on the left elevation. >I thank the applicant for a nice design. I used to live on Lexington Way, it's my favorite street. So I know how tight and how small those lots can be. I appreciate the drawings and the thoughtfulness. I agree with my fellow commissioner that this is a great start to the project; I could see approving it. I would like to see a little bit more detail on the left elevation as well. Other than that, I could see this project moving on. >I appreciate the scale, the massing and everything. I do know that neighborhood well too, from that standpoint, it fits in really well. I'm struggling a little bit with the context piece , but I also understand that it has to start somewhere. We have to get some opportunities on this and some latitude on that. I would like to see, in this next version of it, a little bit more study with the landscape in the front. The front renderings could be more detailed. I know you did them clearer so you could see the elevation, but the landscaping in the front area could be quite important to the success of this project. We typically are looking for window and awning details, so a little bit more information on how those are going to go together would be helpful the next time around. >It's a very handsome design. I'm struggling a lot with the context though. I always hate to find myself on the wrong side of good modern design, but it takes a lot of words to explain how this fits into the neighborhood. The problem for me, like a project that we saw not too long ago, this is in one those neighborhoods where there ’s not a lot of room between the buildings and the houses relative to one another. For me in that context, a building like this is thumbing its nose at those conversations. I like the house a lot. It will be hard for me in the future to understand how we say no to anyone who can come in with the right scale, materials that are similar, and put together all the words that are necessary to describe how it fits in conceptually. I find it almost impossible to say no if I say yes to this. I don't think that's really what happens in Burlingame. The reasons that we accept these kinds of projects in the hills is because the lots are much larger and the topography is different. The buildings are not frontally all facing onto the street like they are having a conversation. I don't buy that this fits into the context. So if we say yes to this, I don't see how we can say no if people come in with something that's carefully crafted like this one is and conceptually fits into, but our community will walk down the street and say how did this show up here? I don't buy that this fits with the neighborhood, it takes more than that. It's not making a nod at the neighborhoods other than the scale and the materials, which are good. Then there's a lot of explanation about the size of the windows, but this architecture has got to be more than conceptual. I don't believe that a community is built on conceptual design. It's built on design that's part of a broader conversation . I’m having a real problem with the context, as much as I like the house. It's a very nicely done modern home. I love Mid-Century, but this isn't the Mid-Century anymore. >Because of the size of my truck, I didn't drive down the block. I parked on Bloomfield Road and walked all the way down. I feel the same as my fellow commissioner. I have worked on that street before and it's a nice tree-lined street. It has a Burlingame, small town feel, that's the sense I got when walking the block. I like the house except for the left side, especially because the neighbor on the left side has a big two-story sheer wall, but I think that's going to be addressed. I'm having a hard time with this fitting in . I won't go on because my fellow commissioner did a great job of explaining it. We have modern homes around town, but with the size of the lots and how close these are together, I don't see this fitting in with the rest of them. >I have to agree with my fellow commissioner. I don't have anything to add because he was pretty eloquent on his opinion on why it doesn't fit. It seems like we're struggling on a motion. I suppose we have two choices here. We can refer it to a design review consultant, which doesn't seem necessary, or bring it back on regular action and have the architect address the comments that have been made. >It might be helpful if the perspectives included the neighboring homes, so we get a little bit more of that neighborhood context which may make it a little bit palatable or less palatable. >I agree with my fellow commissioner that more context on either side would help the design team or Page 13City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes help us come to conclusions, one way or the other. But I don't know that if we're bringing this back on regular action, it means we're ready to go forward. There is definitely some work to be done to come to that action meeting. >We've seen some projects in our city in some denser neighborhoods where a more modern approach has been taken. It is a matter of working roof profiles in with the massing and design, so the roof profile incorporates better with the neighborhood, but have a more modern and contemporary statement. So maybe that can provide the architect with a little direction in contextually fitting into the neighborhood more. We agree the materials and some of the elements are nice. I can see the asymmetrical placement of windows is not predominant in the neighborhood, but it does exist. The attached garage massing certainly is found throughout that neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent7 - c.1820 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Henry Malmberg, John Lum Architecture, applicant and architect; Jee -Soo Park and Ryan Choi, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihalaufisi 1820 Castenada Dr - Staff Report 1820 Castenada Dr - Attachments 1820 Castenada Dr - 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: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. John Lum, John Lum Architecture, represented the applicant with property owners Ryan Choi and Jee -Soo Park. Commission Questions/Comments: >First of all, I want to say thank you to the homeowners for that wonderful letter of explanation on the project. I appreciate your commitment to the neighborhood and the community and sticking with the project. This is in response to what my fellow commissioner was talking about on the prior application . This is an example of why I can't simply say yes to any and all modern architecture or Mid -Century or contemporary architecture even if it has good scale. Did you study any other material applications or any uses of material to help support the forms of the contemporary look? You mentioned stucco and wood, but the only applications of wood that I see are a small bit on the rear elevation in the area underneath the bar and one panel of wood siding next to the patio doors. The rest is a stucco box. (Lum: Really, the majority of the houses are just stucco. We're basically following the queues from the adjacent neighborhood. If the goal is to add more wood, we could do that. Certainly, we are respecting the symmetry of the house and also with the addition and the middle section, that can be expressed with wood if that's more desirable.) What I would desire in terms of the context of the existing neighborhood, while there may be other stucco houses, they have different forms that are iconic and fit into the context of the Page 14City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighborhood that was built in the Mills Estates over the years. When you then introduce the contemporary style, it has an obligation to go further or at least express itself with something more than just a flat box with flat roofs, granted as a single slope at 1:12. It's just a stucco box that's hard to approve for me from a design standpoint. I’d like to think there can be some material study that would help support the forms, breakdown the masses and give better scale to what's proposed. >Can you talk a little bit about the glass screen entry courtyard? What's the purpose of the courtyard? Why is the courtyard there? (Lum: Currently, the front yard is never used as most houses in the neighborhood never use their yards. Since this is the south facing part of the house, the goal here was to give them an outdoor room that they could enjoy and also be secure with all their young children. It's also based on a precedent, Jee -Soo's mother grew up in Korea in a house that has a courtyard like this. The thought is to have a protected garden for them to enjoy. There are four or five examples in the neighborhood where people, next to their garages, have enclosed their front yards so they have private spaces.) >The window was noted as aluminum frame. Do you have a manufacturer selected? Could you provide a cut sheet for that next time? (Lum: Sure.) I have replaced thousands of windows in my career and when you say aluminum window, I think of it as really thin and narrow. A little bit more detail on the windows and doors, I would appreciate it. (Lum: Certainly.) Public Comments: >Sean Liu: We're the next door neighbor. I want our neighbors to know, Jee -Soo and Ryan, that we like you. The house design is very different than the community look. I know in Burlingame, we would like to preserve the community look. Just like what the Vice -Chair said, we are totally changing the community look and I'm concerned about that. The other thing is for those of you who know this neighborhood a lot . You know the houses sit very, very close to each other. Here, the lot is about 6,000 square feet and it's very close. My husband and I are strongly concerned about the patio design, it's very close to our end . The architect said he doesn't understand the comment. I want to tell you that privacy is why we moved to Burlingame from San Francisco. The reason why we really want to have a private backyard, coming back from work on a stressful day. I would like to sit in the backyard to have some privacy. I know you have three kids, I love them by the way. Having that open area looking at our end, I want you to be happy and to have fun, but being closer to this end is very concerning to us. That's why I hope you can respect our concern. If you move it to the middle, I ’m sure your neighbor on the other side doesn't want that to be on their side either. That would be something that I would think is fair to ask. I really hope that all the commissioners will think about that. >Eric Khan: My family has lived on Castenada Drive since 1965. I want to be a good neighbor and I don't want to undermine any particular project on Castenada Drive. If I may, in no particular order, the two-story house is out of character for a neighborhood of ranch style single -story homes, none are Eichlers and none have flat roofs. Most of the existing homes are entry level with three bedrooms and two bath which theirs is. Homes allow young families access to the benefits of walkable distance to schools and shopping. If someone is allowed an addition, there should be additional off -street parking requirements. There should be a time restriction of say five years from the completion of any addition to the date that properties transferred in any manner to anybody. Finally, the homes were designed so the bathrooms are at one end of the house and the garages at the other end. With a two -story house, they're able to look down into your private areas. I appreciated the comment of providing light and air by Tristan Warren. A two-story home does not provide light and air to its neighborhood ’s single-story homes. I've not been contacted by the homeowner. There's only a dozen homes on our street and they have 20 letters of approval. The courtyard faces west not south. The entire block is made out of stucco with horizontal and vertical siding and there are no enclosed front yards on Castenada Drive. I'm hoping that covers everything. >Neda Nahora: First of all, I want to thank the commissioners. I realize this is a long meeting for you and we appreciate all of your time and volunteerism for the community. My family and I own the home on 5 Rio Court, which is up slope from this home. The home has been in our family since the late 1970’s. One of the things that we really appreciate about our home are the incredible views. To the point of some of the people that have spoken prior to me, we also really appreciate the fact that the homes in the community, Page 15City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the surrounding areas and the homes down from our home and neighborhood are single stories. We're very concerned that the modification that's proposed will impede our view. It will impact our enjoyment rights and the property value. Certainly we're all in favor of upgrades and updating homes which helps improve our community and the general property values around us. But we do also want to make sure that the homes that we are looking at continues to stay within the continuity of the aesthetic of the neighborhood which the proposed home’s architecture or the plans that were submitted do not. Again, really stressing the point of being up slope, having continuity with that line of sight. We have a view of the bay and the airport and we don't want an eyesore or a peak in the roof lines. Thank you for your consideration, again . We really do appreciate it. We have enjoyed living and owning in the community so much for the last 40 plus years. >Rob Ardrey, 1816 Loyola Drive: Thank you for the opportunity for me and my family to speak on behalf of Ryan and Jee-Soo and their wonderful family. We live up the hill from Ryan and Jee -Soo. We're in support of this project. We have reviewed and discussed this project. It helps their family expand and grow within their home, but also helps optimize their success as parents and active members of our City . This is a positive impact in terms of helping attract and retain families like ourselves who share our most cherished and highest priorities, which is our family and children. They have been blessed with having three, happy, healthy daughters and we have known them since 2016 as friends and neighborhoods . Jee-Soo and Ryan are active in our PTA and girl scout troops. When you're married to a girl scouts troop leader, you're lucky to have a partner exemplify a joy and a role model in our community for our children . This project should be approved because it's important to me that families are safe, secure and comfortable in the homes and also feel respected, loved and cared for by their neighbors. Also, it's important for this to set precedence for families like ourselves and others who may have bought homes that do not fit an expanding family, whether it's aging parents or adopting children or parents with illnesses . It’s nice to have homes that are safe and well designed, thoughtful and modernized to the future growing needs of our community. I’ve always believed success is not entitled but earned. It's important for me to see new families to not only bring continuity to our neighborhood, but also really work very hard to improve our neighborhood. This is a wonderful project and has great safety and security. It's very hard to tell families moving from all over the country and the world that if you buy a house, it's at the mercy of your neighbors. >Kevin Levitt: Thanks for the opportunity to participate and speak. I'm in support of the application and the applicants and want to echo what you just heard from the previous speaker. We've lived in this community for almost seven years. Our family is right around the corner on Martinez Drive. We have known Ryan and Jee-Soo just as long. If I may make comments about the design of the home, it falls consistent with what we see as we drive to visit Ryan and Jee -Soo. I drive almost everyday down Castenada Drive to get to highway 101. There are three two -story homes on Castenada Drive and there are some on Martinez Drive. There are five homes on Castenada Drive with courtyards and then the flat roof line is deliberate to make sure that there's no impact to anybody's view. I believe the immediate neighbors, at least here in this public forum, haven ’t indicated any objection to the second story or the design itself. In terms of the community participation from Ryan and Jee -Soo, our families met because we were coaching our then four -year-olds’ soccer teams. We both participated on the Franklin Elementary PTA. They ran the girl scout troops for the two older girls. We are looking to remain in the Burlingame community and we know how challenging that can be. We're not fortunate enough to have family that's have been here for decades. We chose to make Burlingame home and there has to be an opportunity for families like ours that contribute, participate, engage and want the best for Burlingame and for the future to grow in place. It's nearly impossible to move anywhere else within the community if you're lucky enough to get a foot hold in. Thank you for recognizing those opportunities, challenges and the design that's been brought for your review and approval. >Vivek Jain: Thank you to the Planning Commission and thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. I'm here as a neighbor, speaking on behalf of myself and wife, we're here in support of the proposed project at 1820 Castenada Drive. We live slightly up the hill on Toledo Avenue. Just to echo what you've heard from many other people, the Choi -Park family are wonderful, considerate neighbors who've added a great deal to our community here in Mills Estate. We believe it will add a new appeal to Mills Estate. We would like to give our full support to this project which we feel is beautifully designed, well-proportioned and aesthetically pleasing. I'm an active exerciser, I walk the hills of Burlingame and I Page 16City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes get to see the look and feel of the neighborhood strongly. There's a lot of beautiful two -story houses in the hills, as well as a lot of developing contemporary houses. There's one on Martinez Drive that just finished and it's becoming one of the prides of our neighborhood. As a good community member, I ’m in touch with lots of neighbors who are all celebrating a diversity of style, especially contemporary. I also really want to echo what Mr. Levitt said, the Choi family has offered a great deal to Burlingame with a lot of love in their heart. They've volunteered with a lot of community organizations. They are just some of the warmest, most incredible neighbors that we have had in our many, many years in Burlingame. I ask you to support their nicely designed project, >Hsin Chau: My husband and I live on Martinez Drive. We wanted to express our strong support for Jee-Soo and Ryan's project. Just echoing how tremendously wonderful and active they are with the Franklin community. It would be a huge loss if they were forced to move out of their home. I've already had several friends looking for larger houses, but were unsuccessful and have moved out of the Burlingame area to the detriment of the school community. I want to echo what everyone's saying, but I wanted to say from a personal perspective, it's tremendously tough to find a home in Burlingame, much less a larger one that's affordable. I just looked on Redfin today and there are no homes for sale in the Mills Estate area. I want to echo what been said and offer my support. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This does feel very box -like, it's not very well articulated. We had a project that is similar to this. It was in the same neighborhood, opposite side of the street a few months ago. We went back and forth on that. That was where I first made the comment, unlike projects in the hills, these houses are side -by-side separated by not a lot of space. So there's the street front issue again that you have to find a way to conceptualize the design. That managed to get through after some pushing back and forth on it. The scale and articulation are incredibly important. Modern houses can fit into ranch style communities because they bear a lot in common and the ranch homes are long, low and rectangular in general. The real problem is the one that my fellow commissioner pointed out, this feels like a box or a stacked box . I'm not sure what the single sloped roof is getting. This doesn't seem like an Eichler home. That term was used earlier on by the design, but I don't think this is Eichler -like. I find the enclosed courtyard very odd . It's a pattern that does not make a lot of sense in that neighborhood. There's some work needed here. >I can appreciate the applicant's community service and the outpour of support. When we come back to the design of this, I agree that it's very boxy. I can appreciate the courtyard, I like a good courtyard design. However, most of the other homes on this street have low, four to five foot walls or a low fence and some landscaping that's helping to define that courtyard. This home might as well be built -in and it's not pedestrian friendly. It's not residential so it doesn't work. Maybe if it were more of a landscape wall and then had something behind it, but right now, it's a very prominent feature in the design. The second story patios, both in the front and the back, really are just screaming “look in my yard”. They're not in the right spot. I would feel for the neighbors next door too. If this was a much bigger lot out in the hills, that would be fine and you can do those things. I don't think that this is fitting in with that context. A lot of huge windows and lot of sun exposure. That's going to be an uncomfortable space with all of that open glazing . There's a lot to be looked at. It's not Eichler -like. I like the Eichler homes further up the hill. It doesn't give those forms and shapes that go to that vocabulary. There is some work to be done here. The second story concerns me because there's a lot of vertical height along this hillside. There's some room for it, but I'm not sure this one is addressing it in the right scale. As I ’ve said, there's work to be done to try and nestle that in and get the shapes to work a little bit better. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I really do like the courtyards. I've had a number of friends that live on that street. The parents have enclosed that front courtyard area, but they have done it with a subtle wall with a nice entry. It’s nicely done and it's very soft to the eye, not glaring at you. The project needs a lot of work. >I'm going to agree with my fellow commissioners and add a couple of details. Agree that courtyard houses could work. But normally when they work, particularly with some Eichler homes, they're more transparent, see through and neighborly. This project is turning its back to the street with a nine -foot tall Page 17City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes glass wall which appears to be opaque glass. If they could revisit that, it could work. The rear landscaping is a large turf area and fire fit at the corner with some steps at the back. There’s a lot of space to create some rooms that aren't right up against a neighboring fence. Lastly, we've had enough concerns expressed regarding views because this is in the hillside area, we should be requiring story poles for the project before it comes back for action. >I was going to make the same comment about the story poles, they ’re needed as well. It hasn't been brought up that there are two second story decks. The one in the front that looks to be setback from the side of the house and the one in the rear which doesn't look to be set back quite so much. I’m concerned that it's going to create a viewing platform into the neighboring yard. That’s something that needs to be looked at. I’m wondering with the nature of the comments that we are receiving, whether this would be a good candidate for design review consultant. It might help move the project along more quickly. >The landscape plan needs more development, there ’s nothing there. The neighbors on the side have expressed concerns about privacy and some hedge or something along the side could help the design as well as the neighbor's concerns. The landscape plan needs to get moved along further as well. >I'm in agreement, but this is not really trying to say anything bad about what's going on, but we want to help this move forward. This isn't a no, but I want it to go forward better. I appreciate the outpouring of support by the community. I can certainly appreciate the participation of the family in the community . We’re trying to do this in a way not to turn you away from what you're doing, but to actually help it go faster, better and get in with what we're looking for to help it move along. I’m in support of this in hopes it will actually bring about a better action. >I want to echo what my fellow commissioner just said. The support of neighbors and friends are very important and it was good to hear from everyone. We just want to make sure you understand our role as Planning Commissioners. It's not to play favorites and friendships and such. We love active citizens and those who volunteer heavily in the community, we really appreciate that. But we have our role and we wear our hats as Planning Commissioners to help move your project successfully through so you can build a house of your dreams. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent7 - d.1120 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Una Kinsella, applicant and architect; Meredith and Blair Dunn, property owners (114 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1120 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1120 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1120 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Ceylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella, represented the applicant with property owner Meredith Dunn. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 18City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Would the James Hardie cement shingles require corner boards or can they be mitered or meshed? (Kinsella: It used to only be available with the corner boards, but I ’ve done it recently where they come with corner pieces so you can actually make it look like an original detail.) >The outlines you have on the roof, is that for future solar? (Kinsella: It is solar. We just wanted to show where the potential solar panels would go. We have met with one vendor and are getting another proposal for where the solar panels can go based on the solar orientation and the trees. Those are the areas we have to work with. We will not be filling all the roof with solar panels. We just showed that we have accommodated for the maximum that we can put in there, which is probably 25 panels. We have to work with the Reach Code so this will be full electric solar.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >You did a great job, this is a really beautiful design. This is one of my favorite streets as well. Thank you for being conscientious to the neighbors, making changes and meeting with your neighbors prior to the Planning Commission meeting. >It is a great design. I opened up the packet and thoroughly enjoyed looking at it. It was a very easy read and very clear on what you are trying to accomplish. I appreciate that and made our job easier. I’d like to see the project move forward. >It looks like the plate heights are 9’-1” which is unusual for us to approve. I wonder if that is a concern for anyone else? >From what I recall, the house to the right seems fairly tall. I don ’t think we have the height of the neighbor. >Maybe this answers the question, that this is such a well -designed house that it just doesn ’t matter. I have to ask the question because it seems unfair since we always ask the question. Most of the time it comes up because there is a scale problem going on. This one is so well designed that maybe it simply doesn’t have a scale problem. > I appreciate you bringing it up. I agree that it is something that we look at and come to appreciate looking at these projects. However, I will also agree that the articulation and the roof planes are working. It really holds its own and doesn ’t demonstrate an out-of-scale project, but actually demonstrates an in -scale through the use of the articulation in the front. You might be right numerically, but I feel good about the scale. >Often times, when we see the taller plate height on the first floor, we see the porch elements also reaching up to that height. On this project, the porch columns are actually below the 9’-1” plate height. The beams start from that point above those posts. I have concerns when we have 9-foot first floor plate heights and that the porch also reach up to those, and we don ’t have that tucked under aspect as you are stepping into the porch. That mitigates it for me on this particular one. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent7 - e.7 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Side Setback Variance to add a new attached garage and first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Judith Mattingly, Mattingly Thaler Architecture, applicant and architect; Tamara Romanek and Ben Patch, property owners ) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 19City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7 La Mesa Ct - Staff Report 7 La Mesa Ct - Attachments 7 La Mesa Ct - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a discussion with the property owner. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Judith Mattingly, Mattingly Thaler Architecture, represented the applicant with property owners Ben Patch and Tamara Romanek. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >When we hear Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit, our attention is always peaked and we have to be conscious of those special requests. However, in looking at this application it seems relatively straightforward, somewhat low -slung, single floor addition and it might not be coming before us if not for the discretionary permits that they are having to ask for. We have made findings for variance applications in the past when we have extended an existing nonconforming condition. In this case, we are accommodating a single floor addition for a required garage. In looking at the plan, the house at a glance looks big, however when you start dissecting the floor plan it has a lot of large living area but the bedrooms are somewhat limited. I can see where they are going programmatically in terms of what they'd like to add. The only place to do that is the existing garage. It is relatively straightforward. I can ’t see any where there would be any view obstructions relative to the Hillside Area Construction Permit. I would encourage the applicants to make sure that they have talked with their neighbors in detail about what they are proposing, if we don’t require story poles, so that a request does not come out of the woodwork later as this comes forward. All of that said, it is a relatively straightforward project and can move forward. >In my discussion with the property owner today, she indicated that she had shared the plans with the neighbor and that they had talked about it. In standing in front of the house it appears that there is not a view blockage, in my opinion. I like the project; it is a good solution for a tight space. I would like to see it move forward as well. >Given the ten foot easement on the garage side, it ’s not like we are up against the property line and an adjoining neighbor four feet over. It seems very reasonable to grant the extension and it seems to be a good solution to a problem. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 20City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 - Recused:Tse1 - f.1244 El Camino Real, zoned R-4 - Application for Design Review and Parking Variance for parking stackers for a two -story addition to add one dwelling unit, a new garage and new carport at the rear of an existing two -story, 4-unit building. (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Richard Terrones, applicant and architect; World Co Holdings LLC, property owner) (192 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1244 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1244 El Camino Real - Attachments 1244 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused because his office prepared the proposed plans for the subject property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Julie Ann Nepomuceno and Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, represented the applicant with property owner Alvin Chen. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: >Comment sent via e-mail by Erin and Gino: I would like to express my concern over the proposed project at 1244 El Camino Real. With the pandemic many are still working from home. The construction noise will be disruptive to people who have to work from home. Also, if you drive along just El Camino itself in Burlingame there are dozens of for rent signs. We clearly do not need more rentals at this moment. >Comment sent via e-mail by Marcus and Renee Ballinger: We are neighbors at 1251 Capuchino Avenue, a single story home with a backyard kitty -corner to the Northeast of the project site. The proposed project would put a 25' high apartment within a few feet of our property. This would both block a substantial portion of our view of the horizon, and also put a large window directly overlooking our backyard. Tenants would have a birds eye view into our backyard, and back windows of our house, resulting in a significant loss of privacy. This would hence decrease the overall charm and value of our property.vvAn increased distance from the rear of the building to the back end of the lot would improve the situation a bit, but this new building height will still negatively impact the quality of our living experience and value of the property if we were to sell our home. >Marcus Ballinger: We were wondering what the distance was to the end of the property at the back end, because there is this issue of a very tall window that will be right into our backyard. It is unfortunate because we have a nice view of the horizon. The main view from that apartment will be our backyard . (Nepomuceno: We are complying with the 15-foot setback and those large windows at the rear, at the point closest to your property, that is actually a staircase. There are no living spaces there where people Page 21City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes will be looking out. The window is at the landing which will be above the typical view point of a person walking by the stairs. Just keep in mind that the top of plate at that point is 22’-5” and the top of ridge is 24’-5”.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >In one respect, I like the idea that we are able to actually work with this property and it can expand a bit but not become one of the 5 and 6-story multifamily buildings that we see in other parts of El Camino Real. It is not trying to over build the property, it is just trying to make an incremental increase. For me, it is not much bigger than what is there and it shifts around in the property. It can be a good project and approvable. >I agree with my fellow Commissioner ’s assessment. It is a good project. I can find support for the variance application for the parking lifts, that is something we have seen in other parts of the City, in this general vicinity of El Camino Real. I’ve realized that it doesn ’t seem like there is a shortage of rental apartment space right now, but I think it will change pretty quickly. As a City we still need to be looking for ways to increase these type of housing for the community. >I agree with my fellow Commissioners. I can support the parking variance. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Zoning Ordinance Update Review – Next Steps MemorandumAttachments: >Planning Manager Hurin noted that staff is preparing the Zoning Code Update for the Commission to review. There were two questions posed for the Commission to consider. Which sections are you more interested in reviewing? Would you like to review them at study sessions before Planning Commission meetings, during Planning Commission meetings, or schedule meetings on separate days during the week? The Commission expressed an interest in first starting with review of the Bayfront District, California Mixed Use District, and Broadway Mixed Use District. The consensus was to review them during one-hour long study sessions prior to regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 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 April 26, 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 May 6, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 22City of Burlingame April 26, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 23City of Burlingame