Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.03.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, March 8, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and SchmidPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 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 There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.139 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ha Nguyen + Designs, designer; Fang Wu, property owner) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 139 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report 139 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments 139 Loma Vista Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Ha Nguyen, Ha Nguyen + Designs, represented the applicant with property owner Brandon Feng and Flora Wu. Commission Questions/Comments: >How are the faux windows over the garage door going to be built? (Wu: We were trying to build a frame on the wall and attach the window on it.) Is the builder going to build these onsite? You're not going to get a sash from a window manufacturer? (Wu: We would extend the trim along with the existing window of the garage door trim and then build the trim at the windows.) >Was the obscured glass sample painted white on the back for the obscured glazing? (Wu: I talked to the manufacturer and they were able to make any color we want. Other colors are available also.) The reason I'm asking is, contrary to what people think, windows during the daytime don't appear blue like the sky or gray like in the drawings. They're usually dark. Sometimes they might have a curtain in front of them. You wouldn't expect that in a garage window, but you would expect these to be dark because the interior of the garage is dark. At night the lights are on and windows aren't dark, they're light. But no one would expect to have light coming out from a garage, so you would expect these windows to be dark. (Wu: Okay. No problem.) >I have concerns of how that obscured glazing is going to look, and also concerns as to how they're going to be built and what they're going to look like. Do you know if the frames will be attached over the stucco or the stucco will be removed? Will they then re -stucco with trims attached to the site -built sash and it's patched around that trim? (Wu: We were thinking just attaching with stucco. But if we put the trim and it is sticking out too far, we might remove some of the stucco to make it smooth.) >I’m concerned that the windows would be more or less hung on the wall like a picture. But it sounds as if the applicant is going to remove the stucco and then put the window in against the framing and then put the same trim around, is that correct? (Wu: If necessary, we'll remove a little bit of the stucco. Not the whole overlay.) >How big is the stucco? It's only going to be three quarters of an inch thick and the windows are going to be at least an inch and a half thick, so it's not going to line up with the door. That's where we're steering this thing. (Wu: We can remove the stucco. We don't have to open the whole area.) >I understand your desire to go back and match the original drawing which makes sense, but did you look at any alternatives to soften that area, for example, a trellis? (Wu: No. I don't think so. But I'll talk to my architect about this.) (Nguyen: Would you mind if you can explain about the idea of the trellis?) What we've seen in other situations like this where we've had a high head, is to build a bracket on to the wall and do a small trellis to help break up that space. Basically knee braces on either end and a long beam across and then probably 2x or 3x material on the top as a trellis. (Nguyen: My concern is this span is quite large to carry a member that far. The bracket needs to have a substantial structure modification to make the brackets on the frame work together. I don ’t know if this will necessarily help in terms of the budget.) >I understand where you're coming from on the budget, but our concern is to maintain the integrity of the design and unfortunately, the design guidelines don't allow us to consider budget as part of the Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes findings we need to make. What my fellow commissioners were driving at with the window proposal is that the details could look really good and integral to the design and enhance the building if the details are done correctly. But if the details aren't done correctly, it will really detract from the design and look like it was added after and not really integrated into the overall project. The concern so far is there's not enough detail for us to understand exactly how this is going to look and whether it's something that's approvable or not. (Nguyen: Is it possible if the owner can do a little mockup above the window? A portion for a mockup and to have the commissioner come by to review it? Rather than change it completely to a different direction.) >Chair Tse: Yes, if applicable, our staff will provide further guidelines for you, in terms of how you can address this issue as we continue forward through this discussion. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Having to approve something that's already been built when it differs from what we approved puts us in a very uncomfortable position. >When we’ve had conditions like this where we have this open head space, we've always asked for something to address it. What they've proposed above the garage door could be done really well or done not so well. I don't think there's enough detail in the architectural drawings that we have to tell us which way it's going to go. I'm not sure an onsite mock up is the way to go, but maybe if the commission decides this is an acceptable alternative, whether this is even the right solution. If it is, maybe a shop drawing as an FYI may be a way to get it more detailed of what's going to be done. But as it is proposed right now, based on the further discussion we've had with the applicant, I'm not sure we really know how this is going to look when it's done. >Looking at what has been submitted, it's unfortunate because the original design was better. Having the solid frieze up under the eave made the house a better design. I can't fully say that we wouldn't have approved what's been submitted now in terms of the porch railing and the frieze not being there. >On the garage, in order for these faux windows to work what has to happen is probably the 3/4” to 7/8” three-coat plaster needs to get removed, get down to the level of the plywood and have a well -built sash made with the obscured glass, have those installed and then trimmed in stucco patch, et cetera. I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be simpler or less expensive to build the type of trellis that was suggested, and that has been accepted before. Yes, it's a long span. You have to have 4" x 8" or 4" x 10" primary members and knee braces and some trellis members, but that can be done with the stucco in place, not have to include a lot of removal and tearing things a part. At least for me, everything is approvable except for the issues of the garage that either have to go back to what was originally proposed, meaning windows over the garage or something else come back to us as either an FYI or a revision or something else from the applicant. >A trellis is a good option. If you were to decide to get a window put in there, prior to doing that, we should see some kind of a section of the entire wall including the header of the garage door so we understand where the window will sit and the thickness of the window. I don't think it's going to work . That's why I asked for a section drawing to show that detail so we can understand it clearly. But the other option is to do a trellis. >The window solution is going to leak and it's going to rot. Unless the entire front of the garage is ripped out, you're not going to get flashing and it will have moisture behind it the entire time. Just gluing the glass isn't going to work. I totally agree with the trellis. >I find that there isn't much in this new elevation that represents the house that's there. I went back and watched the previous video for the approval and it was asked and answered that there wasn't going to be changes to the hardscape and the landscape in the front, but yet we have an entirely different yard with new tile that doesn't really go. The fact that the railing now is supposedly going down to the level of the Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes porch, it actually doesn't. There's about a foot of wall there. So it's not what was approved and it's not what is drawn here either. We're being put in this position yet again, but these drawings don't even come close to reflecting what is going on there now and what we're being asked to approve. There are materials there that aren't in the keynotes. Before we can do anything with this, they need to clean it up. If we just allow this to go forward like this, it's just continuing to do more. >This is partly why we need to be doing more with these renderings during these design study sessions to make sure people do understand the materials they're picking. The pickets on the railing, they're interior pickets. They don't match anything with the design of this house. If I saw a photograph of that as part of the presentation, there's no way I would have approved that. A lot more documentation maybe needs to be done and some honesty about what has been done before we can really say what they need to do to correct it. It looks like a whole different project to me even in the drawings. >We need a little more detail on these plans, it's not exactly cohesive. >The applicant needs to review the proposed changes and make sure the plans match what's actually there. Either consider a different option for the head above the garage door or provide more detail on how they're going to do what they've proposed. Gardiner: To clarify for the applicant. Denial without prejudice would allow a resubmittal so this can continue to be refined and responded to base on the commissioners' comments. Should you have more questions, the project planner can advise. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.1417 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to be retained). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 1417 Cortez LLC, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1417 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1417 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1417 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Sargent and Comaroto were recused from this item due to financial interests. Senior Planner Lewit 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. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions or comments. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the revisions that were made. I appreciate them reconsidering the roof pitch, that helps. As discussed before, it was going to create a really broad frontage for that metal roofing. The design has improved with that revision. It's approvable at this point. >Agreed, it's approvable. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid4 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - c.1151 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Warren Huey, designer; Sapphire Huey, property owner) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1151 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1151 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1151 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Warren Huey, represented the applicant with property owner Sapphire Huey. Commission Questions/Comments: >As the homeowners, how did you feel the process went going through the design review consulting? (Huey: It was a pretty fun process. It was easy going. She gave us pointers. She mostly worked with the architect, it was straight forward and easy.) Public Comments: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Comment sent via e-mail by Lunar and Fei, 1561 Westmoor Road: Good evening commissioners. We met with Mr. Warren Huey on February 25 and received a revised plan. As compared with their first and second plan map, the revised plan added two big windows upstairs and one downstairs to replace the door . We appreciated the change from door to window. The revised plan looks better. My husband signed a revised plan the day we met Mr. Warren and I'm confused on the way they placed the upstairs window . According to Mr. Huey’s explanation, it should be more than ten feet distance between the two houses and I can't imagine what it looks like. I asked my dad to draw a picture of the houses. Could you help with my questions? What exactly is the distance from the 1151 Rosedale house to my fence since the house will be six feet closer to my house? Is it possible to change both upstairs window from two fixed sliding windows to one sliding window? My second thought is the three big windows upstairs, both sliding windows may be too close to my downstairs bedroom and the living room windows, the middle window is okay. This might affect our downstairs bathroom and privacy having the neighbor's window above. There will be a 7 foot height fence between both houses, right? I know my neighbor is not happy. We keep asking them to change the plan, but from our side, we're not happy either. We have spent a lot of money to add more rooms for our Westmoor house. We did not expect the neighbor to add a second addition and all windows facing our side. It's not easy and frustrating for us too. We lost a lot of nighttime sleep trying to understand Mr. Huey's plan. We want to fully understand what it would look like after they build their additions especially after later on in the disagreement. I'll be living there a long time. The important thing is a good design for the neighbor ’s house and my house of views and privacy. We appreciate your help and thank you in advance. >(Huey: I met with them and I explained where the windows are. They seemed to be fine with it then . I'm surprised they sent you a letter saying they're still concerned. I want to show on sheet G where their window is and where my window will be. On detail number three.) So to understand, the lighter shaded area is the neighbor's windows location? (Huey: Right.) So am I to understand, other than the central window upstairs with the grid of four and the window on the lower right -hand side, all other windows are opposing the neighbor's windows? (Huey: Yes.) You said that they were in approval of that originally? (Huey: Yes, they signed my drawing. You should have a copy of it. It's a signed drawing that they said they approved. I also sent it to the design consultant. This is coming from left field because our understanding was we fixed all the issues we have with them and the last issue they had was that sliding door. We don't want to argue anymore and we're going to take out the sliding door all together so we don't have to keep going back and forth. Now that they signed it, they're coming up with something else. I'm not sure what the deal is.) >Terrones: Madam Chair, we have in our staff report, two 8.5 x 11 elevations approved February 25th, 2021. There's a signature, I can't attest as to who that signature is. (Huey: Yes, that's the signature of the neighbor to the back.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >First off, when I opened the plans, I didn't even recognize the house. This was a fantastic transformation, a lot of great work by the design review consultant and the architect working together. I'm really pleased with the design, so I would like to see this move forward. >I understand the neighbor ’s concern. That second floor appears to be ten feet from the property line . Both houses will be two story and we don't have large setbacks. We're on top of each other in Burlingame and it's everyone's right to build their house how they like it within the design guidelines and with our approval. Like I always say, this works both ways. The neighbor could mitigate part of this by planting on their side, so with the applicant maybe they can work something out. I find this project completely approvable. >I agree. I was impressed at how well the design has changed after having concerns from the first time . It looks great now. The house is no closer than if it were further down the block and they were right next to each other. That ten feet is a full driveway. So that's not anymore distance than I would expect in any other location. The fact that the other house is already two stories shouldn't prevent this owner from being able to do what they need to do within the guidelines. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I was stunned when I opened up the revised plans. The reason I asked the applicant, out of curiosity, how they felt the design review went was because I have to commend both the design review consultant and our process because it made the project that much more better. It's much more charming. The detached garage and the fence that reaches out to it, it's just a really wonderful piece of architecture. It will be a neat little building out there and the structure has been nestled into the site much better, bringing down the plate heights really helped. >In regards to the second floor, that rear facade is probably even more than ten feet, reading from the adjacent structure. The rear of the house is six feet from the property line and the second floor is setback three or four feet from that and the neighboring house is not right on the property line. There's some distance there, so it's probably more than ten feet. >We don't have an ordinance that guarantees privacy. We ask and we suggest, but there's nothing we can require other than consideration. The project is approvable at this point. >I want to thank the architect for working with your neighbor and going to that extent to get their approval. I also agree with what has been said about the lack of a privacy ordinance that we make our judgment calls on. The fact is there is a pretty significant setback between the properties and especially to that second floor. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.22 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Gary Coover and Ayelet Konrad, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 22 Channing Rd - Staff Report 22 Channing Rd - Attachments 22 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is all of the stucco being removed? (Bittle: The idea is we'd like to rid ourselves of that texture. So whether or not there's a clean way to add a new coat or a smooth integral layer, but we don't want the look that's there right now.) >If you were going to add on to it, how are you going to deal with the trims that are at the eaves? There's really no overhang. It's all flushed. (Bittle: Usually we add a little flushed fascia board on top when Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes we don't have an eave or ex -tend those exposed rafter tails and then we die the plaster underneath it . Something that's clean and ties in with the gutter.) > Are you going to have all new windows? (Bittle: Yes. All new aluminum-clad windows.) >The garage door went from having some texture to it to barely having any. (Bittle: In trying to give a little more modern feel, they're looking at a stained wood for the garage and the entry door to accent the adjacent materials. Actually, I called it out painted, my apologies. Something with the entry door and garage door to distinguish themselves a little bit than the more toned down material palette elsewhere. >If you would call this a style, would you call it a modern home, is that what you were striving for? (Bittle: I would say the style they're striving for with this house is more “transitional.” I wouldn't call it modern in my mind. We're trying to modernize the material palette.) >I find it uncomfortable with the way the side bay window looks. I understand that you have to put that dormer on the top and get rid of that tall, steep pitched roof over the bay window, but it looks like you're chopping it off. I don't know if there's a better way to deal with it, but I'm wondering if you looked at any other options. (Bittle: It's not being chopped off to a flat roof. It's adding a low slope, kind of mimicking the adjacent one to the right. If you looked at the rear elevation, you'll see the slope returning back to the dormer itself. But it's definitely not chopped off, it has a sloped roof. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I had similar questions regarding the style or the architecture. If someone doesn't want or like a Tudor style house, I'm not going to force that on to anybody. However, my concern is that what's proposed is basically stripping the house of the Tudor details and the character, which may be okay, but it's the Tutor character that makes the pitched roof, the quirky attic spaces and rambling rooms you would expect in a tall Tudor house that makes the architecture work. With the revised design, we're removing all of the muntins from the window so it's void of any charm of the existing house. It looks like a cheap version of itself. >If it were a new house being presented, would it be approvable? I can't see us approving something that would have this lack of character and detail. What's being proposed is a stripped down version of what's there. The existing neighborhood has some charm and character to it with the other houses. There are other Tudor style houses that this one goes along with now, but it's not going to anymore. >This project could benefit from a good 3D drawing since there are a lot of surfaces going on. We're moving from something that has detail and texture to it to something that's largely flat. Even looking at the house next door, it has trellis, it has trim and depth to it. There's some more study to be done on how to address some of that and be able to give us a better chance at seeing the depth of the materials, on how to really adapt these materials and make a good statement here because it's certainly not a modern house. It doesn't feel like we're trying to shift to a modern Tudor. >The siding could be good, but in this front elevation, it's just the one little triangle over the entry door and it's not until you get around the back that you see there's so much more to it, but that's not what the front is going to read like. The front is going to read like a lot of flat stucco. I would like to see a bit more study on that. >The applicant commented that there's no real change to the front, but in fact there ’s a lot of change . Maybe not to the mass or the shape but to all the detail. This is a very charming house and it has a small Tudor feel to it. I get it if you don't want to do that, but then the architecture needs to take a firm direction to make this thing work. It's not working right now. >We're giving the applicant direction, but we're not really pointing in the direction we want to go or we think the project needs to go. It just seems it would be better for the applicant if we can avail them the opportunity to work with somebody who really understands our design guidelines and can help coach them to getting to a successful project in the shortest amount of time. We’ve done that in recent projects and Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes I'm not sure that's helped. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. >Bittle: I definitely appreciate the comments and understand where you're coming from. However this project has gone through multiple remodels and it is void of much of that character you were talking about . The roof itself is a cheap manufactured imitation of Spanish tile. It has shutters attached on. The garage is not original. The back half of the house went under a recent remodel and has vinyl windows and doors across the board. It may look charming in my drawing, but in reality, it is already passed that point of the original Tudor architecture. My comment on whether or not we changed the front elevation was in terms of forms and addition. I'll be happy to provide an actual color material board, that might help in the style and direction we're going for. There are precedent ones of the style they like in Burlingame. Looking at the ones on either side of this house, I would argue those don't necessarily have character just in terms of the plainness and look. It definitely does not have the charm of a Tudor architecture. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I couldn't disagree more with the architect. Looking at street view now, the roofing has changed. Other than that, the front character of the house appears to be what I would think is original. The sticking on the windows, the Tudor timbering, the stucco siding, the panelized garage door, whether it's original or not, it's perfectly in character with what's currently there. >I want to reiterate that there's an opportunity for either more photography of example projects that they're trying to work with or being able to do some better elevations for the front. These are good drawings, but they're not really establishing a whole lot of depth or character, so everything looks flat . That's what I'm assuming will happen because there's not a lot of depth to this elevation to begin with given its style. Unless there's something to be done about that, it's really hard to see how it's going to get better by taking away the detail. To be able to move this forward, we need to see more out of it. I feel confident that the architect could do a good job with this, so I'm not as motivated for the design consultant. >Part of our processes that we stipulated at the beginning is that all the commissioners had visited the site. As part of our homework of preparing for this, we review the plans, then we go to the site to look at the existing house and the proposed project in the context of the whole neighborhood. One of the things that the design guidelines task us with doing is not considering houses that they describe as “non-example” houses. Also, the houses that probably weren't required to go through design review. >This should go to a design review consultant based on the back and forth that we ’ve had because it would get the commission and the applicant on the same page faster, which benefits everybody. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 - Absent:Loftis1 - b.224 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Robert Medan AIA, applicant and architect; Matt and Kia Germino, property owners (138 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 224 Channing Rd - Staff Report 224 Channing Rd - Attachments 224 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item due to a financial interest within 500 feet of this project. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Robert Medan, represented the applicant with property owners Matt and Kia Germino. Commission Questions/Comments: >It may be a drafting issue, but the existing front elevation and the proposed front elevation show a different roof line over the bay window at the front of the house. While visiting the site, it seemed to look more like the roof line shown on the proposed front elevation. (Medan: Yes, it's more like the one on the proposed front elevation.) Is the existing roof and bay window to remain? (Medan: Correct.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I really like the design, it's a simple bungalow now. Not quite a butterfly bungalow, but it's going to be a nice addition. The details and the character of the existing home were replicated on the addition and that's going to work nicely. My only comment was in regards to the window styles, just making sure that those are simulated true divided lights on the new windows with the muntins that are proposed. In bedroom number two, it looks like the double -hung windows are being replaced with casement windows, I assume for egress. Just a suggestion that you might consider adding muntins to those big large casement windows to keep with that same character. Just a comment but not a deal-breaker. >It's going to be a nice project. Although it looks a little odd from the proposed left elevation and the roof over the stair extension. I would have liked to have seen it just be an extension of the roof above to come over. Now, looking at the front elevation, I understand that it comes into the declining height envelope which is probably why that step is there. But when you look at that in 3D, it's going to be a little wonky and I wish it was integrated into that upper roof. But again, not a deal-breaker. >I agree as well. This is a very charming design, nice addition to a home. Almost looks like a seamless addition to the existing bungalow style. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Sargent1 - c.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Joseph Hassoun, property owner ) Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1327 Benito Ave - Staff Report 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit 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 owner Joseph Hassoun. Commission Questions/Comments: >In regards to the neighbor ’s concern regarding grading and potential damage to tree roots, it is a moot point as you are removing all the trees, correct? (Chu: Yes, at the rear of the lot.) When you do your grading on the lot all of the trees will be removed. Then you will not be undermining any existing trees as they will be removed in the first place, right? (Chu: If you look at the site plan on sheet A -1, the majority of the trees are at the rear yard. Considering the footprint of the building, we are not removing that many trees. The majority of the grading is to create a patio off the family room at the rear of the house. We definitely can look into reducing the size of the patio. I sort of disagree with the neighbor ’s assumption that we are creating so much. If we do, we probably won ’t apply for a special permit.) In the area where you are grading, at the rear yard in the patio area, those trees are being removed. There are a couple of trees that are outside of the patio area to remain because you are not grading that area. It sort of quells the neighbor’s concern in terms of undermining existing trees. (Chu: I need to consult our landscape architect and arborist to see why those trees are being removed.) >Are the steps leading up to the house following existing grade? Is there going to be side wall or retaining wall along the sides of the steps? What ’s going to happen there? (Chu: It is our intention to follow the grade as much as we can. It may be a drawing error and we will revisit that.) You may have to abstract it a little bit and define what the yard is going to be in the area. (Chu: Yes.) >Is that Cottonwood tree alive? While visiting the site, it appeared dead, although the arborist report said it is in poor condition. (Hassoun: Yes, that Cottonwood tree is dead.) >The chimney at the front on the left hand side looks out of place. I’m not sure what the solution is . (Chu: I probably will have my client answer that. He wants to install an electric fireplace so that doesn ’t require a chimney.) That’s fine. It’s just that the bump-out doesn’t look like it has a purpose. (Chu: Maybe we can push that in about a foot so it doesn ’t really show from the exterior.) Yes, just so that it is integrated into that elevation a little better. I know you will come up with something. >Did you look at adding a roof to the front porch? It looks like you have an FAR exception that would allow you to do it. (Chu: Sure, we can look into it.) It would make for a nicer space and will suit the design better. (Chu: Ok, sure.) Public Comments: >Sent via e-mail from Stuart Bacon, 1320 Benito Avenue: Since the proposed house is a full two story, will the ground level have to be reduced in order to conform to the city's height requirement? I ask this as the house that was built at 1330 Benito Avenue did require the builder to lower the ground level in order to conform. In removing the dirt the major roots of several tress along the property line were severed. I was concerned so asked the City Arborist to see if the trees had been damaged. He said "Yes, as the roots Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes were major supporting ones and without them the trees might blow over onto my house in a severe windstorm." The builder was then instructed to remove the trees, one of which was a beautiful Oak which I hated to see go. >Sent via e-mail from Suzanne Rogers, 1312 Alvarado Avenue: I have owned my home for over 26 years. My home is one house to the southwest of 1327 Benito Avenue. Increasing the height of this home will adversely affect my view or blue sky. I understand that the zoning laws will allow for a two -story dwelling at this location. However, I would object to any special permits to allow for greater than normally allowed height for this project. Thank you for listening. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is a nice looking project. The upward sloping grade and extenuating circumstances supports the request for the additional 18 inches of height. I find this very approvable. >I like the design. With some of the changes that my fellow commissioner mentioned, especially with the front porch and other changes, this is an approvable project. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, 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:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There is one spot open on the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, or potentially three spots if those members want to make a change. Think about if you'd like to join this subcommittee. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner noted that there were a couple of items related to Planning at the March 1, 2021 City Council meeting. First was the review of the annual Housing Element progress report. The report reviews the housing production with a particular emphasis on building permits, which the state considers to be units that will be delivered. Entitlements are also represented, but the focus is on the building permit issuance. This year, the numbers looked quite good in terms of meeting the city's obligations under the regional fair share requirements, and that extends also to levels of affordability which is something new for Burlingame . In the past, the city has been good at approving units in terms of total numbers, but it's always been harder to reach those deeper levels of affordability. With the Village at Burlingame being approved and building permits issued, now the city has a substantial number of below market rate units that can be reported to the state. The other item that was discussed was a request for an evaluation of allowing greater floor area ratios for life science projects and office projects on the Bayfront. In particular, looking at the strip of of properties that face Old Bayshore Highway. Those have always been treated a little differently and they have allowed hotels where the rest of the Inner Bayshore hasn't. There has been an increase in interested parties to see the feasibility of having higher floor ratios. The City Council was interested in it, but thought there could be more discussion, in particular with the Planning Commission as well. There will be a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting coming up at the end of April, and they would like to have that item on the agenda so that everybody could be part of the discussion in terms of both the policy direction, but also what floor area ratio might be appropriate. That would provide us an opportunity to hear from the interested parties who can tell us more about the spatial requirements of life science uses and how that Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021 March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes might impact floor area ratios and other development standards. a.3 Cananea Place - FYI for update to landscape plan as required by the Planning Commission on a previously approved Design Review project. 3 Cananea Pl - Memo and Attachments 3 Cananea Pl - Landscape Plan Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 8, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 18, 2021, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2021