Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.04.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 25, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Schmid welcomed Commissioner Sean Lowenthal, who was appointed by the City Council on April 4, 2022. Chris Horan, also appointed by the Council on April 4th, will be joining the Planning Commission on May 9, 2022. Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and LowenthalPresent6 - a.Rotation of Officers Planning Manager Hurin announced the following rotation of officers: Chair: Michael Gaul Vice Chair: Jennifer Pfaff Secretary: Sean Lowenthal 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Gaul and Commissioner Tse noted that they were not present at the March 28, 2022 meeting, but have read the meeting minutes and feel comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and Lowenthal6 - a.Draft March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. Page 1City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action Items. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.320 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Zohar Schwartz Design, applicant and designer; Todd Lindstrom, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 320 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 320 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 320 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Zohar Schwartz, designer, and Todd and Kathy Lindstrom, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment submitted via email by Micah Lewis -Kraus, 321 Bloomfield Road: I currently reside directly across the street from the planned project. My wife and I fully support this project. The proposed design exhibits an appreciation for the neighborhood aesthetic along with an elegant and simplistic modern touch. In addition, Todd and Kathy Lindstrom are the ideal neighbors. From the day we moved in to town in late 2018, they have been warm and welcoming and they are one of the many reasons why we love living in Oak Grove Manor. We wish them the best of luck moving forward. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please provide dimensions on the plans for the balcony outside the master bedroom facing the street. >Please check with the Building Division regarding the correct and permitted swing of the bi -fold doors in the garage as it might affect the parking and the use of the courtyard. >This project is nicely done. It could benefit from being pulled down at least 6 inches from the proposed plate heights. Since it is a corner property, it is quite prominent. The applicant has done a good job, but there is not a lot of landscaping even possible on that corner because there is not much room. I am particularly bothered by the height of the roof above the balconies on the second floor, they look almost tomb-like; they're too prominent that it is not benefiting the house. If you want the privacy for the Page 2City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes balcony, consider looking into using a similar railing that was proposed in front of the second floor bedroom. That kind of railing could be quite lovely, looks less impactful and less massive. It is just too much the same on both sides. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The house felt a little bit too top heavy. I am a little bit concerned about the size of the balconies. We really need to keep them down to a minimum, we have to consider the neighbors and the view from the streets. Hearing from the applicant that the planters are not fixed would allow the deck to become larger is really concerning. I also have concerns about the size and style of the windows, it feels very linear which makes the house a feel taller than it is. Recommend bringing the height down and extending the length of those windows to give the house a less massive look . I’m not opposed to the style of the home, but I am concerned about the height, the balconies and windows. >I appreciate that you have put together a complete package which has given us a lot more to talk about. I am struggling a little bit with the height and scale. You are trying to leverage the lot as best as you can, but the back wall that faces your neighbor is a two -story monster with not a lot of relief into it. I don’t see the relief outside of the ADU and kitchen pop out. Otherwise, it is a very tall box. There are no overhangs. Suspect that the windows are not deep inset windows that create relief. So, it really does seem flat. The balconies are too big; we ’ve been looking at balconies a lot lately and they intrude with the neighbors. Again, it is a great package but I am concerned about how much is being put in. There is a lot going on here, a lot of square footage and a lot above ground. >I also want to reiterate the nice package the applicant has put together. Thank you for the presentation, there is a lot to look at. I agree with my fellow commissioners on the points that have been made about the overall height of the structure, the relative lack of articulation around the building which can cast strong shadow lines depending on the time of the day against some areas that you might want to enjoy using outdoors. Wondering if enough attention was paid to how one might experience the yard spaces or various courtyards with such a tall, flat elevation against it. It feels that the human scale is a bit lost because of the flatness of some of these elevations with the lack of articulation between two floors . It may not be as enjoyable to use. I know the family would like to utilize the yard and enjoy aspects of their courtyards that are presently there. Think about how the second story massing is affecting your potential use of the yards and how you might feel. It can feel hollow and a bit sterile from what I can tell right now without some relief and a reduction in the overall height. >Worried about the light gray color of the roof looking like an aluminum type look. It is a corner lot and will be very visible. That color may not be what you need to pull together a warm and inviting home compared to the other materials and colors you are proposing to use. >If I am not mistaken, we are limiting the size of the balconies. (Hurin: That is correct, starting with the adoption of the new zoning code balconies are limited to 75 SF). This project was submitted under the previous Zoning Code, so there is no limit in the code. But certainly, the commission in the past has commented on size of decks in proximity to neighboring properties and with respect to privacy issues .) With that in mind, these balconies doesn ’t necessarily have proximity to neighboring properties, both balconies are really on Bloomfield Road. However, I am concerned about the size of the one over the kitchen of the main dwelling. That can be mitigated by putting additional planting on the Bloomfield Road side. It can work on both balconies, can provide privacy and can reduce the size of the deck. It might be another fixed rail but I don ’t think you really want a balcony out into Bloomfield Road, but you can reduce them that way. I agree with most of the comments that have been made. I had the same thought on the east elevation, the back wall is a bit stark. But when I visited the site and saw the house that it is facing, I can understand it so I am not as concerned about that. This house will help hide the green house behind it. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and Lowenthal6 - b.209 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jorge Carbonell, Carbonell, architect; Melissa Page 3City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Glen Kirk, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 209 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 209 Dwight Rd - Attachments 209 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jorge Carbonell, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Vincent McCarley, 504 Howard Avenue: I am an adjoining resident on the south side of the project. I have made a quick review of the submitted plans. My current concerns are related to the continuance or enhancement of privacy as potentially impacted by the proposed taller structure and facing windows. Also, would be good to get further clarification on impacts as to the proposed excavation, concrete wall and construction disruptions. >Amir Kazemi, 500 Howard Avenue: I wanted to voice my concerns about the height of the home. I didn’t see the renderings, but I am concerned about the privacy as they raise the home over my yard and some parts of my home as well. Otherwise, we are super supportive of the project but would love to see more of those details. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please address drafting errors on the existing front elevation. The existing window above the garage seems wider than what was shown on the plans. >Provide a landscape plan for the next meeting. >It is very interesting that you are raising this house. There are quite a few homes in this neighborhood that are either moved here or raised, 20 inches is actually not bad. But what is happening, as what my fellow commissioner has alluded to, is that you are not changing the cut out of the window nor the position but you are changing the proportion of the home. You are also exasperating it by removing the wood board and batten so the entire proportion is changing. It looks as if the windows in the front are way too close to the roof and they look busy because you have changed the organization of the grids. Recommend looking at this again, particularly simplifying the windows. Since you are putting in new windows, you might as well look around the home and decide on a unifying style that ties them all together because it is completely breaking apart. The fact that the brick cladding was removed, it simplifies it but is not an advantage in this case because the proportions look really off. Suggest planting some big bushes, some evergreens that grow in the medium range that can help mitigate the proportion problem. The garage door has too much importance and is taking away from your home. It is great that you are trying to reuse the home, but you also need to work with what has happened to the proportions that it has become disproportionate. >I am concerned that it actually is simpler, smoother and becoming less interesting. It is missing the design portion. There is not a whole lot of overhang and depth to it. I am struggling on how this will hold together. When you go to the other elevations where there isn ’t any window interest either, it is becoming a flat box. The texture of the stucco is one of the things I like about the house and that will become smoother when you redo the bottom area to try and flush it out. I do agree that it will be hard to do the stucco below and get it to match. I am not feeling that it is getting better. There needs to be significant thought about landscape. Given the amount of work that will be done around this house, every existing landscaping within a few feet will get killed. You will need to start over and not keep what you have like in other remodels. The excavation of the basement is going to be a water problem. I don ’t know what the Page 4City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes water table is there, but everybody who has a basement has a flooding problem. >Requests a color rendition of what the exterior would look like, it might help with some of the dimensions to get a real sense of what is going on there. I agree with my fellow commissioner that there is some disconnect. An artist’s rendition may help in tying it all in. Please provide exterior lighting by the garage and front door. It will be nice to see the proposed locations and style of exterior lights. When I looked at this, removing the board and batten on the existing east elevation felt like a real loss. I would love to see that back into the project because it gives some real charm. You can change it up a little bit and do some interesting features. I also agree on the comment about landscaping. We don ’t have any landscaping plans to go by and would like to understand what is happening with that. >I have similar comments. The bricks and board and batten being removed really simplifies this down to a point where it loses too much. Something needs to be done in those areas just to bring back some of the architectural details. You can build a chimney back, it doesn ’t have to be brick, but it is a nice architectural element that breaks up that side of the building and would give you something interesting from the street level as opposed to just the wall cap on a zero clearance fireplace. I agree about the comment on the window grids, there needs to be some continuity there with the front and the sides of the house to tie this whole thing together because it has become very plain. >Before you go too far, I would recommend talking to a structural engineer because this can become very expensive very quickly; it ’s not just raising the house and sticking some pony wall in there. A lot of times your foundation will not be able to handle what you want to do. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. >I am comparing the existing west elevation windows and all of the openings look very large and out of proportion. Suggests to look into it. >(Melissa and Glen Kirk: We’ve already talked to an engineer regarding the structural elements of the home. I do that a lot for a living. The height on the backyard basically creates a big catch basin that we cannot take the water out. Also, the garage door at the moment is 7 feet tall, we will only be a little bit less than 6 feet at the head of the garage when we go in there. That is another reason why we wanted to raise the house. Since we have already talked to a structural engineer, we are comfortable raising the house. We agree with the window grid comments, we will definitely make those consistent. For landscaping, we are working with a small local company, we will have trees and landscaping so that it's not plain. I work in design, it will be lovely and I have no doubt that everyone will be impressed when they drive by.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and Lowenthal6 - c.1369 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. (James Chu, CHU Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1369 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1369 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1369 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a lengthy discussion and walked the block with the neighbor to the left of the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 5City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Rich Sargent, and James Chu represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue: I am the neighbor to the left. I have only seen, for a very short period of time, the drawings or plans of the house. Although our neighbors are lovely people, I must strenuously object to the style of the house. It doesn ’t fit in the traditional landscape of the houses on this or some other blocks at all. This metal roof farm house is very particularly fashionable now, which I think is a fad that will fade out quickly. Nobody does it well at all. I don ’t like the design. I don’t like the window that faces right at our front door, our bedrooms upstairs, our living room and our kitchen. I strenuously object to metal roof in an urban or suburban setting because they not only reflect light, but they also reflect heat. On some days, I don ’t want more heat directed to my house than the sun gives me already . I’m surprised at the lack of architectural detail on this. I see a little Hardie siding which is incongruous actually. It looks like an apartment house siding like what they did at Anson on Rollins Road. The glass hand rail looks like you are going to a bar. I think the whole thing really needs to be redone. I love our neighbors, I hate the house. Landscaping is a big concern. Unfortunately, we have been through this a couple of times on this block. The guy comes in with a bulldozer, scrapes everything and the race is on . So, please reconsider. Redesign it and make it comfortable for everybody on the block and in the neighborhood. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Type and size of tree to remain was not identified on the plans. Consider another type of evergreen for the street tree as they grow very slowly. >If the stairwell window is impacting the neighbor to the left, consider doing a frosted window to provide privacy for the neighbor. >Provide a 3D rendering so we can get a real sense of how the things are tying together. >There are a lot of houses on that block that were redone or rebuilt. It is a very traditional looking block. Recommend trying to make it blend in with some of the other houses. >Was able to talk to the neighbor to the left and he did have some concerns about the windows and how they would affect his house. I would encourage the applicant to have some interaction with that neighbor to address the issue. Suggest outlining the neighbor ’s house and the location of his windows on the site plan in relation to this project. >The height doesn’t bother me for the special permit. The plate height in the master bedroom doesn ’t bother me given that it is flat roof. The pitch roof look fine. Where I am struggling more is the 3D complexity of the lower portion of the building. There are a lot of ins -and-outs on this but it is not really making me feel that it is compatible. It is forcing me to question the compatibility of the more modern shapes in the lower part. We need a 3D rendering to be able to see the forms and see where things are going. I’m not understanding the wood siding on the ends of the pop -outs and the stucco on the side. It will be a weird material transition that I am not used to seeing. The compatibility thing got me worried. I know that the team can do it, it’s just that I am not seeing it in the packet right now. >I too can see support for the special permit applications on this project. What I am struggling with is the overall design of the house, it doesn ’t know what it wants to be. There are so many materials on the various elevations that don ’t make sense to me, why something is on one face and not on another. There is a traditional sense with the second story with the siding and the outriggers, but then the finishes don ’t wrap around to the other sides and suddenly it is not traditional or transitional. I’m not sure about the glass railings mixed in with everything. It just seems too much of a hybrid of materials and not a clean statement of what it wants to be. I am concerned about the overall heaviness of the moment frame Page 6City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes concrete arch that we see at the front and the sides. Because we are on an uphill sloping property and a fairly tall height to this first story, along with the increased height just to get to the finished floor from the average grade, it accentuates this particular element and the height. There is no need to accentuate the height as it is acceptable overall. I don ’t appreciate the over emphasis and the heaviness of what the moment frames are doing to the overall look of the house. I want a better clarity of what this house wants to be and a more cohesive look that makes sense on all four sides. >I completely agree with my fellow commissioner. The 3D rendering will be beneficial. I feel that the house is almost trying too hard. It is a house that can be very beautifully done. I have no doubt that the team can do this. The design can be simplified. >I completely agree with what has been said. This doesn ’t know what it wants to be. It will be really good to decide on a few things that are really important and let the other stuff go because it is just not going together. Particularly, these transitions can look like a patch work and not well thought out. I believe the whole house can come down about 6”, because it does not know what it wants to be and it is a large home, in deference to the homes around it will be helpful. >Should look at other trees that will be about 15’ – 20’ tall to be used at the front landscape and consider the St. Mary Magnolia, which is in our Burlingame tree list and will fit the planting strip to help pull the sidewalk a little bit better. You need an evergreen for this house. >I would have to agree with everything that has been said so far. I don ’t think this design is cohesive enough to know where it is going. My main concern is the compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood. The style of that neighborhood has already been developed and established. I’m not sure that this style of house fits. I don ’t think it interfaces well with the structures on the adjacent properties. It is trying to stand by itself and make a statement. I would agree that it can come down 6”, it might even be better if all the roofs are flat to make the design a little more cohesive and not make it seems like a large house even if it is in an up sloping lot. I don ’t know if I can support the project as it stands right now. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and Lowenthal6 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for review of a proposed change to a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. 1304 Mills Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: >Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Page 7City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 25, 2022. 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 5, 2022, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 8City of Burlingame