Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.05.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 23, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent5 - Comaroto, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse4 - Absent:Comaroto, Gaul, and Schmid3 - 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 Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from Page 1City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan, architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1928 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1928 Devereux Dr - Attachments 1928 Devereux Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Horan and Lowenthal weren't part of the Planning Commission during the previous two meetings where this project was reviewed but had the chance to review the meeting minutes and watch the videos. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Oliver Qing Gan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Fix drafting errors and clearly identify proposed materials. > Overall, the changes that have been recommended are good. We want to get some cleanup on the elevations to make sure that they match, so when it goes forward, everybody's clear on what needs to be done. The window proportions and the south elevation improved. Overall, it has moved forward and did what we hoped it would do. >This project has come a nice way moving forward. I appreciate the applicant working with the design review consultant and listening to our comments and advice. It has nicely arranged elevations. The bathroom floor plan rearrangements have improved the window arrangements remarkably. It’s a nice job overall. > I want to thank the applicant, the designer and the design consultant. This has come full circle. It's a nice-looking project and worth everyone's time. I appreciate that you took our comments seriously and it's just such an improvement all around. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - b.1132 Killarney Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Robert Criscuolo, applicant and property owner; Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, designer) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 2City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1132 Killarney Ln - Staff Report 1132 Killarney Ln - Attachments 1132 Killarney Ln - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Joe Sable, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project looks good. The applicant followed through on the suggestions and got some consistency on the trims, the windows and bringing the rear slider doors more into scale with the elevation. They did a good job listening. >The back window just made a huge difference, which was great. Thank you so much for listening and taking that suggestion. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - c.1273 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit 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. (Peter Suen, Fifth Arch, applicant and architect; Betty Chen and Kevin Lange, property owners) (142 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1273 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1273 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1273 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Peter Suen, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Page 3City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >You have two live oaks in the front of the house which is probably not going to be enough space right next to each other like that. Recommend to have one there and put the one back where you had it originally in the backyard. The live oak started in the backyard and it was together with a transplanted orange and it would be better to do it that way and give everything space. One in the back and one in front is good because it's a big house and it's an evergreen so you're providing some privacy to your neighbor as well. There was that little tree in the backyard, suggests to put that on the right hand side of the house instead of this area depending on where the orange tree is. >As a contractor, I am aware that the upkeep of real wood material is very challenging and this homeowner may be up for the task. This home is going to sit there for a long time and in my experience, I have seen the real wood board and batten deteriorate faster than other materials. It's a beautiful home especially in this rendering and I ’m excited about it but I ’m concerned about the use of natural materials on cladding. >I appreciate the 3D renderings, unfortunately it was not included in our packet so I am just seeing it now. It has gotten better. The renderings do a lot more than the elevations. The 3D on the front page give it character because otherwise it looks like a flat box, so I appreciate the effort being put into those, that helps quite a bit in selling this design. I still feel like there's a lot of things that are square and not very exciting to it. The columns are just square and there's no base and nothing to them. More could be done with this to dress it up. >I just wanted to bring up a little concern of the real wood shake roof. I don't know if I see that much as an application these days especially here in California where we're always threatened by a fire many seasons of the year now, not just during the summer. I know this particular street and the neighborhood is not overly wooded and heavily lined with trees, but would just suggest that the applicant take a look at that. There are many faux shake roof products out there that look like real wood and may better serve the house and protect the house in future years. >I'm not positive, but in the old days in this city, the real shake roof had to have fire retardant and it's all chemicals but it seems to me there's some rule about that in this city in the building department. >It needs to be a Class A roof and there may be products like that. I just, myself, haven't specified a real wood roofing material in a long time, just for fear of fire and as well as our natural resources but there could certainly be a Class A roof that's a real wood shake roof. >It has been improved pretty significantly as far as the front, changes from these enormous doors and windows in the front. It's an improvement. I like the corbels, wish there were more but it has been vastly improved and I hope they can keep everything up. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the front yard shall contain one Coast Live Oak tree and the rear yard shall contain one Coast Live Oak tree, one Western Redbud tree, and one relocated Orange tree. Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - d.2201 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a single story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Chuck and Shirley Paterson, property owners ) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 4City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2201 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2201 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2201 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > On the front left side elevation, consider continuing the wood siding instead of using lattice for consistency. There are too many different materials proposed to be used. > I appreciate that this project is working with an existing home and adding breath to the home without automatically adding a second floor to an already fairly tall site. I understand the applicant ’s statement that this is a very modest addition. On the front elevation it looks really long and large but, as we know, the part on the left is actually an ADU which is outside of our purview for discussion. I appreciate the further setback from the De Soto Avenue side, also that the massing has been adjusted on the Hillside Drive side where before it was a transition of different materials along the same plane, but now it is much richer as an actual pronounced change in massing on that elevation. Along with the change of materials, it is quite a drastic improvement. I appreciate the changes. This is a nicely designed home and tasteful in size. I can see approving and moving this forward. > The renderings help bring out the richness of this home. I do appreciate the addition as opposed to a knock down. My struggle, as before, is that the compelling reason for the variance is not present for me because it really is just to add square footage. I do not know if that is a compelling reason for a variance . We have front setbacks for that reason. Otherwise, it is a good looking project. >It is a good looking project. I still have a problem with the stairs on the left elevation, it seems a lot. I believe there is a way to fix that. Consider eliminating the left side and flipping the stairs on the right with the landing providing access to the side yard. Right now, it is a lot of stairs to access the ADU. >That is a very interesting thought about the stair. Suggests to consider flipping them. It has definitely improved but it is quite prominent being too close to the street. I do have a problem with the variance too . It is a modest addition. I appreciate that it is on a corner and it is a structure that is being largely re -used. The stairs are too close and too busy. >I don’t disagree at all with my fellow commissioners. The stairs don ’t bother me as much, I don’t know if it is enough for me not to move this forward. The variance, I agree I don ’t know if I see it. The reason why I would approve it is of the lot location. It is a tough lot, on a very busy street and it doesn ’t bother me that the variance is on one of the busiest streets in Burlingame. To me that is reason enough. I agree about the square footage reason doesn ’t do it for me. Given everything as a whole, I would be willing to move this forward. >I agree, the lot is unusual. The solution is pretty clever to keep the renovation on one story from the street. That would be the basis for me finding in favor for the variance. >The dimensions were not provided in the plans but it looks like about 3’ to 3’-6” beyond the current existing front façade on the Hillside Drive side for Bedroom #4, which looks to be the primary suite. It is not an extensive front expansion that would prevent me from approving this. With that being said, it is a fairly large sized bedroom for Burlingame standards. I don ’t know if it would be acceptable for my fellow Page 5City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes commissioners if the room was reduced in width, which I believe is 14’-6” left to right. I would be much more willing to accept this than a second story addition which will create a much larger home on that street corner. Acting Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >Chu: We definitely will revisit the staircase to craft a design so it will look like one staircase. We will consider changing the material under the balcony to wood siding so it will better fit the design, but respectfully disagree about reducing the size of the Master Bedroom. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted incorporating the following items: 1) redesign the exterior stairway located to the left of the garage to a simpler design and 2) change the exterior material of the area under the balcony to match the siding on the house. Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse4 - Nay:Schmid1 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - e.1369 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height, second story plate height, and second story balcony for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor, property owners) (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. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. He noted for the record that the commission received two e -mails from neighbors on this application, one from the neighborhood at 1356 Columbus Avenue and the other at 1367 Columbus Avenue. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Rich Sargent and James Chu represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Richard Schoustra, 1350 Columbus Avenue: We are neighbors about 4 houses south and on the opposite side of Columbus. Regarding the plans for 1369 Columbus Avenue, we understand that numerous changes have been addressed to date. For the current iteration presented to the planning commission we have the following feedback. 1. The roof and columns over the front porch look like they belong on a civic /public building. The homes at both 1357 & 1365 Columbus have sloping rooflines over the porches /front door entrances - this softens the porch roof connection to the Page 6City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes house. The current design is more abrupt and jarring, making it stick out. 2. The ADU is a bigger question. Hopefully the City of Burlingame is gathering data on approved and in -use units to determine the overall impact on things like parking and traffic - this is more of an observation than a criticism. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Since the moment frame details have been removed around the house, suggests to apply the same thing for the ADU just for consistency of the design of the house with the ADU. > Consider revisiting the left side elevation, it looks like the flat roof and the sloped portion or gutter is on the same plane. It looks awkward and something that became an afterthought. >I believe one way to resolve this issue is to slope the flat roof towards the gutter, align the flat roof with the gutter and then you can dump your water in it. You still need to provide a downspout for the gutter and the flat roof, whether you take that back to the stairwell or do it down on that corner. That can clean up that transition. >I had the same issue with that flat roof. The flashing detail looks like it runs into the gutter and it is an awkward detail which needs to get clarified to address the drainage on the roof. > I appreciate an email received from a neighbor, Mr. Murray. He is correct that the distance of this ADU is more than half a mile, however, it is my understanding that it does not change that the applicants have satisfied the requirement about parking for the ADU. I want to acknowledge that I understood his point. >It is a good looking project. The sloping lot has been dealt with pretty effectively. The Special Permit is okay by me. I like the architecture, it is related but also different enough to add some interest to the neighborhood. > I too like the project. The changes made it a lot more understandable. The 3D renderings combined with the changes made it a handsome looking design. I can support the findings for the Special Permit for the height given the slope of the lot. In reality, it is a very small portion of the roof encroaching up above the height limit so it is not really that impactful. I can find support for the Special Permit on the height for the second floor over the one room. It is not actually where they are getting more height for the other Special Permit, again, not really that impactful. I don ’t have any issues with the second floor balcony given where it is located in the center of the back and not towards the side where it is overlooking the adjacent neighbor. I can support this project. >I wanted to thank the applicant for working hard and listening to our comments at the last meeting . The design of the house has improved quite a bit. It is no longer the house that doesn ’t know what it wants to be. It has some nice details and it adds interest to the street in the variety of home styling. I can also support the Special Permits for building height for the primary bedroom, the second story balcony and the second story plate height. I’d like to see this project move forward. >I appreciate the changes. Regarding the small tree that is to remain on the rear of the property, make sure that it is a decent sized tree. I also appreciate the change to the Magnolia tree. The design looks softer and better generally. It looks way more cohesive. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - f.309 Chapin Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and 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. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Kelly and Kent Kockos, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Page 7City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 309 Chapin Ln - Staff Report 309 Chapin Ln - Attachments 309 Chapin Ln - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid was recused from this item as he lives within 500’ from this property. Commissioner Lowenthal was not present at the previous meeting but was able to review the meeting notes and watched the meeting video. Commissioner Tse was not present at the previous meeting but was able to review the meeting minutes and watched the video. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Landscape drawing provided is a very simple schematic. Please provide a more detailed landscape plan identifying the type of trees proposed. It is important because there are no street trees indicated in the drawings. > This is a great project. The elevations, especially the side elevations, have really improved from the existing. From visiting the site, I actually like the existing front porch design compared to the proposed design. It seems more substantial and permanent. The new porch seems a little bit light and almost cheaper than the existing. I do love that all of the homes that we have reviewed tonight have front porches . I think it is a great addition to the village. I can approve the project as submitted. >I have a problem with the multiple materials because it looks cheap. I feel similarly that because it doesn’t know what it wants to be on the porch level and there is so much going on, it feels a little light then therefore becomes top heavy. I do appreciate that the applicant is working with something that is existing. It’s great keeping a lot of it. It is a very calm and forested street so I am having a little trouble with all the materials proposed, hence my comments about the vegetation. Everybody should have their own substantial vegetation. This house lacks street trees. It needs something cohesive that can become a larger tree that grows over 20 feet to make it more in proportion with the building. This house is very busy and needs something to put it together. Acting Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted to include a full landscape plan showing a detailed planting plan and identifying the species of all existing and proposed trees; the proposed tree in the front yard shall be of a species with a growth height of at least 20 feet; the landscape plan shall also show street tree(s) to be planted (species and number to be determined by the City Arborist/Parks Division). Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - Page 8City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1829 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1829 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1829 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Christine Lee, 1825 Sebastian Drive: Hello, I am the next door neighbor who is directly affected by the project. I am concerned about the two story addition and encroachment over my property line for two feet. Their surveyor installed the stake on my property. How does this work? Are they going to have automatic approval to expand the property line based on the surveyor’s report if they get an approval of the project? Please provide your comments and assistance over these concerns. My property dimension measures out to 72’ per the county record. > Public comment sent via email: As a neighbor to the residence of 1829 Sebastian Drive I believe the construction of a second story is disruptive to the immediate surrounding residents. 1. 1829 Sebastian Drive overlooks at a significant bay view. The construction of a second story would obstruct the surrounding homes views. 2. A second story would invade my family ’s privacy by providing an uncomfortably close overhead view of my house’s backyard. > Public comment sent via email: Question on the existing front elevation plan. Not sure if it matters but the existing garage is currently located on the right side not the left side as the existing front elevation shows. The proposed second story addition is showing it will be located on the right side which would be behind the existing garage. >(Raduenz: Just to clarify, we’ll definitely respond to the emails and reach out to them.) Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Identify proposed trees on the landscape plan. > Consider rotating the roof profile on the second story about 90 degrees. It would look smaller from the street if it is oriented that way. > I don’t have a lot of issues with the addition towards the back, it doesn ’t necessarily impact the design of the front. I like the idea of rotating the roof, it will make a better look on the second story addition. I definitely agree that the neighbors need to work some things out with the applicant. I don ’t know that I see a hillside view blockage because the properties behind all have trees in front of them, so they are looking at trees. I don ’t see that anybody is actually going to see this design. It is really that the neighbors on either side needs to come to a discussion and be able to deal. The landscape on the side needs to be considered by the applicant on their side. Maybe they can do some screening using landscaping that would help minimize the impact of the second story addition to the neighbors’ backyards. Page 9City of Burlingame May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes It looks like the neighbor to the right has a pool back there, so it would be nice to deal with the windows back there and be able to provide landscape screening. Otherwise, I don ’t have any objection to the addition or its location. > Echo the recommendation about turning the roof that would be a very nice idea. I would also recommend that we be provided with 3D renderings. In the back, when you look at the rear elevation, for some reason dimensionally it seems very tight and closed in. It is in the rear so it doesn ’t bother me that much, but I am concerned about what that looks like at the front. So if you turn the roof and provide a 3D rendering, I feel like I can be in favor of this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioners’ comments. I appreciate if the applicants would reach out to the neighbors. The neighbor to the right might be the one commenting about the views from the windows into their yard. From what I see based on the floor plans, it doesn ’t seem like there are any good views out of any windows on the second story. It looks like it might be in the primary bedroom closet that those windows are facing the neighbor to the right. The neighbor to the left is quite a distance away since the addition is to the rear right side of the home. A proposed rendering would also be helpful to understand the mass and scaling of this addition in relationship to the current house. Requests that a rendering be presented from the view treating the rear as the main perspective view in addition to the front rendering. I don’t see that there is any view blockage issues that I can gather from visiting the site. The addition being pushed at the back is a good decision. >From the second story master, it is a closet and a hallway from the stair that have windows facing the neighbor to the right. Encourage the applicant to consider a translucent window solution to make that privacy concern go away. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding planning matters, and there were no FYI reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 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 May 23, 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 June 2, 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 10City of Burlingame