Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.12.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 6:30 PM OnlineMonday, December 12, 2022 STUDY SESSION - 6:30 pm - Online a.Discussion of Exterior Lighting in Residential Zoning Districts MemorandumAttachments: Planning Manager Hurin introduced the item. Commission Discussion: >There are lights that we have around the neighborhood that you walk by and it just shines into the street. Do we have any direction from Planning on how to direct flood lights to the property itself? (Spansail: It is considered a code enforcement issue. We get some of these complaints, and the code enforcement officer goes out to the properties to ensure the shielding that is required to keep the lighting onto the property where the flood light is located. If it's a neighbor and the light is coming into their window or coming onto their property and if you're walking the neighborhood and it's flooding the public right-of-way, you can reach out to the code enforcement officer to see if there's a violation, and if there's a violation, take action to remedy it.) >For properties on uphill slopes, we could encourage or require the lighting to be a ground level, rather than higher up where it will shine into lower properties. >I've never had a building inspector look at my exterior lighting, so maybe if we can make the Building Division more aware of this problem, so we can head it off at the pass. >We can encourage people to do lighting that's not up so high because light is going to travel. You can have a 20 amp, a 20 watt bulb on the back porch and if your neighbor has direct view of it, they are going to see light. >I think sometimes fixtures get added on afterwards. maybe the property owner says they ’d like to have a light along the side. >Neighbors can be reluctant to report them, too. >A project we're looking at tonight has a light fixture and it's nine feet above grade and doesn't have shielding, and it's not on the proposed plans at all. So, it wasn't there when we saw it the first time and it's not on the plans now. > I think it would be a good idea to have the opportunity to see the permitted plans for exterior lighting because if Planning sees that someone added a fixture during CDs, it can be caught early, but then that allows Building to know there's no light fixture shown on this elevation so there is a compliance issue. >I think it could be quite a drain on our limited city resources to try to enforce everybody's front of property, decorative lights if there's not a single complaint about that. >Sometimes based on the style of a home, certainly in the modern arena, there are a lot of fixtures that have opacity to the shell of the fixture or direct light verses the lantern style or the shade type of a more traditional fixture. In the example in the staff report that is shielded, if that glass wasn't a frosted glass, there would be quite a hotspot of light bulb exposed if the glass wasn't a diffused type of glass. So there's a lot of things to be thinking about, stylistically as well as technically when we're talking beginning trying to enforce these light fixtures on the exterior especially since most are decorative. >On the side of the home, it's privacy and pathway lighting to your garbage or whatever, so I understand the side yard facing light fixtures. >We could ask that applicants submit a spec of the type of fixture they plan to install at the home. It Page 1City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes doesn't have to be the exact fixture but an indication so we can comment on that and then if we get into the habit of reminding people to keep in mind to keep it downward facing, then we slowly educate our applicants as well. >My concern is doing a blanket type restriction on upward facing lighting. I understand the intent but I would think doing something more based on luminous or wattage as opposed to the direction of a light. >Let's say you have a house that has an upward facing and you want to illuminate your rear lot, how can you do that with a downward facing shield device. If you're down slope and it's above grade and if you're above nine feet, you're going to be shining into that person's property. I don't think the shielding or downward facing will help in our hillside community, which is why I think doing something on lumens as to wattage would be more objective, kind of like our Cal Green requirements for plumbing fixtures, you can have so many gallons per minute. It makes more sense to say you can have so much lumens and it's easier for code enforcement. > Light fixtures are easy to change, just like plumbing fixtures. If I have a 1.2 gallon per minute shower head, a lot of clients are pulling those down to put back on the 1.6 or 2.0. I feel you'll have a similar option with the light fixtures. >The house next door to me has exterior lights that are built into the fascia of the roof, and they are nice and soft and it's not bothersome so much. >On the example in the staff report those lights are not even up on the top floor, but when all these lights are on, there's a huge beam that goes up to the sky of just pure light, so it's pretty invasive. I think we just need to look at what the lumens are and I think it will solve a lot of these. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Are we giving the effective literature back to the contractors and the owner as part of our planning, that is explaining our code? I just feel like our owners are not taking responsibility for what it is in the code. I'm wondering if there's a way as part of the process, that an applicant needs to come in and read this document and sign this document that you're knowledgeable in what you're responsible for doing on these several key items that we seem to be having enforcement issues with. >We could also add it as a standard condition of approval, to our letters as a start, so they are aware of it, it gets recorded to the property and those conditions are also placed on the building permit set of plans > I think if we can do a best practices search. I did a little research, and the ideas of limiting lumens seems like a best practice. Municipalities are limiting it to 3,500 total, 400 per fixture and the color temperature. Most municipalities are saying under 3,000 so that gets rid of the really white or blue light, so those could be actions for the Planning Division to help inform us what are the best practices for total lumens, lumens per fixture and color temperature. >Maybe we could do an e-mail outreach, maybe there's a thing we can put about lights in that. >As an applicant or representative of an applicant, there's so many conditions of approval to read on everyone's behalf and including the contractor. It's nice if there's a new condition of approval added to list as new or bold as of this date, if you don't already do that just to bring attention to a newer item that has changed. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Comaroto, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve both sets of meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 2City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - a.Draft November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft November 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. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Comaroto, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2023 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2023 Planning Commission Calendar - Memorandum 2023 Planning Commission Calendar 2023 Draft City Council Calendar Attachments: Commissioner interest in having the first meeting in July canceled rather than the second meeting, to allow for July 4th travel. The Commission may choose to revisit this suggestion at a later date. b.2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and 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). (Chris Spaulding, architect; Michael Liu, property owner and applicant) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 2517 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2517 Easton Dr - Attachments 2517 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 3City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Andy and Monica MacMillian, property owners) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 2316 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2316 Easton Dr - Attachments 2316 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I really appreciate that the applicant listened to our concerns about the parking and the trees. This was done nicely for everybody. This is a beautiful project. Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a second story balcony and declining height envelope for a first and 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). (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer and applicant; Shabana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 732 Vernon Way - Staff Report 732 Vernon Way - Attachments 732 Vernon Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Page 4City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the new window pattern better. It is simpler and looks better than the rendering itself. >I remember some conversation about the windows and they were different than what was on the rendering. I just find something is just not working; the proportions are still different from each other. >Hoping that the garage door piece works out to where we can actually get a nice looking door rather than just an infill, so keep working on that. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse6 - Nay:Pfaff1 - c.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Joseph Hassoun, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1327 Benito Ave - Staff Report 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan noted that he had a phone conversation with the applicant. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she met with the applicant and his representative at the project site to go through all the items in the FYI. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a phone conversation with the applicant. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Joseph Hassoun, owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > CK, Caregiver: Good evening. I remember requesting numerous times that the lights on the subject property be turned off because they were shining so big and bright through the windows. I finally had to stop one of the workers as they were leaving one night with a flash light. He came over to the fence outside the bathroom window and I asked him to turn the lights off. That is the time when all the lights went off. I see on the plans that the outside of the home, on the driveway side, has numerous new light fixtures. On the proposed plans there are no light fixtures but one at the doorway. The proposed plans also show three steps down, but actually have five steps coming down that doorway. We have no privacy to our bathroom because if I open the window while I am taking a shower, people can look through the doorway and the kitchen window above the sink. Absolutely no privacy. The applicant had a discussion Page 5City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with Mr. Kaiser and was told that Mr. Hassoun will take care of that, but have not done so. Because of all this, I can’t sleep at night. I have to take care of this gentleman. It has really caused a lot of anxiety all the way around because I am up at 2 am, 3 am and 4 am because the lights were not turned off on time for months. (Hassoun: I am sorry this happened during construction. Typically, when people are living in the house, they do not turn the lights on at night. But it happened with some of our contractors and because we have different crews sometimes they would forget to turn the lights off. Since talking to our neighbor, I have instructed them to turn all the lights off. Eventually, we will have a window coverings on all the windows to obscure the view, but that is not a Planning Division item. As far as the scones outside, they are on the electrical plans so we followed the electrical plans.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We do have conditions of approval, but do we require the owner sign and acknowledge these conditions of approval? We do specifications in drawings and nobody reads them. If we put too much stuff, nothing happens. To me, these conditions of approval are crystal clear, but that does not change the fact that they are not followed. > I agree with my fellow commissioner. We need to have a one -page form that the City Attorney ’s office can create where it specifically states that the applicants need to abide by the Planning Commission approved plans or risk denial of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. We are reasonable. When an applicant comes back and says they are having a hard time getting approved windows or materials, we need to be told what is happening and not make unilateral decisions on the project. A form that will serve as a true disclosure that the architect, the contractor and the homeowners sign may be a reasonable request at this point. >Make sure the 8 outriggers are included in the changes. >There are a list of things that can be done and there are a few things that are probably too big to ask . The garage door, a raised panel door, per the original plan is in order. The tapered columns as discussed per plan. The outriggers on the garage per plan. The aftermarket window grids inside and out are appropriate. That being true, then for the French door on the right side, because if those are internal grids those are going to look terrible. The front door needs to match somehow. It matches the two doors on the right, with grids is fine, but the door that is there right now doesn ’t really go with anything. The exterior lighting needs to be reviewed. The light that is currently at the side of the house shining down on the driveway is not appropriate. It needs to be removed. Somebody is bound to leave it on. The light by the door should be appropriate for going in that door. A light shining at the driveway is not necessary and it goes against the spirit of our lighting ordinance anyway. An item that was not mentioned but I still don ’t like is the trellis work over the entry way, it appears to be incomplete. The one that is coming out from the front door is a stick -on fake piece of wood. It is not supporting anything and it doesn ’t look like it because it does not continue back into the house. It makes the entry look weird. It is fixable, a cosmetic fix, to make it look like a structural member instead of a fake stick -on. The applicant needs to come back with a plan to correct these items and capture the items in the FYI or resubmission. The applicant ’s comment about following the electrical plan where they showed the lights, it probably functions correctly as installed, but it is not per our lighting code. The fact that it was added without Planning ’s approval doesn’t make it right just because the Building Division approved it. It should be removed. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The trellis work above the doors, side elevation and garage, needs to be consistent. I don ’t believe the plans were followed on that at the peaks. I also would state that I am not opposed to, but would like to get my colleagues’ opinions about the missing bathroom window on the second floor by the driveway side. I don ’t have a problem with that not being there, it does not bother me. I would rather just leave it alone than put something fake there. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the missing bathroom window. The proposed left door looks like it is fit for a very modern house, it is plain -faced and one long narrow side lite, that doesn ’t look right to me. We can fix things by doing these glue -on materials, but at the end of the day, the way this commission looks at things previously was to consider if this new proposal can be approved. If it was me, the answer is no. I am a little concerned if there are glue -on grids, for example at the front elevation, I am Page 6City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes not understanding how that will ever look like a casement window. Maybe there is a way to make them look proper, but I am concerned that it is so far removed from what was approved. >I generally agree with what my fellow commissioner has listed as the items that I can accept or agree to the changes. I will also state that I don ’t need that fake window on the left elevation. Though the left entry door does not match the approved door in any shape or fashion, it is a left elevation and is acceptable to me. There are many other things that need to be addressed that really are aiding the design, the look and feel of the house on the outside at the front mainly. I am also ok with the shingle gable ends instead of the board and batten that were originally proposed. I can see that they can possibly fake the pitched roof over the front entry to remedy that change in pitch issue. Looking at it in person, it does not bother me that much that it remains as it is currently. The biggest things for me are the grids on the windows and the front door, which I agree should also be replaced. It is a shame because the architect always creates such beautiful designs. There are a lot of details and attention paid to those details to enrich the style of the home. A lot of them have been stripped away during the construction process. >I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said. I struggle when folks don ’t use the professionals that are here to help. You could have asked your architect or the Planning Department. It is very frustrating especially when you are dealing with windows which are not a finish item, those are ordered at the beginning of the project in order to get them in the framing stage. This is a long thought out process of unfortunately doing things different than the approved plans. So then, what do you do? I am not going to have them tear the house down, I don ’t want them to pull out all the windows. It is rough because I know what those cost. We need a better attempt here to show how to make these things right. I am not very impressed with these plans at all. The minimal amount that would be required even for this meeting, you have to do more. The garage door doesn ’t look anything like the approved set. You are basically asking us to go against what we have already approved and approve something new. That needs to be clearer and right on point with what was originally approved and not something different. Some of these items that my fellow commissioners have noted need to be bubbled and highlighted and show exactly how they will be remedied. It may not look perfect. I drive by this neighborhood and everybody has grid windows, it is part of the look of the street. Not having gridded double -hung windows is a big mess. At least, I can get by with the grids, but I don ’t want some peel and stick grids that will look cheesy. I want to see more details on that, maybe an example from the manufacturer on how there were installed on another application that will be helpful. I need to see a lot more details and thought process on how these issues are going to be remedied before I am willing to push this forward. >(Spansail: Commissioner Lowenthal did a good job of detailing one of the ways in going forward with this. This is a unique agenda item in front of us today. One of the things that the commission can do is to determine whether or not they believe that there are changes that can be made that would be approved, which you’ve done a great job of. If that is the case, generally, what they are. I don ’t want the commission to go and agree to a by -list amount of changes. As what Commissioner Lowenthal said, one option would be to provide details and have the applicant come back. Right now, they have one set of plans that was approved, obviously something was built differently. They can always go back to those approved plans if they want those approvals and move forward. If they want to come back later with a more flushed out version that is a possibility as well. We also could attempt to do a by -list approval, but that can be a little complicated. It might be worth exploring what the majority of the commission is willing to see or consider and have the applicant come back at a continued hearing to talk what you might want to do.) >I was going to suggest the same thing. We are not here to solve the problem. We are here to give our opinions. It is up to the applicant to come back to us with something that we can swallow. However, the detail shown on the window grids is for a snap -in interior window grids. I’ve used those before, they look terrible, they don’t work and you cannot apply a permanent exterior mullion on that glass because it needs a spacer bar in between the glass to make it work. It is a heat pressed process. You will need to replace the sash. If that is what it takes, then I am willing to go that route because I for one am completely frustrated and angered by these applicants that are coming in like this. This is happening too often. I would like to see this go back to the original plan. That’s where I stand at the moment. The applicant can change whatever they would like but they basically whitewashed this house, in my opinion . Some of these changes need to be made. I would ask them to come back to us with a solution instead of the other way around. Page 7City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I wholeheartedly agree. If the applicant is wondering what they should be focused on, they need to just re-listen to this meeting. We gave a very long laundry list of our concerns and to some degree what we are willing to accept. There is plenty of direction here. I agree with the Chair that it really needs to go back to the beginning and what was approved. There is just way too many changes done poorly. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - d.839 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner ) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 839 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 839 Crossway Rd - Attachments 839 Crossway Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Babak Nematollahi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Bill Schlotter and Susan Ripper, 843 Crossway Road: We live with our two children next to the driveway side of 839 Crossway Road. We are grateful that the design review consultant has helped improve the architectural consistency of the neighborhood and reduce the mass of the proposed buildings . With that said, we have four concerns: 1.) A signature feature of our house is a large original window formed with 48 individual panes of glass in a long pattern. On sunny days, the shadows caused by this unique window on our living room floor, truly a work of art. Burlingame Terrace resident Harry Dessin together with the firm Watson & Son designed and built our home in 1927, seven years after 839 Crossway was built. We assume Mr. Dessin took into account the light patterns from 839 Crossway. Therefore, we are concerned that the proposed roof line will obstruct some of the direct sun from shining as intended into our living room, especially in the winter. We realized that the access to sunlight is encouraged in the design and not guaranteed. We acknowledge that the revised proposal has greatly improved the sunlight situation in our house. However, we appeal to the commission to ensure that every effort has been made to preserve the character of the light into our home. 2.) Windows from the second floor bathrooms and closet directly face our primary and second floor bedroom. If possible, we would like the window placement revisited or the windows be frosted. 3.) The bedrooms from bedroom #1 and office are not centered to the gable above. 4.) The overall height of the garage on sheet A 6 does not match the drawing. What is the overall height of the garage? Our comments and concerns from our August 8th statement remain relevant and unanswered. We are disappointed that no effort to contact us has been made by either the owner, Southwest Investment Funds, LLC or any representative. We have lost confidence in the goodwill of the owner and our concern that they may not maintain the integrity of proposed plans. We encourage the commission to ask for as much specificity as possible in the proposal; windows, trim, veneer, materials, dimensions, landscaping, etc. We also encourage the owner to fully understand the conditions of Exhibit A on the commission’s approval. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >The windows look very flat and not detailed. They look different than the originally proposed windows. > It looks a lot better than it did. A lot more cohesive than the previous designs. I appreciate the effort put in by both the design team and the design review consultant. I understand my fellow commissioner ’s question about the windows. It has no trim and they are not deeply recessed well, it will be a fairly flat looking elevation. The previous design had the windows set further back into the recess and was therefore deeper and would create more shadows than these will, given the placement of the windows. I am a little concerned that these will come off flat without any kind of trim. It will look better with the trim. It would be a good idea to look at those accessory windows on the one side to see, a lot of times we are doing clear windows in the closet, yet all we want is some light that a frosted window would do. The applicant has an opportunity to make that an easy item to work with the neighbor on. Overall, I like where it has gone. I appreciate the effort being put into the set. I’d like to see it go forward. > I agree with my fellow commissioner. They did some nice changes although we need to look at those windows. We need to have one more pass through before we completely approve it. The windows need to be seriously looked at. >I would agree that it is better than what we first saw. However, the windows all seem to have uniform size and pattern. It looks like a house that you can buy as a kit because it will be a very simple build . When I look at the floor plan, we have windows in the shower that are matching the size of the window in the bedrooms. You are going to have some serious water issues. When you go to the bedroom, you have windows over the bed that are 3 feet off the floor. There are so many better things you can do with the windows by varying their sizes and locations. It looks very odd that there is a 4” post between every window that are mulled together. The windows need work to make this look better. I can ’t see approving this in this state now. The outside looks very plain. >I don’t disagree. We referred this to design review and the design consultant reviewed this. Now we are saying we don’t like what our design review consultant recommended. I think we just have to question that process going forward. >We don’t necessarily have to agree with the design consultant. They sometimes get push back by the applicant and the applicants ultimately are the ones that submit the plan. >The design review consultant is a great architect. Because it is a large home with a huge surface area, these large structures need to have some interests. The depth of the window before gave some depth to the building. This is completely flattened out to me. The form was improved in my opinion. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - e.912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; SF 21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner; KTGY Architecture and Planning, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 912 Linden Ave - Staff Report 912 Linden Ave - Attachments 912 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item . Commissioner Tse noted that she was not in attendance when this project was presented the first time around but is up to speed on the discussion on this project. Commissioner Schmid also noted that he missed the same meeting and have watched the video and been to the site. Community Development Page 9City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anna Felver, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent by Karlene Harvey via e -mail: Hello, on Tuesday, September 6th at 5:00 p.m., I and several other neighbors attended a virtual meeting to review and discuss a proposed single -family project at 912 Linden Avenue. Unfortunately, several other neighbors weren't able to attend due to the 5:00 time, conflicting with their work schedules. We're also unaware, if the absentee owners of 916 Linden Avenue have been notified of the two -story project that will be right next door to them. Anna Felver, the senior planning manager for TJ Homes explained the project and the process for the proposed build. The following are comments and concerns expressed by the neighbors that were present. Scope of the project : 1.) The project is too large and expansive and doesn't fit with the character of most of the surrounding neighborhood Azalea and Larkspur and in particular the 900 block of Linden Avenue. 2.) The 900 block of Linden Avenue was originally designed with 2-1 homes, most have been remodeled to 3-2 and some with ADUs in the back of the property. All those have been remodeled, not rebuilt so all still have only one-car garage. 3.) A one-car garage for four bedrooms and four and a half bath is unacceptable. The attached AU along with the bathroom assigned for every bedroom is more like a multi -unit and is an invitation for an AirBnB or other kind of multi -use business. This floor plan design conceivably would allow from four to eight adults living in the dwelling and possibly four to eight cars parked on the street. Perhaps reducing the number of bathrooms and excluding the ADU or placing the ADU on the back of the lot could be a solution. 4.) Homes in the neighborhood of Azalea Avenue, Larkspur Avenue and Linden Avenue are one-story. In keeping with the character of the neighborhood, remodels in the neighborhood were either pushed out to the front or expanding back into the rear of the property rather than adding a second story which would also raise neighboring privacy concerns of a towering home looking down into their backward . 5.) 1020 Linden Avenue, used as a representative of the neighborhood is a poor example of what exist in the neighborhood. Only two two -story homes exist on the 900 block of Linden Avenue. Each home is on a corner lot with additions limited to over the garages. Regarding parking; 1.) Parking and travel on Linden Avenue is already gravely impacted by the Rollins Road apartments, 7 Eleven and the town home apartment project. 2.) Linden Avenue residents already find it difficult to park on the block and or in front of their homes especially during garbage pickup days. 3.) It's impossible for two cars to travel in opposite directions due to cars parked on both sides of the street. 4.) If project were allowed as is, permitted parking for the 900 block of Linden Avenue would be imperative. The permitted parking wouldn't address the extra cars caused by this large scale project. We hope our concerns will be seriously addressed and that revisions will be made to this project before approval. Please keep us and all other 900 Linden Avenue residents informed as we move through this process. I have cc ’d this e-mail to the neighbors who were available to attend the meeting and to two others who weren't able to attend but have great interests . You can reach out to me at any time. >Public comment sent by Josh: Thank you Kevin, much appreciated. A few neighbors sent similar e-mails before the October 24th meeting and again immediately after that when they were missing, so please look for those as well. I respectfully submit for your consideration the revised 912 Linden Avenue plans do not address the neighborhood ’s primary concerns that the house is too large for this house. It does not blend in. No other full two -story homes on our block or Azalea Avenue or Larkspur Avenue . There are several four -bedroom homes on our street and they are all one -story. We understand and appreciate that developers have a right to purchase and flip a home but they should acknowledge in their letters that they are changing the character of the neighborhood versus fitting into neighborhood context. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 10City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The proposed metal garage doors on this project is not a common door that we like in Burlingame. >I understood the comment about reducing the single hung windows to casements due to egress. I don't know if it helps the house. Consider doing simulated or true divided lites to match the neighborhood . Elevations have different style of windows. >Same question about why there are some casement and some single hung windows. You only need to meet egress with one single window per bedroom. Consider putting single hung windows on the front of the house to improve the design details on the front, along the lines of what my fellow commissioner was suggesting and maybe place the casement windows on the sides of the bedroom. It seems like this house isn't very modern. I see a traditional detailing to the house and as such, I'd like to see some more grids or some more details around the house. It's fairly blank. It looks fine, but there could be some added details to enrich the character of the home. >I'm not in favor of the metal garage door. This is a garage that's just 17 feet from the street so it's not even being hidden in the back. I don't think that's a good idea. I do think that the windows should be looked at again and some attempt to grid or break them up. I did my own house with all casement windows, it had grids and it looked great. So it can be done. It's not a matter of either or. It may not look like a double hung but it certainly looked better than just a plain casement window, so there are ways around that. I'm concerned about the windows that we're calling them out as fiberglass, but I hate to be bait and switch for lousy fiberglass windows. There needs to be more clarity or at least a condition around that if we're going to be going that direction. >I agree that it's a big house for a small neighborhood but not that it's not allowed and not that it's asking for variances, it is actually set away from the neighbor on the left who is also getting ready to build or do a bunch of work. The neighbor on the right actually has a two -story house there as well with big flat walls too. I don't know that it's massively out of scale where each neighbor on either side is a single story and small house, but it is a big house on a smaller neighborhood. I'm not sure if the developer is really thinking that through but that's their choice. They are trying to follow the design review guidelines and with a few updates, it could be a good looking project. >I have some similar comments. I'm not sure what to do on the windows because when you look at the front elevation, you have those three windows that are in the ADU which would appear in a typical house to be a living room. I don't know I would want to see any muntin bars there so you start working around the rest of the windows. I get it on the side. The front elevation works and the perspective drawings or the renderings looked pretty acceptable. I'm in agreement with the garage doors and with the height of the building but it's within the design guidelines and it's not like it's the first two -story house in the neighborhood, so I can't really fault them on trying to do that. I'm not one hundred percent sold that the windows are a problem especially the rendering did look good. >I really appreciate the flipping of the house in order to significantly reduce the trimming on the tree crown. In some neighborhoods, the driveway pattern and everything changes stuff for the worse. In this one with the attached garages, that was a good move and protects the neighbors somewhat from loss of privacy and such. But because it's a big house for this neighborhood, on the window grids, like my two fellow commissioners, I went out looking around that neighborhood, it must be a 40’s house. They didn't necessarily have grids and it might be of interest to have the grids on the top part of the upper window and leave the bottom plain. Overall, it's improved. I do understand the concern about it changing character but it's happening in a lot of neighborhoods. >The exterior light fixture on the front elevation looks like it does not comply. Unless they are intending for a much shielded glass, that's just going to spill light everywhere. I appreciate the picture they have included but the picture would suggest it's a bare light bulb. It's going to shine out, not down. >I could actually approve this project as is. Maybe with the exception of the metal garage door being swapped out. The renderings look good. The house is okay as is. >I just wanted to acknowledge the neighbors' comments and to let them know that we're reviewing the project per the planning guidelines. The floor area ratio, lot coverage, the declining height envelope and building height are all in compliant. A lot of the comments that were made are really not in our purview to make any comment on since everything is compliant. >The light fixture and the garage door are items that need to be changed. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the item and place it on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 11City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1915 Carmelita Avenue - zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Anthony and Gail Mosse, property owners) (93 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1915 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 1915 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 1915 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > It's beautifully done. I love that you've retained the trees, including that palm, it looks elegant with this house. It's unfortunate that there's a very narrow planter strip on Carmelita Avenue all together, these crepe myrtles are very minimalistic and they disappear in the winter. It looks like you're putting them on that back corner but it's a small tree. I would encourage you to think about one more greenly so it's in proportion. It’s a big lot but it's going to be a big house so it would look more set in like framed better. It's a nice job. > I like the project. It looks great and the detailing is good and not really a lot of impact to anybody. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the application on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Recused:Tse1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council reviewed North Rollins Specific Plan at its December 5th meeting. Comments from the Commission and Council will be reflected in the Page 12City of Burlingame December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes next draft, and it is anticipated to have the draft ready for adoption with the environmental review in spring next year. Director Gardiner also reported that the City Council approved funding for a 69 unit affordable housing development at 1875 California Drive. The proposal has been submitted under SB 35, so it's an administrative approval. The City has been collecting housing funds from the various commercial projects, and this is the first project that made a request to provide some funding to help them close what is known as the "funding gap" of just under $1.5 million. The entire project will be affordable to households making less than 50% Area Median Income (AMI). While the Planning Commission will not review the project since it was submitted under SB 35 as a 100% affordable project. a.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - FYI review of Planning Commission requested changes to a previously 21-unit residential condominium project. 556 El Camino Real - Memorandum 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Concerns with the glass specs, and whether there would be irrigation for the landscape block that is used in the driveway. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December 12, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 12, 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 December 22, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 13City of Burlingame