Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.06.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 12, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Assistant Planner Fazia Ali, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - LowenthalAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 22, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 22, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: > Page 6; first bullet under Commission Discussion/Direction: change "It would" to "Though it may not". Acting Vice-Chair Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 9c - 1345 Columbus Avenue and Item 9e - 615 Airport Boulevard have been continued and will not be reviewed this evening. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1528 Bernal 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. (1528 Bernal LLC, applicant and property owner; Chu Design Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1528 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1528 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1528 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused for financial reasons. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1557 Newlands Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling (considered a major renovation) 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. (Form One, applicant and designer; Brian Roche, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1557 Newlands Ave - Staff Report 1557 Newlands Ave - Attachments 1557 Newlands Ave - Renderings 1557 Newlands Ave - Plans 1557 Newlands Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property . Commissioner Shores was recused from this item for business reasons. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Acting Vice-Chair Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse4 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1601 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Page 2City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes plate height 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) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ayesha Sikandar, MA Dimensions Inc ., applicant and architect; Leandron Koo, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1601 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 1601 Hillside Dr - Attachments 1601 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ayesha Sikandar, designer and Leandron Koo, property owner, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Not seeing a substantial reason for the Special Permit request for the second floor plate height. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. >I liked the project the first time this came before us and still like it now. I don ’t have a problem with the plate heights. Building four million dollar homes with 8’-0” ceilings is a problem in my view because you want a little more volume. An 8’-4” ceiling is reasonable. >I disagree. We have the 8’-0” maximum height for a reason. A variance really means there are extenuating circumstances beyond the standard, not just “I want”. I don’t see a need here for it at all. The work that has been done to bring this scale down has improved the house quite a bit. I am quite happy with the direction the project has taken. I am just not in support of the plate height variance. The 8’-0” will work with vaulted and coffered ceilings. It is not like they are using the 8’-0” height, it is just a starting point up there. I don ’t think it compresses the use or anything. I can support the project with an 8’-0” plate height. (Planning Manager Hurin clarified that the request for increased plate height on the second floor is a Special Permit, not a Variance). > I want to compliment the applicant for the revisions to the design. I appreciate the acknowledgement of all our comments and addressing them one by one. It has made a nice improvement to the design of the house. The windows have improved greatly and the sill adjustments make a lot of sense. I do like the adjustment on the Balboa Avenue side. I would agree with a couple of my fellow commissioners that there is plenty of volume in that second story attic, underneath the gables, to provide a sense of height in the upstairs bedrooms that would not necessitate the 8’-4” plate height. If this was a modern design with a flat roof and there was no opportunity to increase the ceiling height, that might be something to discuss. In this case, there seems to be plenty of opportunity to create interest, height, and volume upstairs . Because this is a fairly long facade on Hillside Drive and has two frontages, I am concerned that it is a large structure. The added height to the second floor still makes enough of a difference. I don ’t see a need and to support that Special Permit request. >I was not in the previous meeting but was able to review the minutes and the video. I agree with my fellow commissioners, we ’ve set a precedent of having an 8’-0” plate height on the second floor. When the homes get taller, it does start to encroach on people ’s privacy next door. Four inches may not seem a lot, Page 3City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes but on the Balboa side it appears to be tall. There’s a house, southwest on Drake Avenue and Hillside Drive, that is Tudor architecture. I know it is not the same style, but you need to keep with the consistency of the neighborhood. I can see approving this project, but we need to bring down the plate height. >I like it the first time and I like it even better now; this is a pretty house. I am glad that the applicant moved forward with the changes based on our comments. >The applicant did a nice job with the revisions, but I ’d really like to keep it consistent with what we typically do because there is a reason for these standards. I would also like to compliment the beautiful landscape plan, very nicely done and very easy to understand. Overall, it looks so much nicer than before . I can see approval of the project, but not with the Special Permit for the plate height. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application for Design Review and to deny the application for Special Permit for second floor plate height, with the following added condition: >that the project plans shall be revised to reduce the second floor plate height to 8’-0” in compliance with the R-1 land use regulations set forth in Table 25.10-2. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse5 - Nay:Horan1 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - b.1235 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second story balcony 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Form One, applicant and designer; Daniel Griffin, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Renderings 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider eliminating the single light fixture in the middle of the garage on top of the door and replacing Page 4City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes it with two light fixtures or sconces located on either side of the garage door. >I like the project. I can see it moving forward and approving the project as per staff report. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The two light fixtures are a great suggestion. The brick is charming, I don't see a need to redo that. Please provide an accurate depiction of the garage door at the staff level because the plans and the renderings are not clear of what style is being proposed. Otherwise, it is a very nice approach to expanding this home and in line with the existing style. I can see approving this project per the conditions of the staff report. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added conditions: >that the plans submitted for a building permit shall include exterior light fixtures on either side of the vehicle garage door; the design of the exterior light fixtures shall comply with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.31.100 (Outdoor Lighting and Illumination); these exterior light fixtures shall be installed prior to the final inspection. >that the plans submitted for a building permit shall include an accurate depiction of the vehicle garage door, including glass panels on the top row of the door. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - c.1345 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height, declining height envelope, 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) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Insite Design Inc., applicant and designer; Rudolf Thun and Sonali Arurkar, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao This item was continued at the request of the applicant. d.128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R -4 Incentive Overlay - Application for Amendment to Design Review and Waivers/Modifications for changes to a previously approved 19-unit residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Louisa Zee Kao /Murphy Wood, Inc., applicant and property owner; Richard Aiken, WHA, architect) (233 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 128 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 128 Lorton Ave - Attachments 128 Lorton Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Richard Aiken, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: Page 5City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public Comment sent via email by Robert Barnes: I write to express my concerns regarding the project site at 128 Lorton Avenue, zoned R -4. I reside on Bayswater Avenue and have observed a dearth of available street parking over the decades. Despite the construction and completion of the five -story parking structure traversing Highland Avenue and Lorton Avenue, individuals vie for street parking daily . Why? Motorists don’t want to pay the money required for a parking space in the parking structure on Highland Avenue and Bayswater Avenue, there are no parking meters and no out -of-pocket cost. It is so bad that individuals ignore the law and park in the red zones for hours and sometimes days. Some park on the sidewalks. I have called Burlingame Police on several occasions. Yesterday, my neighbor called the Burlingame Police to report a car illegally parked in the red zone. The meter person arrived, and a gentleman from the automotive shop ran up the street to his unlawfully parked car. Words were exchanged, they parted ways, and the vehicle remained unlawfully parked for several more hours before moving. Several months ago, the City was on the right track when parking meters were placed halfway up the west side of Highland Avenue between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. However, several months later, the heads of these meters were lopped off, leaving open -holed posts, a potential danger . What happened there? With the addition of a new condominium complex at Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road, another on the way on Park Road, and the replacement of Burlingame ’s historic, quaint post office with the new giant edifice, the strain on the parking availability will worsen in this two -block area. Now the City wants to increase the number of units at 128 Lorton Avenue, yikes. Over the past decade, the City of Burlingame has compromised its values. The City has disregarded its residents' quality of life for its desire for money. The town's burgeoning towers of condominiums and office buildings have created gridlock on the city streets, noise pollution, and increased garbage in the community. The City Council should look around and walkthrough the area at the new parking garage. New benches were installed along with lovely landscaping. Now that area is littered with cigarette butts, a toxic substance. Did anyone not consider installing a cigarette butt receptacle? Why does Burlingame continue to build these large buildings when existing vacancies exist? Case in point: Stanford abandoned leasing the new building at 217 Highland Avenue. Why? Not enough parking. Today when I walked by that building it remains vacant. I hope those making decisions for us residents cogitate a bit more before prematurely approving the uncontrolled growth of Burlingame. Otherwise, I fear gone are the days of Burlingame ’s small-town feel. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I don’t think we are seeing a substantial change in the building itself. The additional height requests are substantiated with good reasons. I agree that having the access with the elevator and stairs going up to the roof will make the maintenance a lot better. I don ’t think it changes the scale or mass of the project. All these changes are reasonable, especially given the fact that this project has sat almost two years now. >The parapet height makes sense for safety and screen the rooftop equipment. The stair tower makes sense for accessibility. The tall elevator towers, for occasional use, I ’m not sure are worth it. Ten feet is a significant increase in height and it will be seen. Economically, I don ’t know why that is justified by a developer than just having an arm installed at the side of the building. They can build the entire building with the utility lines, so I don ’t think that was a strong justification. The height due to the floor -to-floor truss system, I am not sure that is our problem. They have 9’-0” ceiling heights in this building. We just earlier in the meeting did not approve an 8’-4” ceiling height. If the truss increases by 0'-7”, take it out of the ceiling height and make it 8’-6”. >I agree with my colleague. I think the height request is too much. I never liked the stacked stone in the first place, but it was approved. Now we got even more stacked stone, I think it will just look ridiculous. For that reason, I am having a hard time with this one as well. >Initially, I felt that there was a lot of height being asked. I understand how pragmatically it has turned into this approach with further engineering and all of that, so I can see how it has come about. The renderings are viewed from some distance away from the building. Lorton Avenue is a tight street, I feel Page 6City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that I am not going to get a sense of seeing what is being built and the additional height as requested. I don’t think one can see and feel it from the street level. So, when I evaluate it from that perspective and as some of these revisions were the result of detailed engineering design and code related issues, I feel I can support the request when I initially felt it was too much to ask for. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Schmid, Shores, and Tse4 - Nay:Horan, and Pfaff2 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - e.615 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application to renew a Conditional Use Permit for an existing airport parking use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Anza Parking Corp./NZP Group LLC, applicant; AnzaCo LLC and State of California, property owner) (9 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin This item was continued for further review by Planning Division staff. f.620 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for two, new 9-story office/research and development buildings. (Boca Lake Office, applicant and property owner; DGA, Inc, architect) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1. Application for Commercial Design Review and Special Permits for Building Heights and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits. 2. Environmental Review - Proposed Finding: The project does not require further review under CEQA pursuant to the streamlining provisions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Consistency with the General Plan). 620 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 620 Airport Blvd - Attachments 620 Airport Blvd - CEQA (Appendices: www.burlingame.org/620airport) 620 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Acting Vice -Chair Horan and Commissioners Shores and Comaroto noted that they met with the owner ’s representatives on site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jeremy Lui and Gary Leivers represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Anthony Montes: I am writing to share a comment with the Burlingame Planning Commission in support of the proposed development on 620 Airport Boulevard. I'm a community organizer working with residents and employees in North San Mateo County to create safer, Page 7City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes healthier, and more just communities by making bicycling safe and accessible for everyone. Vassar's proposed development of two life science facilities would have a positive impact on the current condition of the Bay Trail and we would welcome the proposed improvements the plan outlines. The Bay trail is one of the most popular Class 1 shared-use trails in the area and our supporters and their communities would greatly benefit from its improvement. We were specifically impressed with the inclusion of sea -wall reinforcements, place making amenities that invite trail users to rest, improvements to the trail, and the addition of bicycle parking inside of the facility. Our only concern with the development is the estimated 860 vehicle parking spots in the parking garage, which will encourage employees to drive to work creating additional congestion and carbon emissions. However, we are happy to hear the developer has committed itself to traffic demand management measures that have reduced the minimum parking requirement by 20 percent. We hope the City of Burlingame and its Planning Commission works together in the future to remove parking minimums and avoid spending additional resources, dollars, and time on including parking in future development agreements. Thank you for your time and consideration. >Public comment sent via email by Athan Rebellos: I want to let you know how excited I am for improvements along the area around the Bay Trail. However, I hope we can have a substantial public art installation in the plaza, and there will be a meaningful ground-floor restaurant and/or entertainment space. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >That was a great presentation. Recognizing that not all the programming has been done on the ground floor public space, there are a lot of businesses that are being relocated or not relocated because of the many larger developments leaving some of the restaurants and other businesses without places to go in that same area. Currently, there are not enough restaurants in that stretch. I encourage large developments in this area to really engage that square footage and not just build another gym or a tenant-only space, because we will not get the public to visit that area. It is great that we are getting the office space. You are giving tremendous benefits to the public. All the work that you are doing around the Bay Trail and to make that site better is phenomenal. But this one piece is a hard one when we don ’t have a lot of commercial spaces being developed in the area. I encourage you to look harder, bigger, and bolder at that space. 2,500 square feet is a Starbucks; it is not that big of an addition to try and get more involvement of the public. There are other businesses that can use 5,000 to 10,000 square foot restaurants and can benefit from a big building like that in an area that would be more business focused . I know it is early in the programming process now, but if you don ’t build in the space nobody will approach you and say, “I want to be there.” Make sure you have a plan for how the transitions occur at the end points of the Bay Trail between your property and the neighboring sites. Otherwise, I am encouraged by this project. It is a great looking project. You really paid attention to the challenges others had before us lately and are adapting. >It is a great project, really nice design. Would encourage you to provide more public parking spaces so more people can enjoy all the amenities you are putting in. I echo my fellow commissioner ’s comment regarding restaurants. It seems like a missed opportunity that you are cutting a lot of dirt from the site and dumping it elsewhere instead of adding 4’-0” to the Bay Trail. Other than that, the project is great. >I do want to echo my fellow commissioners’ comments about the restaurant space. As much as a landmark this project is setting itself up to be, is the same opportunity for other operations to grow, not just offices but restaurants too. Once the landscaping comes in, you might have more demand that what you might have anticipated at this location because of how much the environment will improve through this project. I recommend considering what is reasonable and what you can do to minimize the down time in completing the Bay Trail. Eighteen months might be too long, and the public can potentially forget that this is even part of the Bayshore. Currently, there is pedestrian traffic, please do everything to minimize that disruption. I’d like to see more thought on how pedestrians from the shuttle access Building A because the reduced parking requirements stemmed from the existence of the shuttle. Overall, the project looks wonderful. When the landscaping comes in, you will forget where you are entirely. This will be a place where people will go take wedding pictures and such. I am really looking forward to it. Page 8City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I appreciate the incredible attention you paid to the detailed design of this property and project. I can ’t wait to see it built. Hoping that the renderings will look like reality. It would be nice to have another establishment like Kincaid ’s to be in that location for a couple of restaurant opportunities for the public and tenants to utilize because it is scenic, the landscaping is beautiful, and the Bay Trail will be so well utilized. Encourage you to provide additional public parking spaces both on the weekdays and the weekends. Hopefully all your tenant parking spaces are met in the buildings so all these outdoor spaces can be dedicated to the public who come here to enjoy this space as a destination. Nice detail work. I like the detail choices on the buildings and the thoughtfulness in the design, especially bird protection. I like the relationship of the buildings to the existing neighboring hotel. It would be nice to see that hotel be updated in time to complement your beautiful buildings. >I would echo my fellow commissioners. You have done an exceptional job on this project. I also echo the request for additional parking spaces for the public because more people will go out there if it is available for them if there is no parking they will just leave. I also echo the sentiments regarding the restaurants. I know we have several restaurants in town that would like to be over at the bay side, but we can’t find spaces for them. Please consider making that space much bigger if you can. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. You have done a very beautiful job. Thank you for the great presentation. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following amendment to Condition 20 (b): (b) maintain improvements along the shoreline to accommodate the full elevation of required shoreline infrastructure improvements consistent with a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan approved by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1548 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Mark Bucciarelli, AIA, applicant and architect; Ken Chan and Joyce Wong /CHW Garner LLC, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1548 Cypress Ave - Staff Report 1548 Cypress Ave - Attachments 1548 Cypress Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500’ of this property. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item for business reasons. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Mark Bucciarelli, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Amy Tang, 1552 Cypress Avenue: I am very excited to hear the pending improvement project at 1548 Cypress Avenue. As the next door neighbor, I am particularly happy Page 9City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to live in a nice community. However, I do have a concern regarding the big pine tree in the front yard of the property. Over the past 10 years, the tree roots have overgrown to my property and they damaged the water pipes in two different locations in my front yard. I incurred a financial loss of $2,000 because of the tree. In addition, the tree branches interfere with the overhead power lines. I am scared during the high-wind weather because should the branch fall and break the power line, it would cause fire and property damage, both mine and the property owners. Therefore, I request the tree to be cut for the sake of the safety and protection of our properties. Thank you very much for hearing and considering my comments. >Kevin Haas, 1544 Cypress Avenue: I share the thoughts of being excited that this property is being worked on and looking forward to the improvements on this lot. I do have a couple of questions or clarifications. Looking through the plans, it was indicated that they are retaining the existing garage. Living close to the property, that is a structurally compromised garage, it has a roof that is caving in. I just want to make sure that it is included in the project. The landscape plan notes that many trees are being removed. What are the plans to replace those to preserve the privacy for adjoining neighbors? What plans are being made to address that? I share the comments by some of the commissioners about the overall impression of the structure, the large unbroken stucco walls and how that may be better addressed . Hoping to get clarifications tonight about the scope of the project pertaining to the trees and garage. >Amy Tang: I am the next -door neighbor. I am also doing an ADU. I do understand cutting a tree will be a lot of cost than hassle. We are supposed to preserve the trees, but the tree is really causing damages to my property. On the picture that was just presented, it is not a complete representation of the tree because the branches are hanging low. If they are doing a second story in the front, same as what we are doing in our property, the tree will interfere with the building as well. I am worried about the foundation being compromised by the tree roots. I really hope that they can address the issue. (Chair Pfaff: There is a process through the Parks Division that you might want to go through, but as much as possible, we would like to preserve trees.) (Spansail: I recommend you contact the Parks Division since the Planning Commission does not have any purview regarding the safety of existing city trees.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Revisit the use of 12” x 12” porcelain tiles at the front step. Consider using a bigger tile or natural stone for a better directional transition. >Consider using a base material around the house. It is a lot of stucco from ground up. To continue what my fellow commissioner said regarding the materials in the front, it is important to have that figured out. A 3/8” tile lap joint on the front is not a good solution. To use an interior nosing at the exterior stair will be equally horrible. I don ’t see a great way to lap a ceramic or thinner stone. If you are proposing a thicker stone then that lap joint will be fine, it will be more exterior appropriate. Provide more details in that area so we can understand it and know how it will be executed properly. >Struggling with the scale of the overhangs, it is very minimal. With a substantial overhang, it will give the house a little bit more of a top and a base material will give it a bottom to make it look complete . Right now, it is just stucco and a stick-on trim at the eaves. More needs to be done in that aspect. >The front porch is flat, consider another design. >Consider trimming the existing Fir tree to help with the neighbor’s privacy concerns. >Going back to the porcelain tile comments on the front stoop, we have seen in past projects the application of porcelain tiles and the use of Schluter as finishing edge, which is an interior application and is not suitable for an exterior application. I have used porcelain tiles outside and with a good tile -setter you can get a mitered edge to create a thick nosing that will look very nice. That is why it is recommended that you provide us with details on how you are planning to address the installation of that material. The 12” x 12” format is not appropriate as one that will look like stone cladding. >I am unsure how to move forward because there are a number of issues that have been brought up in terms of aesthetics, inconsistency of details, windows, the use of a sliding window on the front porch, and Page 10City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the use of obscured windows facing the street. On the rear elevation, it is odd to have a 3-part door considering the steps and landing, the crawl space door needs to be relocated to extend the landing . There are enough of these little things around the house that I wonder if this is a good candidate for a design review consultant. >I agree. To move the project forward more expeditiously, the design review consultant could help pick up on these things that are important to use and the community and will integrate them faster than the commission giving a ton of feedback, than having to go to the next meeting not sure if they were going to be implemented. The scale is not working, the materials are not explicit enough, the eaves, and looking at the landscape and how they integrate. The tree in the front is doing no good for this piece of property. I would encourage a solution that looks harder at planting street trees in front and work with Parks Division to remove the big tree that seems like a nuisance to several properties there and not necessarily adding the beauty that some of the other big trees that we try to protect. There are enough things that need to be integrated before we get to a good solution and the design review consultant is the right way for them to go. >I completely agree except for the tree part. There seem to be a couple of blank spots there in front for street trees. It would be a great opportunity to use a design review consultant to move this project along. >I appreciate the effort to renovate the existing house as opposed to tearing it down. The existing front porch is working, I kind of like it. I know this is not within our purview, but a 3’-3” wide entry hall at the base of the stairs needs to be looked at. >What we are lacking is a cohesive design direction around some of these elements that we are talking about: the roof, windows, and materials. That happens with remodels when you are trying hard to preserve the existing and help the client take advantage of the things that are still there. Right now, it is hard to get a feeling that it is going to be a complete project. We need that help from the design review consultant to tie that together and give some detailing feedback to make all those things work together. >I agree. The design review consultant can assist with bringing all of our various comments to cohesively put together a nice design. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse4 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - b.1116 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. (Yexiong Feng and Qin Feng, applicants and property owners; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1116 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1116 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1116 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: Page 11City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by Mako and Michelle Hayashi, 1120 Bernal Avenue: We own the home directly adjacent to 1116 Bernal Avenue on the north side. We have concerns about the proposed design for the property. We have a one -story home. On the south side of our home which faces 1116 Bernal Avenue, we have our front door, a large bi -fold glass door, skylights, living room windows, family room windows and bedroom windows. We believe the approximately 27 proposed windows on the side facing and overlooking our home are too numerous and intrude on our privacy. It also appears the proposed design includes a semicircular driveway that is a severe safety hazard. Two cars on the two different properties cannot enter /exit the respective properties at the same time. Put another way, vehicles exiting or entering the driveway on the north end can collide with vehicles entering or exiting our driveway because their driveway is angled towards our driveway. This is an existing hazard created by the prior homeowners and there have been many near misses. This hazard must be remedied, but the proposed design ignores the safety issue and perpetuates the problem. We have raised these concerns directly with the Feng family and we were hoping that they would have been addressed prior to the public hearing tonight. (Geurse: The semicircular driveway was removed because Public Works did not allow us to retain that. It is now a walkway. Regarding any windows facing the neighbors, we have installed a variety of Cypress trees on the left and right sides to correspond with the existing Cypress trees.) >Yexiong and Qin Feng: Thank you for reviewing our project. We are really looking forward in building our dream home here. >Michelle Yang: Thank you for clarifying the driveway and windows. For the Cypress trees, do we know if those are invasive? The reason why I ’ve asked is because several years ago we had to take down our whole entire house because roots had gone into our foundation and made cracks all over our house. We just want to make sure that does not happen again. (Geurse: There is a very wide planting strip along the side of the property. Your house seems fairly far away from the side property line. I don ’t believe there will be issues at all with the tree roots.) Last time, the trees were in the easement and grew many feet into our foundation and we would like to avoid that situation again. I don ’t know enough about Cypress trees to know whether or not they are invasive that ’s why we want to raise the issue. (Geurse: As far as we know, Cypress tree roots grow downward. I have them in my residence and close to my home. With regards to the footing, I have not encountered any uprooting of concrete. But again, we can talk about that and look at what type of species that work best for you and our client. We have no issues about that.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is a beautiful design with really nice floor plans. The left side of the house looks too regular in comparison to the other sides. It looks almost like a dormitory. I appreciate the alignment of the windows, I know that is something we ask for often, but this one look almost too regular. All windows are narrow, tall and on top of each other. Especially that the neighbor to the left has a one -story building, they are going to get a big view of that elevation. Consider varying the alignment of the windows to improve that side. The other sides all look great. >I sort of agree, yet looking at the floor plan, I totally see the rationale behind it. Since you have larger windows facing out to the neighbors on each end, consider having a higher window sill on that side just to get the light come in and not stare at the neighbors. You are still getting the windows but have gotten rid of the privacy challenges. It might be an opportunity to help mitigate that left side. >At first, I was concerned about having the attached garage. But there are several examples of newer construction on that area, not particularly on this street, but they are on Drake Avenue and Cortez Avenue. It is not common for this street, but the neighborhood could suggest having an attached garage. I really like the design. You get a bigger backyard and a play space. I like the design enough that I can see approving the attached garage for this particular project. >It is a good-looking design. I can probably approve it with the attached garage, but personally do not like attached garages. I’ve seen them work on smaller homes. This is a very large home with an attached garage. It doesn’t feel neighborly to me, it is just like a wall of house. The existing house is quirky, but I Page 12City of Burlingame June 12, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes like it. It doesn’t appear as big because of the wide side yard. This house appears like a wall of house form setback to setback. I don ’t think saving the Cypress tree at the front is neighborly, it is creating a wall between the sidewalk and the house. Those are the trees that I would take down and make the landscape more friendly and considerate to the people who walk past the house. It is a maxed -out house. It is two inches short of the 30’-0” maximum height and exactly 3,982 square feet. My concern is it will appear overwhelming even though it is an oversized property. That is why I think the detached garage will make the main house not look as big. >I agree with my fellow commissioner regarding the Cypress trees at the front, they don ’t look so friendly. It is a big house and needs some meaningful landscape. I noticed that the main plant seems to be a Japanese boxwood and a smoke tree. They are alternating, but the smoke tree can get long, lanky, and ugly. It is a mismatch. Consider looking at having something substantial in the front. In the backyard, I totally get having such a large yard, but the ginkgo trees are placed too close to the fence. I suggest moving them away in deference to the neighbor because, even though they are great, they also make a mess. Otherwise, I like it. I do understand the issue about the garage. It is a pretty house and you did a good job. >I like the project a lot. In listening to my fellow commissioners, I think the house holds well, but it is a big house. As what my fellow commissioner brought up, there are some opportunities at the landscaping to give it a layering effect as opposed to getting the big elevation. Once you get the landscape layering, then the elevation would come down. The two houses on the right side are big homes, but their landscaping helped. There are some things that you can put in to help mitigate that. Otherwise, I find the project very good and support it.. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Tse reported that several commissioners attended the Planning Commissioner training workshop on May 31st. Community Development Director Gardiner noted that there is an additional training workshop scheduled in the Fall. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Memorandum 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commission expressed concerns with the change in roofing material and exterior siding materials. Noted that renderings should be provided to help better understand what changes are being proposed and how those will look on the house. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Page 13City of Burlingame