Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.07.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, July 10, 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, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tse arrived at 7:05 pm. Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chair Lowenthal noted that he was not present at the June 26, 2023 meeting, but has read the meeting minutes and feels comfortable participating in the vote. a.Draft June 26, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 26, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 10b - 5 Rio Court has 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. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 1City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1588 Columbus Avenue, 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) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Vincent Ko, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1588 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1588 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1588 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: This item was pulled off the Consent Calendar for further discussion at the request of a member of the public. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Sam Williams, 2301 Valdivia Way: I, with my wife, Kara Williams, own the adjoining property. First, I want to thank this commission for letting us know about this improvement that's planned. Kevin, thank you for sending us the note. We live in a wonderful neighborhood, and I ’m really proud of the investment that our neighbors have put into their properties. We're excited to see our neighbors continue to invest in their properties. On the face of it, I don't have any major concerns with what the co -property is planning . One thing that was not so clear in the plans as drawn was that the slope that's at the back of the property runs down into Mills Creek. This is actually quite a steep slope. They're planning on putting the back of their property within 15 feet where this drops off about 30 feet down into an active waterway. This waterway along Mills Creek in the summer doesn't carry all that much water. In the winter, it picks up a considerable amount of water. We've noticed that there have been landslides along its length, which have threatened a number of the properties. So, what we want to ensure is that this is in the record. This is being built right next to an active waterway. We also want to ensure that appropriate engineering considerations are built in to mitigate any kind of landslide risks that might be incurred by building in this way. We also want to ensure that water that comes out of the property, and I ’ll point out that in their plans, they have said that's going to the street side, in no event go into the stream or into any kind of drainage ditch that abuts the stream bed because that would definitely contribute to the risk of slippage. Again, we're very happy to see our neighbors developing their land. We just want to make sure that everything is developed in a responsible way to ensure that we don't damage the waterways that we all enjoy. Thank you. >Chu: The Public Works Division did request that we show the top of the bank and that we must stay out of it. That's what we did. The foundation will match the existing, it is 15 feet away but the area that we're building is mostly flat. That's been there for a long time. It's only a single story that's 15 feet away from the property line. We will address the comment with regards to drainage, engineering, and foundation when we're ready to submit for a building permit. >Sam Williams, 2301 Valdivia Way: I will point out that the abutting property does appear to be trying to mitigate some slippage that's occurring on the slope that's right nearby. I really do think that you need to take that seriously. Building a standard foundation in that space is putting the stream bed at risk. It's putting your property at risk. I’d really like that to be entered into the record so that if there is future damage that's caused to the stream bed, that is acknowledged before this project begins. Thank you very much. Page 2City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Hurin: Those issues are going to be reviewed by the Public Works Division and the Building Division to make sure that the correct type of foundation is used in this case, and that the drainage is properly handled as well. It's not really under the purview of the Planning Commission. It will be taken care of during the building permit review process. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I just wanted to thank the applicant for addressing our comments. The enhancements are beautiful aesthetically to coordinate with the already beautiful design of the home. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.615 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Review of 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 615 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 615 Airport Blvd - Attachments 615 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - c.Adoption of Resolution Granting Community Development Director Authority to Make Minor Amendments to Conditions of Approval on Large Development Projects. Staff Contact: Scott Spansail Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.814 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first story plate height and attached garage for a first floor 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. (Joe Sabel, applicant and designer; Keith Brasel and Marylin Chan, property Page 3City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 814 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 814 Paloma Ave - Attachments 814 Paloma 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. Joe Sable, 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: >Please correct drafting errors on the roof plan to show the cricket over the rear addition on the front and rear elevations. >I appreciate the change in the roof form. It did make a big difference for the back; it simplifies things . It did exactly what we hoped it would do. So, thank you for that. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.1344 Cortez 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. (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Otto Miller, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1344 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1344 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1344 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Yossi Singer, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Page 4City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the changes made, especially about the depth of the front porch. The additional details have enhanced the project. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I appreciate the depth of the front porch. It looks like a richer project; it has a lot more visual interest. Also appreciate the work done on the landscape plan. >It has gotten better but still is largely flat to me. Comparing this project to other modern Tudor homes on the internet, they have overhangs and depth to them while this one seems very flat. The additional trims have improved the project from the last time, but I ’m trying to see better modern interpretations. Driving around town, we see a lot of them that are just flat. There is a modern farmhouse in the Mills Estate subdivision where they have done a nice job on the trims and depth. It looked really nice. I would like to encourage that modern doesn't mean to get rid of everything. It means to think about it differently and continue to work on the depth of the architecture and not just strip it down to be cheaper. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but that's how it comes off. We get windows without any grids, trims, or belly bands, and then it just becomes stucco. That's not really what we're trying to achieve in an interpretation of a real Tudor, being it has a lot of trims and richness to it as a design type. I encourage you to keep working on it. There are some things that you could do to improve it before you finish up. >I’m struggling a little bit because I do appreciate the simplicity of a modern Tudor style, but I also appreciate what my fellow commissioner has just shared. The fascia over the front porch is painted metal and I should have clarified if the belly band is wood or some type of trim material. I’m concerned about how those transition from one plane to another. It reads as one element on the elevations and in the rendering, but the textural and material difference and how they may react to the natural environment may be different. Looking for a solution, I feel that the flat roof over the front porch wants to be something a little bit more traditional rather than just a flat roof. >You brought up some nice examples of other Tudor homes, but some of those have divided lite windows and it gives that feeling of those leaded windows that give it some depth. Maybe it could just be the windows that need to be looked at again because it's not giving it the detail and that it needs. I don't mind the flat roof. It's just missing some detail and needs a little bit more. > I agree with my fellow commissioner. Also, the pictures presented of other modern Tudor homes all had textured roofs. They had shingle roofs, not metal flat roofs. I don't think you'd find a metal flat roof in the English countryside, unless they're going for a country farmhouse as opposed to a modern Tudor . Suggests looking at the material of the main roof and potentially adding grids to the windows in some fashion to add some depth. You don't have to overlay it with a lot of trims or corbels. I agree with the comments about the depth. >Thank you for sharing those examples of modern Tudor. As I ’m studying the front elevation, where I am struggling with is that kind of pure classicism on the right -hand side of the home and then the left side becoming a departure from that. I recognize and appreciate the modernity that you're bringing in. Consider the arrangement of the windows over the ones below to have some type of symmetry and balance. It may help to project more of that classicism on the left side of the house. The flat roof could work. It's just a balancing of these classic arrangements that you carried out very well on the right side of the front elevation. The right elevation with the cantilevered component that pops out has some nice balance to that elevation. The left front side looks like it needs a little bit of attention. >I’m a bit torn because I appreciate it's an improvement of last time. What worries me a little is the really smooth stucco. You probably have good craftspeople doing it, but often it's not done very well, so it really shows every single little flaw. If it's so pared down, there's not a lot of distractions besides that stucco and there's no roof overhang. >I’m not so worried about the stucco because they have new materials out there. If you look at some of the newer construction, the smooth stucco material they use now is pretty and it stands up well with time . The old bumpy stucco tends to crack a lot. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Page 5City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nay:Horan1 - c.1116 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Yexiong Feng and Qin Feng, applicants and property owners; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (69 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. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Mako and Michelle Hayashi, 1120 Bernal Avenue: As mentioned in our June 26th email, we are concerned that the proposed design for 1116 Bernal Avenue intrudes on our privacy. The proposed solution has been to plant some Cypress trees between our homes. This isn't an acceptable solution. A row of enormous trees towering over our home would cast a shadow on our driveway, our house, and into our home and could block the sunlight powering our solar panels. In fact, the prior homeowners planted Cypress trees along the front portion of the property. You can see the shadows that the trees are casting on our property. We're also concerned about the root damage. As we mentioned at the last hearing, we had to bring our house down to fix the foundation because the roots of the trees grew through the driveway and into our house, damaging our foundation and plumbing. We ask that the homeowners find other ways to bring light into the home rather than installing numerous windows overlooking our one-story home rather than planting large trees. We have exchanged a few emails with the architect but have not yet been able to resolve this issue. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like this design, I liked it before. The changes made are good and they add value to it. This is in an area where houses and setbacks are close. I’m sorry that you're going to get a second story house next to you, but that's pretty much what's happening in every neighborhood right now. They've kept within their envelope the way they're supposed to. I would like to see this project get approved. >I agree with my fellow commissioner's comments. I also wanted to add that those side facing windows all seem to be fairly small. They're all in private spaces like bathrooms and bedrooms, probably not a big public space with a large window where a group of people would be looking out. In terms of assuring the neighbor some privacy, I doubt that there'll be a lot of people standing at the windows looking that way often. I too appreciate the changes to the windows, especially on that one elevation so that it looks a little bit less apartment-like and more like a residence. A very beautiful design. >I also appreciate the changes and the variation on the windows and the double doors instead of one big door on the garage. The house is set back fairly far. Looking at the house from the street side, there's a driveway in between that belongs to the home on the left. Then there's six or seven -foot setback Page 6City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and then the house. So, that's more than a lot of us have between homes, which is generous spacing . They've really done a nice job. The effort with the landscaping will be worth it. I sure wouldn't go treeless on there. If they're planted right, the roots shouldn't be a problem. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - d.1431 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to previously approved 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. (Johnny Wu, applicant; Jack Xie, property owner; Han Li, Design Studio Han, designer) (131 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1431 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1431 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1431 Capuchino 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. Johnny (last name not provide) and Yao Yang 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: >Most of the changes seem fine. At least the overall look of the house looks pretty good and the work done is fine. However I do have concerns regarding the windows. Changing out the grid and making that decision is actually a big deal. That is something you should have come back and asked permission to do, because I’m not inclined to approve this without the grids. There must be a solution to make that happen. It does take away from some of the detail that we look for in the houses in this neighborhood . The fact that you chose not to do it, even though that's something we have approved, I ’m not likely wanting to let go of. The other changes and the sizes, those things happen. We do get that supply chain has made things difficult. But the grids, not so much. The fact that you got windows meant that you could get windows and the grids would have been available too. I can support the other changes, but I can't support the change without the grids on the windows. >We've had other projects that have come before us. An example is one on Benito Avenue where the house didn't look so bad without the grids. Something that helped me determine if grids were needed was that the applicant came back with some of the potential applications of what a grid would look like, because you can glue on a grid and see how that would look. I would need to see what that physically looks like to decide if it looks worse or better than what is actually there. But I agree with my fellow commissioner, the windows are a big deal. The front door is a big deal. I don't particularly like the front door. I like the door that was originally designed for the project. I can see letting go of the other items that have come before us. But I ’d like to see what the grids will actually look like on that window before I can Page 7City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes make a determination. >One thing that I noticed looking at the house is that the batten on the walls are proud of the trim around the windows, so there's a strange shadow effect that's happening as you look at the windows . Ideally, you would have the trim be proud of the batten. It's a nice cleaner detail because you're capping everything off. Instead, now it looks like the trim is set back and then the battens are applied afterwards . That is how you would build this traditionally. It wasn't detailed out on the original design. That bothers me more than even the grids on the windows. >Like what my fellow commissioner said, we've seen other projects that have come back to us and we've explored options to add grids back in the end. At least in that particular case, it seemed like it was a lot of effort for really not much improvement. I’m not a fan of taped-on/glued-on grids as well. Not to say that you have an excuse to not include them. It is something to address here and the other commissioners have their thoughts as well. With the way the windows are now, I feel that at least a front door style also works. But the fact that the windows have no grids, unfortunately, you've taken all the charm out of the design of the house. Some of that trim detail around the windows seem like a workmanship issue. It just doesn't seem like the house is done well, not built of quality. That's something that I would suggest you look at. The fact that they're painted gray makes them recede and that almost exacerbates the problem. They're gray against the white battens and it's not a nice solution. One thing that can still be done is the trim detail over the original open cross beams at the front porch. You could still apply them as a trim detail on the face of your soffit. Right now, you've carried out the board and batten detail again. It's just too much of that look. There's no variety and not a lot of charm. Consider things to add some more design detail back into the house that's been stripped in the process of construction. The width of the trim is fine. I was just calling out that if you look at it, all the batten is proud of the trim and it's not a normal construction detail. That's not one we would typically challenge even when we review a project with this style because that's just not the way it would be built. It's very noticeable and the fact that they're painted gray really does exaggerate it too. > I agree with my fellow commissioners. The front porch roof bothers me as well. The truss was a nice detail and the charm point. The new one is very basic looking. I also find an issue with the change to the front roof truss. >I agree with my fellow commissioners that the windows are a very noticeable change. I’m glad that you brought up the different gable end inside the porch because that's a very important feature to the front of the house. I understand the issue with birds, but there's a solution here that either solves the bird issues or adds more detail back to that part of the home. It's right in the center over where everyone enters the home. Those are the two standouts. Everything else, I definitely respect. >I really liked the closed eaves; it looked cool. I don't see any reason why you can't add in the detail that was there before; that would be nice. >What's bothering me almost more than the grids is the different levels. I also noticed the depth that my fellow commissioners brought up about the molding. Where the brick molding goes around is where you would be starting your stonework, the trim usually goes and finishes off the two sides at the brick molding. Something is not looking quite right. >Not sure if the color on the chimney is necessarily a good choice. It is not complimentary of the rest of the house. It stood out for me as not necessarily a subtle change. It was abrupt. >Mainly for me, it's the windows looking taller than the door. I don't know if there's anything that can be retrofitted after the fact to make the door. Maybe a clear story or something to make it higher. It just feels like it's not prominent enough because it's been squished down. Suggest that the applicant look at what a glass front door would possibly look like. I don't know if that would make it look too glassy with the windows and everything else, but something's missing on that front door. It may need a clear story . Something needs to happen there so that it fits in line with the other windows on either side. Currently, it's just a little off. >It's not in our purview to talk about color, you're allowed to choose whatever color you like. But when my fellow commissioner brought up the stone cladding on the fire chimney, I think that the wainscoting material is better utilized on an interior application such as a fireplace, interior fireplace surround, tile in the bathroom, things like that. The scale of it is really small. What we see on your cover sheet is the originally proposed ledger stone veneer, which is an exterior type of ledger stone. I would highly recommend that you consider a larger scale stone to clad the wainscoting around the house, to ground the Page 8City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes house and not continue with that really small, fine mosaic tile that is on the chimney. I'm not necessarily saying you need to replace what's on the chimney, but just think carefully about what's going on. The wainscoting should match more of what's been approved. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - e.123-135 Primrose Road, zoned HMU - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for height, and Lot Combination for a new four -story, 14-unit multi-unit residential apartment 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). (Abha Nehru, Carrasco and Associates, applicant and architect; Albert and Theresa Wong, property owners) (150 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 123-135 Primrose Rd - Staff Report 123-135 Primrose Rd - Attachments 123-135 Primrose Rd - CEQA Memorandum 123-135 Primrose Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting-Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Abha Nehru, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email (name not provided): I'd like to suggest that more attention be paid to creating interest along the 100-foot-long linear frontage on Primrose Road. As presented, the building lacks articulation at street level that could help to distinguish it as the nice residential structure that it wants to be. At over 500 square feet, the mailbox room /lobby seems quite large, while the exterior landscaping outside the windows and front entrance is non -existent given the lack of setback. Would it be possible to devote some of that large interior mailroom area to instead create some landscaped space setback from the sidewalk? I think this could help significantly to embellish the street level experience of this building while also creating a more welcoming entrance for the residents. Thank you for your consideration. Acting-Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I would like to make one clarification. The adjacent property to the left of the site is not an apartment, but a condominium complex. >I would like to piggyback on the public comment submitted. I agree that the fact that the building is right on the property line and does not have any softness at the ground level is a valid comment. I don't disagree that there's the somewhat unplanned space there. Something that creates a more indoor /outdoor level would give some depth to it at the ground level and helps what is a good -sized building right on the property. >We're missing an opportunity on that ground level. This is a high traffic area with St. Catherine’s there and a lot of parents coming in and out. They're not giving any commercial space, and I ’m not sure if we Page 9City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes need to have a commercial space. Consider providing a small area for coffee or where parents can meet there. It's a missed opportunity that I really would like to see developed. There's a lot of traffic on the street. I walk by this site every single day, two or three times a day because I live on Cypress Avenue. A lot of people from San Mateo Park walk down this way. This is kind of our cut through to downtown . Suggests using that lobby area for something else would be nice as well. >The lobby space is large. It's 700 square feet, quite a big room. As what the public comment stated, should provide some landscaping if they can't convince a coffee shop to take it over. I do think there's a lot of articulation on that Primrose Road facade though, maybe not at street level. In general, it's almost doing too much in my opinion. But other than that, the fact that the project is asking for no variances, it seems like a straightforward submission. >I would agree with all my fellow commissioners. I do think the comment holds water. Is it enough to sway me in a negative view? I don ’t think so. What my fellow commissioner said is also correct, once you look up a little bit, there's a lot of articulation. There's going to be some greenery. It would be great to have a public coffee shop, I don't disagree with that. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Pfaff1 - f.30 Ingold Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously approved mixed use residential development (increasing units from 298 to 302). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant and property owner; Chris Lee, Studio T Square, architect) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 30 Ingold Rd - Staff Report 30 Ingold Rd - Attachments 30 Ingold Rd - Supplemental Environmental Analysis Memorandum 30 Ingold Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report noting that there was a minor correction in the unit mix table on sheet A -0.0 of the plans. If the project is approved tonight, then that will be incorporated into Condition of Approval number one. The correct number of one -bedroom units is 188, not 187. The number of junior one-bedroom units at 32 did not change. The total number of one -bedroom and junior one -bedroom units combined is 220, not 219 as noted in the staff report. The correct number of two -bedroom units is 78, not 79. As a result, the total number of parking spaces required on site is 359, not 360 as noted in the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Elaine Breeze and Brenna Weaver represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Page 10City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the very nice presentation. That is a very creative reuse of existing space and some very positive improvements because of that, very nice. >I agree. There's really no impact to us on the outside. It's all interior improvement and efficiencies. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't support this. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - g.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for an office use on the ground floor of an existing commercial building. Proposed use on the ground floor falls within the scope of the previously approved project which qualified for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. (DWF V 250 California Owner LLC, applicant and property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this item. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting-Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting-Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I wouldn't necessarily want office on a ground floor if it were a traditional closed -off office. But when you go by the other property on Lorton Avenue, next to the Mykonos restaurant, the developer did a similar lobby downstairs. This isn't about a closed -off office space, so you stay away. It's a very inviting and engaging space that can be used as a co -working and public space. What they're proposing here is in line with that and you're already seeing it. It would be an excellent use of this space at 250 California Drive. So, I'm in full support of this project. >While driving down California Drive with my son, he mentioned that it ’s such a pretty building. I agree and think it's unfortunate that our economy has hit the commercial world the way it has. So, I am in favor of this because it'll revitalize that area. As my fellow commissioner has mentioned, it's nicely done. It will activate more people walking in and out than some of the other things we have. >Yes, I agree with my fellow commissioners. I really appreciated the interiors concept package that was supplied to us, which really helps us to imagine and visualize how the space will be used. It's very beautifully designed. I look forward to seeing it soon. >I would just add that it's a shame that a retail or restaurant can't go in there. I assume they've done their due diligence. What's worse would be a vacant space, in my opinion. As my fellow commissioners said, having a nice, inviting office space, like the one next to Mykonos, is lovely. I'm very much in favor. I Page 11City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes applaud the owner and the developer for seeing that and not wanting that vacant space. I think that's good for everybody. Acting-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1826 Loyola Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Daniel Pho, applicant and architect; Patricia Swen, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1826 Loyola Dr - Staff Report 1826 Loyola Dr - Attachments 1826 Loyola Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Daniel Pho, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Robert Ardrey: Thank you for the public hearing notice regarding 1826 Loyola Drive. As neighbors, we greatly appreciate the owner for not increasing the height of their home significantly to minimize the negative impact on surrounding homes’ views of the bay area . Questions for consideration: number one, have there been any geotechnical studies submitted to the city on the property as well as the adjacent properties? We ask because the interior of the home is not currently level, raising concerns about the foundation and settling. Number two, how does the eastern-facing ADU entry and window format impact the neighbors directly to the east for privacy considerations? Number three, how does the exterior of the building complement the traditional design and styles for the rest of the homes on the street? As one commissioner has asked in other projects, how does this home speak to other homes and those passing through along the street? Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I appreciate the work being done on this project to stay within the overall envelope. It's a great use of a hillside and a side-to-side slope to be able to tuck in that floor underneath. >I would encourage the applicant to consider passive way to reduce incoming heat; whether it be some trees or some other ways to try and manage that incoming heat. I have an east -face window in my office and before noon I cook. It takes all evening for me to lose that heat and I don't have nearly as many windows you've got. So, just something to think about there. >Speaking of the passive side and the daytime of daylight coming in through the windows, at night, consider the potential light pollution on the other end when you light up that two -story glass wall towards your neighbors or even beyond towards the next street below. Page 12City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I appreciate the use of the space and the use of it three dimensionally, but I'm not a big fan of the ultra-contemporary look. It's too flat for me. The garage door is not doing anything for me. There are some good adaptations up in that neighborhood that are a little bit more modern than the ranch styles that are around there. I'm just not feeling the depth in the elevations. I'm concerned about the large windows and the amount of gain that's going to happen. The light pollution is a good one too. That back elevation is going to have a lot of light going out of it. I think that you need an overhang at the front entry. Consider more of how some of the Eichler type projects up in that area work with that center recessed entry. I like it, but there's no overhang, no protection, and just no depth. Similarly, without any overhangs in either of the directions, it then leaves no shadows and makes for a very flat elevation. More could be done with the wood as a push and pull. Everything being aligned on the same surface, is going to be flat so, I'm struggling with that. >Some other things to consider: the stucco -to-wood detail is important, please include that for next time. There are some opportunities for the wood siding to actually be more. You've limited it to design within the window framing. The wood siding could be something that goes ground to the roof to create a bigger statement and provide more change of material to the exterior stucco. It feels like it's banded instead of having them be design elements. >The other thing to keep in mind are the sconces that you're ultimately going to propose. We have an ordinance for that so that we don't get a lot of light pollution. I noticed a few sconces drawn on your elevation but not a lot of detail to say that you're totally going to mess it up or that you're going to get it right. Suggests picking one before you come back so then you know you comply with the current ordinance. >I'm intrigued by the design, but I feel that we are missing some elements and I'm not quite sure what that is. We've had some unique modern designs in this area. There are a few homes on Martinez Drive that have used the wood with the stucco which are complimentary. Suggests driving up and down Martinez Drive to get some ideas, there are a few good examples on that street. Consider taking one more crack at this and I think you'll get it. You're just missing some of the wood and stucco elements that could tie it in as my fellow commissioner has mentioned. The garage door isn ’t doing it for me, it just doesn't fit the neighborhood in my opinion. The wood in the windows is acting as an obstruction to the home instead of it being a little more open. Consider opening it up in the front a little bit and remove some of the windows in the back because there's too much glass there. I do worry a lot about the light from the skylight because I know that light can go up into the sky. Consider some frosting on those skylights if that's an option. I do worry about the light noise. You have a lot of windows there. I'd like to see you do one more crack at this . You're almost there but just not quite. You need to provide a pretty element over the front door. I'd love to see something unique there. You're missing an opportunity to really make a grand entrance for this home. >I am also intrigued by the design and appreciate the modernity. I agree with what my fellow commissioners have stated. I am concerned about the southern and the western exposure of all that wood. There are faux wood options that could be considered. I just had a whole discussion with a garage door vendor today for a project of ours in that area with the same garage door orientation. The garage door vendor is not going to make the door. He says, not in wood because it's going to fail. So, we're trying to figure out how we're going to accomplish the design that we want and the materials that we want. It's something to think about. There's a lot of fun here. I appreciate what you're trying to do geometrically. >One part that bothers me is how the face of the stucco above the garage, the decorative pediment, is taller than the sides which makes that whole area feel heavy. We need some more balance there. The area of the wall in front of the primary closet is calling for a little attention. That being the front face of the house, you can play up a bit of your wood or other material element to break up the overall flatness of the front facade. I agree that the front door needs some weather protection. Even if it's just for design, just the everyday use of going inside especially like a rainy winter that we had this past winter, imagine being there trying to find your keys, trying to get yourself in and being doused with rain. I am concerned about the light pollution on the back and the right side towards the downhill neighbors, as well as your neighbor to the right. Installation of story poles would be good to show the massing of the right side of the house. There's clearly no issue on the left side, but the right side significantly takes up a lot of volume. I can see that you're skewed from the neighbor to the right, but again, sometimes you don't know until that's up for other neighbors to sense the volume of space being proposed. I appreciate staying below your current ridge height, but still the massing has changed and it's quite large. Page 13City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I agree, we must be safe versus sorry. We should require story poles and allow the neighbors to know what's going on there. >I much agree with everyone. This could be neat, it's got a lot of potential. I am bothered by the garage door for all the reasons mentioned, it's trying too hard. There's nothing that wonderful about garage doors generally, not really a space you want to highlight necessarily. Suggests looking at it again in a different way. You seem to be more averse to having any overhang. The overhang just settles it nice. It pushes it down and makes it more substantial. It reminds me of a lot of 70's homes with cheap stucco and no overhangs. That's what it's like to me initially. But some overhang will also help with the stray light in some way. It needs another go over and the story poles. We must be consistent, even if it's just the one side, because we generally ask for them. People usually don't know what's going on until they see them. >I made this comment earlier tonight. I went by 1304 Mills Avenue, it is a modern farmhouse. We're seeing a lot of modern farmhouses with no overhangs. This one has overhangs. It looks nice and grounded. It has a balance of trim. It's something to keep in mind that just because we say we want it modern, doesn't mean we strip it all back to its bare minimum. We need to be considerate of that. It doesn't have to be over, but the roof form has a purpose of trying to provide a bit of a top. When we stripped it away and all we do is a bare minimum gutter at the edge, we're not protecting our walls, and we're not creating the top that we should. That's what the form is about. I would encourage you to go look, because we've got some modern farmhouses that don't do it and I don't think they look very good, they look stripped. Understanding the difference between modernizing and stripping is important. >It's important to think about the homeowner from a day -to-day basis. How are they going to use this space? Not just designing the beautiful architecture just to appreciate in drawing form, it needs to be practical. The homeowner would appreciate some of the comments that are being made to make it a better lifestyle for them in a day-to-day basis. >When the house next door to me was being designed, it was a modern house, one of the commissioners suggested frosting the light well. It was amazing because that light well looks right into my master bedroom since I'm on the first floor. Consider frosting of some windows, it might be a nice difference. I don't know how that would look architecturally, but you can play with that and see if there's some sort of frosting that can also help with the light noise. Commissioner Tse 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, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.5 Rio Court, 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. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners ) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 5 Rio Ct - Staff Report 5 Rio Ct - Attachments 5 Rio Ct - Plans Attachments: This item was continued at the request of the applicant. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Commission communications and no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters. Page 14City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Page 15City of Burlingame