Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.11.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, November 13, 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: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.201 Burlingame 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. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Burlingame Bancroft Estate LLC, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 201 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 201 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 201 Burlingame 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. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Fernando Correa, 211 Burlingame Avenue: I live adjacent to the subject property. I am here to leave two comments. First, upon receiving the public hearing notice, we reached out to Planning Division staff and we have learned that the owners of the 201 Burlingame Avenue house conducted a survey, and that the property line seems to be misplaced. The fence now is two to three feet within their property. We are in conversation with the property owners. The point we are trying to make is that we are in the process of finding a surveyor to also do our own evaluation. I understand that the City cannot partake into disputes between neighbors about property lines, however, before any construction is cleared to go, I would appreciate it if the City can make sure that the discussion between my family and the property owners at 201 Burlingame Avenue is addressed. We are scheduled to have a conversation with them after Thanksgiving. In the meantime, we are trying to get a better understanding of how the survey was done and what are the limitations, but there will be a substantial change in the fence line location. That could also affect the planning done by the architect. My second comment is that 201 Burlingame Avenue is considered a historic home by the City. There is a line of basket willow trees that are in between our properties. Currently, the plans state that those trees will be maintained, and we would love for them to be maintained. I would like to know how the City could make sure that there will be no changes in the lining of trees between our properties. >Raziel Ungar, 208 Burlingame Avenue: Obviously, you have read the letter we sent out with all the neighbors on the block. I am certainly a big fan of new construction. I am excited to see how this project develops. Along with 100% of the neighbors on the block, I feel that there is a nice opportunity to continue to enhance the design to match some of the other beautiful Spanish homes in the neighborhood. We hope that you can take that into consideration as well as part of the project. >Jason Schmidt, 240 Bancroft Road: I am also one of the neighbors who sent in a letter. I am just echoing what some of the other neighbors have said. We are definitely very excited about the prospect of something new developed across the street from where I am living right now. Also understanding that there was a lot of care that was taken into it. I also want to commend the designer /architect for taking those considerations. I think those adjustments can also be taken into consideration on the lower floor with a little bit of articulation and consistency in massing, because if we look at the front fa çade along Burlingame Avenue, it is one consistent plane. Maybe there is a proportion to it, but it is not reading as well as it could. Also understanding that the project completely complies with planning standards and codes, but wanted to acknowledge that maybe the same care and thoughtfulness can also be applied to the lower level to provide a little bit more consistency. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >The last time around, I may have not paid attention to the front at the Burlingame Avenue side of bedroom #1 and bathroom. The existing front setback is 15’ 3-1/2” and the allowable setback is 15 feet. I am wondering if there is an opportunity to do a little articulation along that side of the house. I do appreciate the revisions that have been made. I still think that the upstairs windows can be a little bit shorter, but that is the homeowners’ decision. Otherwise, it is a nicely designed home. >I liked this project the last time it was here. The changes that have been made are small improvements which I appreciate the architect making. For those in the public that are still concerned about the design, there is nothing in this design that says we should not approve it. To those who are concerned about the historic nature of that street or a different outcome to this, reaching out to the architect would be a more productive way of trying to influence the design as he is responsive to people in the neighborhood. The design is a pretty good design; it will look good in this location. I don ’t see the Planning Commission holding this up for the comments that were submitted. This is a good project and it should go forward. The resolution of the property line can be handled within the building permit process and not the Planning Commission. >I believe the windows are really big. This a little bit more interesting in the same line as what my fellow commissioner said about having more articulation. In the backyard, there is a very interesting shape, almost like a double opening. I'm wondering if the same concept can be used at the front door cutout to match. It is flat at the front all the way across and then you have these neat -looking cut outs . Consider looking into handling it in the same manner as the rear, which is quite interesting and gives it more depth. Looking at the top, it has improved, but I'm not sure if the swerving wall coming out perpendicular to the street on the second level on the right is helpful. You have one on the right on the lower side and there is no other unit that I can see in the building where it comes forward toward the street. If that is a usable balcony, it has a nice clear wall. I am not sure that is necessarily an asset. >I appreciate the changes that were made. The engagement of the neighbors shows interest in the neighborhood to offer the letters and comments. I like the house overall, but I completely agree with my fellow commissioner about the central mass at the front of the house. If it can be bumped out about 3- 1/2 inches, it may create enough of a shadow line to be of interest because it is quite a flat fa çade on Burlingame Avenue. Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >(Geurse: I can push out the front a little bit for a better definition for the front portion of the bathroom . That can help for sure. I can provide a reveal at the front pop-out.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the bathroom wall on the first floor along the Burlingame Avenue frontage shall extend out an additional three-and-a-half inches to create articulation along that facade; Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.740 Fairfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Arjun Dutt, property owner) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 3City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 740 Fairfield Rd - Staff Report 740 Fairfield Rd - Attachments 740 Fairfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item due to business reasons. 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: >For the rear addition on the right elevation, the roof is bumped up from the adjacent roof. Having it at the same elevation would have more continuity between the existing house and new addition. Now that you have a cathedral ceiling, it seems that you have an opportunity to lower the roof line on both sides. It may also help with the roof pitch on that addition. >I liked this project the first time around, except for the flat roof at the back. Having the pitch dramatically changes it; it looks a lot better and it does not look like an afterthought. I also agree with my fellow commissioner. I wouldn ’t hold it up, but an FYI would be good for the roof change. I totally see his point and it makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, I am in favor of it. >Same for me, but I understand the challenge on that side. He’s got two different pitches going on there and he’s aligned it on the top or you can also align it on the bottom. But I don ’t think you can make them both work without messing up the pitch of the rear roof. I think we will end up with one or the other . Otherwise, I support the project and I think it is ready to go forward. >Would be great if you can make it work, but if it doesn ’t, that is fine. I thought it was a great suggestion if it works out. I appreciate the use of the narrow siding at the bottom, it pulled the exterior together with the wider siding at the top. This looks great. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Shores1 - c.1870-1876 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU - Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously approved 7-story, 169-unit residential apartment development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Bay Area Oil Supply Inc./Prime Plaza LLC, applicants and property owners; Studio T-Square Inc., architect) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Attachments 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Page 4City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Chek Tang, 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: >I recall at that time the project was very well received. My fellow commissioners and I were pleased by the design of this project. I have been waiting since the October 2020 meeting for this project to break ground. I am glad to see the improvements that are being made. I do appreciate the den addition, that totally makes sense. It is also good to know about the affordable housing project that is taking place over at the remaining quadrant where the car wash is. This is a nice improvement; it makes better sense now with the quadrant filled in as well. I wholeheartedly support this project and move forward. Hopefully, you break ground sooner than later. >This is one of the really nice -looking projects that came in, especially with that middle element. I am glad to see it is still there. I don’t have a problem with this either. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.36 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second story balcony for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and designer; Nasim Novin, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 36 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 36 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 36 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Nasim Novin, property owner and Azadeh Masrour, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Juergen Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue: I am a neighbor and I have looked at the plans. There is a 36 Page 5City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -inch redwood tree shown on the plans that is on our property. The layout and the placement of the plans look really good; I like it. But I do see that some areas of excavation will potentially affect the trees . In addition to the redwood trees, there are also three mature podocarpus trees on the property. We would like to request that the contractor to be careful and mindful of any tree roots, particularly with the big redwood tree, so that the health and stability of the tree remains intact. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I am struggling with the overall design. The windows are not holding together for me as far as their layout and sizes. The window at the front is not a bedroom window, it feels weird to me. Please provide the window details. Typically, we get section details so we can understand how they work. >I am concerned with the open plan. I love open plans, however I am not seeing where the posts will be in place of the removed walls to support the second floor. I am concerned that before you get too far along you find out that the posts to support the second floor will get in the way of what you have designed. >I do not see a good reason for the Special Permit for the plate height. We have these height limits so that the houses that are small in proportion don ’t get tall in proportion. Some of the good reasons for this Special Permit is if you are in a flood zone and you must raise the floor height. I do not see an extraordinary reason why you should be raising the plate height in this case. This needs to have some more design work and I’d like to hear from my fellow commissioners on that. >I am struggling with what style the house wants to be. I initially thought it wants to be a Spanish style, but now I understand that it is a Mediterranean style design. It needs some additional design elements that can come into play, especially at the front with the arched window receiving some grid detail. It would be nice to see that applied towards all the windows. Consider having a Mediterranean-style front door. From the roof design, it looks nice, it seemed all pulled together and they make sense. But as I study the elevations, it seems like a lot of details were pared -down to almost none. A Mediterranean style home would be beautiful. Suggests bringing in more decorative elements to reflect that style. The window trims could help. The sill and apron look a bit over extended and some detail could be applied there. Overall, this could be a good candidate for a design review consultant to help pull together the Mediterranean style out of the home. The floor plans work okay. It is about making the exterior come together and be the style that the homeowner would like to have. >I also don’t see the justification for the Special Permit for the plate height increase. The nine -foot plate height should be a sufficient ceiling height; could use up some of the attic space to create extra volume in some areas as applicable. As my fellow commissioner shared, there is a reason why the city has changed the maximum plate height to 9’-0” on the first floor and 8’-0” on the second floor. >I tend to agree with my fellow commissioners. A design review consultant may be good for this project. Looking at the adjacent properties, the plate height increase would create a substantial visual appearance especially on the one to the left. The one on the right is newer construction, but I don ’t think that one has a raised plate height above our standards. This one will look out of place in my opinion. The overall design of the house is fine, but there are many details that are lacking. As a builder, I agree with my fellow commissioner that it will be expensive to create that open space. Consider consulting with a structural engineer prior to moving forward so you get an idea of costs, because there is a huge difference between running a 30-foot beam and a 15-foot beam. >For the public comment regarding the tree, the city usually recommends using a certified arborist to provide a good tree protection plan. That will make sure that any excavation that is happening within the root zone of the tree is not harmed. >I generally agree with my fellow commissioners. I do like the design of the house; it is very pleasing . Based off the layout of the house, originally this home is more Spanish Revival or Mediterranean Revival and it appears that over time the roof was replaced with asphalt tiles. It is nice to see the design inspiration go back that way. To me, it looks more Spanish Revival than Mediterranean Revival. The styles are very close, and they borrow a lot from each other. >If the applicant wants to go for Mediterranean Revival, there are a couple of small things they can do to really accentuate that. They are already leaning towards that style with the device over the small gable at the covered walkway, that appears to be recessed stucco. That covered walkway is a great Page 6City of Burlingame November 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes opportunity to put in an arch, both on the street -facing side and the interior -facing side towards the driveway. With those openings arched, referencing the arched windows, that will go a long way. Having lots of small details is the hallmark of this architectural style. Currently, the primary gable facing the street is an open gable end and has been changed into a hip roof. If you were to leave that open, you might be able to take the window that you have and bump it by three feet. This solves some issues with privacy and still retains a very prominent large window at the front which is a hallmark of this architectural style. The knee braces are okay but are not something you normally see with Spanish, Mediterranean and Mission architectural styles. However, there is an opportunity depending on if there are looking for a more elaborate or rustic design, because there are a different way you can take the style. If you wanted to go rustic, you can open the eaves and have exposed rafter tails. If you want to keep it on the slightly elaborate side, you can keep them closed. Also, with the stucco above the gable end on the entry way and other places that is a focal point can be a good place to put in some kind of simple tile mosaic accent. It is also something you see on older versions of the architectural style all the time. It is a great way to add a little bit of color to the fa çade, otherwise it is just white stucco. It is a good design. I like where it is going and it has a lot of opportunities for small improvements. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS >Chair Pfaff noted that she attended the Broadway Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee Meeting; interesting renderings were shared to show ways to handle the Broadway thoroughfare to make it more welcoming. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS >Assistant City Attorney Spansail noted that at the lat City Council meeting the Council extended the temporary ban on outdoor smoking in the Broadway Business Improvement District, and created a temporary ban on outdoor smoking in the Burlingame Business Improvement District, through December 31, 2024. He also noted that the November 20, 2023, City Council meeting, the Council will be discussing a potential amendment to the City's flavored tobacco ban which would allow on -site hookah use, and will also be discussing tree requirements/regulations. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Page 7City of Burlingame