Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.01.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, January 8, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and City Attorney Michael Guina. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Commissioner Horan requested remote participation per AB 2449. He was granted the request and attended the meeting remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft December 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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 There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments, non-agenda. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.234 Victoria Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story Page 1City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes single-unit dwelling and 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. (Hector Estipona, HGE Building Design Inc. designer; Jeffrey Woo and Bingtao Shi, property owners) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao (38 noticed) 234 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 234 Victoria Rd - Attachments 234 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Very much appreciate the changes made on the gable in front. It is a good-looking project. > Appreciate the changes made by the applicant. Commissioner 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 - b.1826 Loyola Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Daniel Pho, Pho Architects, applicant and architect; Patricia Swen, property owner) (33 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. Commissioners Tse, Pfaff and Horan noted that they had a zoom meeting with the applicant. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Daniel Pho, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: > For the painted metal awning above the front door, consider using a straight piece across the front which can give a perception of it being straight then do a slight slope with the ridge down the middle. The ridge shall be below the front piece so it will be concealed at the elevation. That would direct the water to go to the planters on either side of the house. > Looking at the roof design, consider extending the one roof element over the front door a little bit deeper to incorporate the depth of the blade. It will slightly modify the slope of that part of the roof, but because it is a unique element and it is not attached to anything else, it could work. It can be a potential solution to simplify the ability to have an overhang at the front door. > I appreciate the efforts put in. We spent quite some time talking during the last meeting, not to make it difficult but, in the hopes of bringing back a better project. I am quite pleased with the overhangs and everything because it is starting to add depth to the project that would have otherwise come out flat. It is still a good modern house; it is just not overly modern. The roof pitch and it being a single level does fit within the neighborhood well yet taking that modern look, which there are quite a few in that area. It’s not like it is a whole neighborhood of traditional homes and you are the only one doing a modern home. You’ve done a good job. Some of the reduction in glass in some areas is going to reduce heat and refine views. I am pleased with the overall changes. It will be a good-looking project. > Appreciate and commend the architect for putting both the original and revised drawings on the same sheet. It would be nice if that could be the best practice for future commission meetings. It can be a lot easier for us commissioners, so thank you for that. >I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is a very nice set of plans altogether. 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 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.2204 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Morris Architecture LLC, applicant and architect; Glenn and Corinne Chiu, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2204 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2204 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2204 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Ryan Morris, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 3City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > At the rear of the house, the first floor has an 11’-3” plate height. It will require a Special Permit because it exceeds the allowable 9’-0” plate height on the first floor. > For the terrace deck on the rear of the house, be aware of the building code requirement of having railings on drops of that height. The steps cannot be more than 7-3/4” and then you have this drop off . Consider revising before you proceed to construction documents. > I’ve never seen a raised -floor garage that does not go down a hillside. I know it is not within our purview but consider doing the engineering portion earlier than planned to avoid the mess and allow time to review impacts on the neighbors and potential changes to the design. > Please revisit the windows. I agree with my fellow commissioners, the discrepancies especially on the front elevation having different windows is not pulling the house together. It’s a bit of a mix and match . Keep it consistent throughout. I don ’t have a problem with the Special Permit request in the garage and the 11-foot first floor plate height on the kitchen because it is tucked in the back. I agree with the comment about the deck. The back porch seems odd to have stairs. If the deck is going to remain, you don’t need the stairs. Let the deck be your stairs down, put lights on it, make it beautiful and one piece . Or close the deck and it becomes its own entity and you have your stairs going down. Consider creating some difference there to make it a little bit better. I would also ask when you come back for the next meeting if you provide some 3D rendering because it is easier to visualize and see the details. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the windows. There are some alignment issues. There should be better consistency of shape and operation type. Overall, there is a nice order to the look of the house right now. On Hillside Drive where there are so many traditional homes, the front elevation seems in need of more articulation, a little bit more shaping or massing and some other design details. It seems bland. Something is not coming together for me. I have no problem with the attached garage being setback and 12’-6” off from the current location of the garage. I also don ’t have an issue with the plate height at the back, but I just wanted to call them out because it is something that needs to be identified . The back reads better than the front because the back has hipped roofs and some articulation on the first and second stories. The front is a little bit apartment-building looking, flat and not enough interest. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. This can be really cool but is still not there. It seems top-heavy, maybe because of the repetitive windows. The consistency of the materials and such should be throughout. Please provide a detail on the front door, it looks very solid and closed to have a 5 -foot-wide door. Consider using bands on the material transitions and some clean -up of drawings for clarity. >The front elevation reads flat because of the low pitches of the roof. It needs a little more depth and articulation. Some details on the window trims will make us understand if anything comes out from the siding and how you get more depth to this. The 3D renderings help, but without color or texture they read flat to us, that may be a way to show richness of what you intend for us to see. The stone looks like just a texture on the wall, and it is in the same plane as the siding above it. There is no cap and no shadow or anything happening. We need to better understand the layering of the materials so we can start to see the details. >It does look top heavy on the second floor because the roof around the first floor just does not go very high. We do not see as much roof as we are used to on steeper roof pitches so therefore the siding and windows look big. Proportions need to be worked out to make those larger faces look a little reduced and help with the depth issue. I too do not have an issue with the garage moving forward, I just want to make sure that the structural pieces get worked out well. >Because you are not sticking to the vocabulary of hillside, sheet A 9.1 is critical for us in being able to see the depth of the architecture being proposed. I agree that the architecture is there, we just need to have a better understanding of it for the next round. Whether it is more color, more texture or more shadows, putting in more information on sheet A 9.1 is a huge deal for us. Provide more details about the front door and what it will look like. The doors that go out the back on the patio, I assume they are glass doors that you would see in but right now it is showing as white. I am not sure if they are frosted or panel doors. The elevations come out flat because they are just line work. >I wasn’t quite sure what to think of it while going past the project site. Picking up from my fellow commissioner’s comments, there are parts of the design that has the DNA of the prairie style. That is the core, there is a really good idea and design in here that I ’d like to see more of. If that is what you are going Page 4City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for, I do like it and it just needs to be developed a little bit more. >From first glance, I like the design. With the flatness of the second story, having some box windows or something that gives texture can help. Providing a colored rendering will be a game changer. I don ’t have any issues with the Special Permit for the garage. The increased plate height in the kitchen also does not bother me. >I want to clarify for the public that the Special Permit for the plate height is in the room that is located at the rear of the house. It is not changing the scale of the front elevation. The intent of that regulation is to try and control scale from the front. We’ve had a lot of projects proposing them and have been subsequently denied because it is changing the front elevation. Acting Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for two new, two-story detached condominium dwellings on each of the two existing lots, Front Setback Variances, Minor Modification for parking space width, and Tentative Condominium Map. (Paul and Neena Goswamy, owners and applicants; Gregg Kawahara, architect) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Gregg Kawahara, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >I am quite concerned about the impact on our neighborhood from the proposed new condos at the above address. 1. That many units will create the need for a huge amount of parking to be adequate . Another duplex on our block with two units with two bedrooms has 5 cars and 2 motorcycles. Additional living spaces required full parking. 2. The culvert under the property is deteriorating. Neighbors and my friends have explored the culvert last summer and spoke of large pieces of concrete fallen from the ceiling and walls with cracks everywhere along the way. Also, a large sinkhole has developed in front of the property. The driveways are warped and buckled. Please rethink approving the permit. Parking issues are important to the neighbors and the deterioration of the tunnel under their property is a safety issue . Thank you. >Planning Commission members, this is regarding 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Avenue item on the agenda for the 1/8/24 meeting. I am a neighbor on that block. Myself and several others are extremely concerned regarding any new development of this parcel for several reasons. Firstly, the tunnel running under the street and property is severely compromised. I walked the tunnel along with neighbor Tom Hall and Victor Vergara as recently as June 2nd of last year. A long section of the bottom of the tunnel is completely washed away with the concrete ending up downstream into the back of Susanne Button at 1016 Capuchino Avenue. Because of the exposed dirt beneath, massive undercutting of the bottom and south side of the tunnel has occurred. Many yards of supporting infrastructure are now gone. It’s only a matter of time before a sinkhole /total collapse of the street occurs leading into 1025-1029 Capuchino Avenue. I Page 5City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes urge the members of this commission along with the City Engineer to walk the tunnel and see for yourselves. Hopefully you can properly see the damage through the winter rain runoff. Especially keep an eye out for the south side undercutting. Other red flags include a sidewalk sinkhole already developing and clearly observable in the front 1025 Capuchino Avenue. We have had several other major incidents with the properties. A beautiful Canary Island Palm tree was chopped down under false pretenses. This was a decades old heritage tree that some phony arborist report stated was “poorly maintained”. The only issue with the tree had been some older fronds that hadn ’t been trimmed back. The tree service crew that came to remove the tree reaffirmed to me the tree was in excellent condition except for the lower fronds. But they were being paid to remove it, so they did. Then a huge near disaster. The owner commissioned un -permitted backhoe digging which resulted in his illegal crew breaking a gas main last summer. We nearly had a San Bruno type pipeline explosion. The Fire Department and PG&E responded to address it. I spoke with the PG&E supervisor. He told me that when he approached the crew to get information in writing his report, the crew “ran off” and left the scene. I asked why they would do that. He replied that they must have illegal workers in violation of permits/business licenses. Another issue is a hired crew dug a large hole directly next to the sidewalk in front of 1025 Capuchino Avenue. It was as large as a washing machine and probably 5 feet deep. It was left uncovered for days putting the public at risk. I eventually called Burlingame Public Works to report it . They responded immediately and followed up to me that it was indeed a hazard, and they called the owner to quickly cover it up. These examples are just a few showcasing the total disregard the owner of the properties has for public safety and adherence to existing laws. Many developers were initially offered this parcel when it came up for sale. All declined for many months until the present owner saw dollar signs and is now trying to shove this parcel and his new plans down the throats of the good people of Burlingame. I hope the commission does the right thing and vetoes this project. Regards from a very concerned resident of our city. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please clarify required setback for the culvert. >Please confirm and provide information from the Public Works Department if the culvert is in good shape and what was proposed is a viable solution. >The east elevation on sheet A 2.4, there are two parallel vertical lines that were supposed to be a chimney, it looks funny. On sheet A 3.4, the south elevation of the lower floor doesn ’t look like it was resolved well. It does not look like a traditional house. The 4-panel sliding doors connected to the two double hung windows can be improved by putting space in between the doors and the windows. Consider putting belly bands to break the long verticality of the elevations. I regret the removal of the palm tree . Provide information on the landscape plan for the corner of the property. > Knowing that this is zoned R -2 and the constraints of the culvert, I ’m not questioning the condition of it. This is a clever design to fit within all the constraints and get this in. I don ’t have a problem with the setback. The 34-foot average setback is a little bit artificial. When you look at it from the satellite view, a lot of the houses are up front. There are a few that are so far up that it is driving the average up. I counted 12 parking spaces on site between covered and uncovered which addresses the parking concerns. The only thing that struck me is the amount of driveway pavers used between the two housing units. It seems a bit expansive. Consider using different landscape materials to break that up a bit. > The elevations are drawn nicely but suggest arranging the drawings so we are looking at each elevation showing all the houses next to each other so it will be easier for us to compare the design elements of each house. Overall, they are nicely designed. This is a big project, there are four homes being proposed. We are looking at one small rendering and another that is covered with trees. The one covered with trees is not helpful for us to see the design of the four homes. Please provide more renderings, bigger and preferably a different perspective, so we can see the collection of the homes better. >I agree, the renderings provided were not helpful. Since there are four separate structures, you need to Page 6City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes provide different views of each one. There are two buildings that I like and the elevations for the other two that I don’t like do not sell them. I am struggling on how to like them. It is a clever solution to try and resolve a challenging site, but it has created some odd shapes for us and not traditional houses we typically see in this area. Please provide additional renderings so we can see more views of the proposed homes. >Looking at the site plan, none of the adjacent structures on other properties were shown and how they relate to the four different buildings. I’m trying to grapple with how each one of these buildings impacts the neighbors and where their structure is. Show location of existing adjacent structures on the site plan as a simple box. I don’t have an issue with the setback but a sheet like A 07, I know it is for the fire hydrants, but it is a great sheet. It doesn ’t have any structures on it. It would then otherwise show us how the neighborhood works, what the rhythm is and what this project is doing to the rhythm. Since there is nothing in this area that has a street in the middle of two properties, it is unique. I’d like to see the relationship of these proposed buildings to the adjacent properties so if we approve a Special Permit for that, we will have informed decisions. >The parking seems fine, they have provided more than required. >At the front elevation on 1025 Capuchino Avenue, the siding is very vertical and there are a lot of two-story surfaces. It is not reading well for me. Maybe in 3D rendering it will read better. The rear elevation of 1029 Capuchino Avenue is not reading for me at all. It has an odd shape; it has a lot of odd surfaces and a lot of odd roof shapes that I am not grasping in these elevations. For the other two homes, the proportion seems to work. I would like to get more information on the culvert before we bring this back because it will be better to come back with a full package that we can get behind than to be halfway and not really understand if we got all these things resolved before we can move forward. > I am pleased with the design. I like how every house has a completely different vibe going for it. I also agree with my fellow commissioners’ comments. 1025 Capuchino Avenue needs a little bit of work on the two-story vertical board and batten siding. I also agree that there are a lot of pavements in the middle, usually it is to meet fire code requirements. But if it is not, I’d like to see it reduced in some way. > I like the project. I totally agree that with the amount of pavement it feels like they are tract homes . Anything we can do to soften the look will be helpful. We certainly don ’t want a mini tract house in this neighborhood. I totally understand the Setback Variance, I do not have any issues with that. The parking is great, a lot of parking spaces were provided. The neighbors who are concerned about that will be pleased to see the amount of parking spaces. As a builder myself, the general contractor will be bound to the plans to build it safely and to code. The general contractor relies on the structural engineer and the structural engineer is going to rely on the soils engineer. The soils engineer will rely on the civil engineer to make sure the water is properly taken care of. The civil engineer will rely on the Public Works Department to approve their plans. There’s a lot of people involved here, and I totally understand the commission ’s concern regarding this culvert. As a general contractor, we can ’t build all these without that level of approval and information. I totally understand the need to see that because a lot of the neighbors have concerns. I agree with all the other comments. I do think that some of these units need a little bit of work. > I was looking at the driveway and I agree with my fellow commissioners that it has too many pavers. I know we have a culvert but would like to see it softened, maybe with a turf in the middle. If there are some issues with the culvert on that property, maybe this is an opportunity for the city to do our part on the street at the same time to resolve this issue on that street. > I'd rather see a continuance to allow them to coordinate with the Public Works Department, together with our architectural feedbacks, and come back with a coordinated effort to make it an easy jump to Action. I am concerned that if we come back to Action we're required to move forward and miss the chance to provide the appropriate feedback this size of project needs. I don't necessarily think it is a punishment but and opportunity to come back with a fuller package so we can make an easy transition. > Gardiner: Through the chair, looking at the Public Works' comments on the design review, they have a few mentions of the culvert. At least there is some assurance that Public Works have looked into this. They have some conditions about the inspection of the culvert prior to construction, also as mentioned, the various conditions with the CC&Rs. The notes do not answer all of the questions raised, but I want to convey that the culvert is something that is in Public Works' radar. One of the notes mentioned the need for trees to be at least 10 feet back from the culvert. Acting Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the Page 7City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - c.925 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Commercial Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition and facade changes to an existing commercial building. (Maria Bermudez, Feldman Architecture, applicant and architect; Copeland Park Properties, property owner) (32 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 925 Howard Ave - Staff Report 925 Howard Ave - Attachments 925 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Anjali Iyer, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > As one of the commissioners who was here when this project was last heard, I remember a lot of the discussion about parking, but I don ’t recall us being against a larger garage door. In this case, as the applicant was saying, I don ’t feel there is significant change that the proposed garage door is two feet wider. I don’t recall that we had an issue about that before. I am ok with the proposed garage door size. I do recall that there was a lot of discussion about putting in some planters at the front. With this new design, there is a deeper planting bed area than was originally proposed. I agree with the applicant that the addressing of protection and shade over the entry door has been handled by the recessed front door area . The front is generally getting indirect lighting as it is located northeast, so I am not as concerned about the requirement of shade along the front fa çade. The originally approved design did not have the overhang . I like the proposed changes. I don ’t think that the upstairs extension is significant in that it changes much of our perspective of it from street level. This is approvable. > I understand that it is trying to be industrial, but there is something about it that it has a sterile look to it. I know there are some interesting materials in here, but it can be improved by breaking up the height by providing some horizontal element and making it look less prominent. Unfortunately, trees will not be allowed on this street. It needs to be set in better and it looks like a cake on the top. >I was on the commission when this came last, and I don ’t remember any concerns other than the left side next to the neighbor with a residential house. I was trying to minimize the shading and the impact of that second story on that, which really hasn ’t changed from one generation to the next. The changes made are minor from the big scheme of things. I don ’t have a problem with the enlarged garage door. It is a blank side, so the two extra feet of door does not bother me at all. I too would love to see the trees on the street, but I understand why we can’t. I supported it then and it is still a good project now. >I don’t have any major outstanding issues. With the garage door, I am not concerned about the size of it, but because it has become larger, it has taken away one of the sets of windows at the current building . It would be nice if that door could be shortened a little bit or moved over so we can keep the windows . Page 8City of Burlingame January 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Right now, it does not mean a lot because that side faces a parking lot, but that parcel will see different uses in the coming years. The street goes directly towards one of those new apartment complexes that has been built in the next block. A lot of people walk from here to get to downtown Burlingame. It would be nice if we could keep four windows instead of three. The storefront will look better in person with how the windows are set back with the planters, but they look flat on the renderings. >Consider adding a thick belly band to break up the verticality in the front. I do like the project and don’t have a problem with the garage door or anything else. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council adopted the Housing Element at its meeting on December 18, 2023. He also reported that YIMBY Law has moved to dismiss its lawsuit against the City since the City has now adopted a certified Housing Element. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no Future Agenda Items. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Page 9City of Burlingame