Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.03.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, March 25, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Assistant Planner Brittany Xiao, Senior Civil Engineer Martin Quan, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft March 11, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 11, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Schmid 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 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. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and designer; Nasim Novin, property Page 1City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 36 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 36 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 36 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Chair Pfaff was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.900 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage on a lot that contains an existing single -unit dwelling (to remain) and Fence Variance. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; 900 Paloma, LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 900 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 900 Paloma Ave - Attachments 900 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she has a business relationship with the property owner. Commissioner Tse noted that she did not attend the design review study meeting for this project, but had read the meeting minutes and letters submitted . 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: >Michael Barber, 1316 Palm Drive, submitted via public comment email: Based on the Burlingame staff report, the state mandated Safety Element and FEMA requirements for properties in designated 100 -year flood zones, it would appear that Planning Commission can make some design considerations in the approval process. I have included a variety of excerpts supporting these considerations in the attached document. This particular parcel is known to be at a low elevation and was historically a seasonal wetland . The new development will virtually eliminate all the permeable space on the parcel. The current design, with siding covering the area required to elevate the buildings will undeniably deflect water to other properties. In addition, the city storm drain in this area has very limited capacity and cannot take additional storm water due to its low elevation and impact from moderate winter high tides. This would be a health and safety risk to the neighbors. Assuming the three additional buildings are approved, the very least the Planning Commission could require is that the elevated buildings be built without an “enclosure”. (see diagram and documentation in the section taken from a FEMA flood insurance program.) This is a common requirement for buildings in the coastal flood zones. By eliminating the siding on the buildings below the livable space, at least the historical flow of water would remain unhindered. Given that the Page 2City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes buildings would not be visible from the street, there would be no aesthetic loss to the neighborhood. It will be important for the Planning Commission to set sound and standard policies in designated 100-year flood zones, particularly as climate change increases the risk of flooding. This current project is a potential precursor of what other developers will do with similar nearby properties. Doing everything we can to minimize risks is a fundamental part of the Safety Plan. Fortunately, the new design elevates the buildings as opposed to elevating the parcel by using fill to raise the elevation of the property itself. This should be standard practice for any property in a flood zone (including 500-year flood zone areas): raising the buildings and not the land itself. Thank you for your consideration in making these relatively minor design changes as part of your review of the property at 900 Paloma Avenue. >Jonathan Friedman, 1312 Edgehill Drive: I want to thank the commission for being public -minded citizens in going through these hearings. I want to thank the developer for speaking with us. I want to thank the neighbors who have gotten together out of our mutual concerns for this project. I live behind the farthest proposed ADU in this subject property. Every year a mosquito abatement person comes to our property and says, “There is standing water behind you, and you have some water in your bird bath. There are mosquitoes there and mosquitoes carry diseases ”. I don’t think there has been any attention paid to the fact that standing water under dwellings, with the winds not being able to come through there and the water not being able to go down into the soil, has been discussed. This is a very important aspect, it ’s not just aesthetics and opinion. It’s the families that live there who have the problem of mosquitoes as it is constituted now. That is one point. Now I want to go to the larger issue, there are too many young people in California who can ’t afford to live in California and are leaving the state because of that. At the same time, California, like the whole world is experiencing the beginnings of climate change that are making our weather patterns, fires, floods, and rising waters much more dangerous. This is a low point of an area where the water comes all the way from the bay, and from the streets like California Drive, all the way down to this area. It has a drain system that is currently inadequate to take the water. On the street where I live, which is Edgehill Drive, there are no drains and that is a hill. Another concern is aesthetics and I want to complement the designer. The building that was built, replacing the other one, is very nicely done . My concern for my property is where the water would go that is now sinking into the earth from 900 Paloma Avenue. It seems that there will be a lot more hardscape and the water will come under the ADU next to my property, where will it go? Is there any barrier between the water and the ADU to my property, which is more or less the same grade level? Is there any drain that will take the water from the side of the fence and carry it away so it does not go into my property? Will there be any way that I can be indemnified if all these good plans do not work, and excess water is dumped on my property? Finally, there are two trees that are in jeopardy. One is on my property, it is a towering California Redwood tree, but the roots probably go underneath 900 Paloma Avenue. Another is a Palm tree which is literally three feet behind my back fence. It was noted that the Redwood tree will be protected but did not see anything about protecting the Palm tree. I wish they were there and wonder if in the future the tree could be cut down or if this is just for the beginning of the construction. >Resident of 1316 Edgehill Drive: The applicant is asking for an 8-foot fence variance, correct? (Raduenz: Yes, because the neighbors asked for it. Some people want the 8-foot fence, but if you don ’t want the 8-foot fence we can put it back to the standard height.) We want an 8-foot fence. Does it cover our property? (Raduenz: Yes, on all three sides of the subject property.) There was a mention of planting some trees, will they be planted on the south side as well? (Raduenz: Yes. When we get to that point, we will contact the neighbors and we will put place markers on where the plants need to be then you can approve it or change its location as the neighbors deem necessary.) >Jay Veach, 904-906 Paloma Avenue: To answer one of the questions that the commission had, the water comes down to that catch basin from two major tributaries that have been here since day one . Sanchez Creek which comes down and feeds into this catch basin where our properties are located and ends up going to the culverts into the lagoon on the other side of the freeway. We have been experiencing huge floods, in the last couple of years especially. The drain system that Burlingame has, we all know, is inadequate. There are floods on El Camino Real which is substantially higher than our properties right now and it will only get worse. The hardscape that is uphill floods water down here and we don ’t have the Page 3City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes capacity to discharge it out from where our properties are. All of us have multiple sump pumps on our properties. We have three, our neighbor has five and right now, they are doing what they can do. They pump water from the properties and then the water comes back again because there is no way to just get the water out of here. The designer has done a great job developing and his ideas are wonderful. The problem is, when you put pressure on top of the ground that is already the lowest point, especially if you put rat-proofing on it, you are sealing nature ’s way of percolating the water down and getting it off the property through its natural flow to the bay. You catch it, it ’s going to disperse and get it back onto the neighbors’ properties that are up against this particular project. The stilt design that they came up with to remedy what used to be the moat is obviously something that can be done. You can build a house on stilts; it is done all over. I don ’t think that there is another house in Burlingame, please correct me if I am wrong, that is built on stilts. If the Planning Commission is here to make sure that our properties are not compromised in any way by the design flaws that have an irregular type of building adjacent to our properties. Part of the Planning Commission purview is to make sure that all properties fit into the neighborhood. I am not sure that this does that, but that is something that the Planning Commission must deal with. I agree with Commissioner Tse, in my opinion, that gravel will be a better way to go to percolate that water out of that property and not rat-proofing. >Michael Barber, 1316 Palm Drive: I am on the Stormwater Committee. I work on flood sea level rise issues with the county that ’s why I am interested in this. It is really important for you to understand that this is the beginning of a new era. I appreciate the input regarding rat -proofing versus gravel, those are going to be important issues. There’s also the issue that you don ’t want water around because of mosquitoes. That is the nature of where this place is. We need to know how to build on water. That’s what we are looking at. I’ve talked to Public Works Engineering and their staff mentioned the flood gates or flaps. I guess that works. That is the reason why I was suggesting the stilts idea because this is the first of potentially many others that come to the commission in the flood zone adding more buildings and paving. Granting they are using permeable paving; even permeable pavement does not hold water all the time. I just want to emphasize my concern comes from a flood perspective. I live in a 500-year flood zone, and I can tell you that the houses there will be in worse shape and cause more problems than this would because they are at the bottom. Please keep in mind that anything you do with a 100-year flood zone, you may want to consider applying policy changes to 500-year flood zones too. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Senior Civil Engineer Martin Quan: With regards to the neighbors’ concern about how the subject property acts as a retention basin for flood waters and how the development will impact the direction of flood waters, the developer and their design team originally designed to fill the parcel to bring it up to the base flood elevation to meet FEMA requirements plus the one foot for California code. However, that would then direct all the water to the adjacent neighbors. The developer has decided to leave the existing grade as-is and raise the actual structures to meet FEMA requirements. The development is meeting the FEMA requirements to construct and to protect their buildings in terms of the actual flood waters. The design requires that the crawlspace or basement area that is not habitable allow flood waters to enter and exit. Even though there are physical walls, or what we call cripple walls, that surround the structure, flood waters can enter and exit. The amount of water that is entering that parcel will be the same amount that exits the parcel. It is not going to exacerbate the existing flood conditions in that area. >Hurin: We did speak to the Chief Building Official today. Even though it is not specified on the plans, they will be required to add in vents along the base of the structures, including the ADUs, to allow water to flow all the way through the crawlspace area and not be captured or stay within the footprint of the house . The calculation to determine how much venting is required is based on the footprint of the building; that will be thoroughly checked during the building permit review process. Mr. Barber is saying that the building would have to be built on a different type of foundation, with piers, same concept as the houses on stilts in Florida. It wouldn’t be one-story tall but high enough to get the finished floor where it needs to be. That is a whole different system, the piers must go deeper into the ground because when you have water Page 4City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes flowing in there, there will also be concerns about the structural stability of the house. There is a lot of pressure that is put on the foundation with water. That is what he was talking about as not having any sidings, but instead building the house on piers. >Do we know where the water is coming from in this area? There is great concern about the amount of water coming to this site. (Quan: Yes, it is from the surrounding neighborhood. This subject property is at a lower elevation than everything else around it, so it acts as a low point. All the water is coming from uphill; it basically is a tributary area. This property and the adjacent park are a low -lying area and that is where the water flows to. We have a storm drain system that is in front of the street, on the side and we have a back alley as well. During heavy rain events, those pipe structures get filled with water, which we call surcharge, meaning the pipe can no longer handle additional flow. It basically bubbles up just like how a toilet gets clogged, it backs up and starts overfilling. Until the water recedes downstream to the bay, then water can flow out of that area. It is in the special flood hazard area, so it is prone to flooding based on the existing topography of the area or existing grades.) >We don’t have the civil drawings in our packet, but they were in the sheet index. Trusting that you have reviewed these civil drawings, do you have any comments about how the civil design has been addressed for this property and for these added structures? (Quan: At the Planning stage for the entitlements, it is just meeting the minimum requirements for Public Works Engineering as well as all the other departments that are reviewing it. We don ’t go into the details of the calculations until the building permit phase; however, they are meeting the minimum requirements for this project.) They do meet the minimum requirements at this time, specifically the topography and grade? (Quan: Correct. The option that they have selected, instead of filling the site, satisfies our concerns about creating an island where the project will be higher than the rest of the properties adjacent to them. They are allowing the flood water to still enter the parcel. That was our main concern with the original design, which shows that they will fill the existing grade higher up to meet FEMA. In the revised proposal, they are not doing that. They are meeting the minimum requirements that will satisfy the Public Works Engineering review for these plans.) >The proportion of the siding to the stucco seems off. Proportionally, I am surprised not to see more siding and less stucco. >Consider bringing the stucco parapet down and reduce the massing from the neighbor seeing the tall stucco wall. You can then carry that line all the way around the house so you can have more siding on the second story and not need that railing. >Revisit the size of the clerestory windows above the garage door. It looks too wide for the space underneath. Consider refining to make sure things line up. >Please confirm which surface type is preferable to have in the crawlspace; permeable or non-permeable. >I like the design element of extending the stucco higher on the wall. I appreciate the effort being put in given there were a lot of questions last time regarding raising the level of the property and flooding. It seems that a lot of discussion and outreach has happened, which is good. A lot of it feels like the Public Works Department needs to make their effort in the building permit process to validate stormwater flow and the systems that were being proposed will in fact do that. It is unfortunate that all the water flows to this property and makes this property owner take the brunt. I can understand why everybody else does not have the necessary drains on their properties because it went somewhere else, but at this point, we ’ve got to solve it. I am hoping that the catch basin solution, which is very innovative as opposed to just sump pumps, is a good thing. >I am in support of the design; the architecture is nice. You have done the best you can to get the parking to work and be able to utilize a multi-family lot which is what it is zoned for. >By virtue of this project, we are actually addressing the problem that the neighborhood is facing. It is almost forcing a solution to happen. I also wanted to state publicly that this property is taking on all the water from all the surrounding neighbors. On the survey, we can ’t see what the elevation grades are for the surrounding properties. We only see the information for the subject property, but I am certain that the other properties also flow towards this almost in a lake -like setting. I appreciate all the hard work the applicants are going through and that this is going to be a solution in many ways. We are providing additional housing in a state that needs additional housing. You are addressing it and being forced to address the stormwater situation. The catch basins are a nice solution with the time release of water. It will help contain the flow of water as it ’s coming. Floods happen because large amounts of water are Page 5City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes landing at the same exact time, and you are trying to stretch out that time flow of water. I agree that this is a great solution. >How ever you decide to address the stucco wall, as the designer stated that they are trying to provide something for the neighbor, it is currently a big, tall, and plain white wall. Consider reducing the height of the wall; a little bit more siding might be effective for the neighbor and avoid a potential roof balcony or party deck outside. I know there is no access to it, but somebody can climb through a window and decide that they want to use it as a roof deck or balcony. It is best if we try to avoid that; bring that parapet down and keep more siding all around it. >I wanted to thank all the neighbors who ’ve had so much to share and are so emotional about this project, that is great. It is just a way for our city to work together and try to find a solution, in this case, this neighborhood. I appreciate all the research and letter from Michael Barber; that helped us move forward with this project. >From a design perspective, which is where we are as a Planning Commission, we ’ve done our job and have addressed the issues from the design perspective as well as take in all the commentary regarding the flood zone that the property is in. I can support the project. > I really appreciate the neighborhood involvement; it usually gets a better plan. I appreciate the applicant working with the neighbors through the conflicts. >My mom has rat proofing and it ’s all fallen apart; the water just goes through there. I guess it just depends. >Regarding the comments about the trees, both the Palm tree and Redwood tree are going to be protected. The Redwood tree at rear is probably the size it is because of the amount of water around it, so that may not be a bad thing. As long as they are careful of the roots around the trees, it ’ll all be fine. I agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comments about the additional siding. Regarding the water, I suggest planting as many plants as possible, big and small, because that will help absorb water. We are having water problems a lot of the time because people are getting rid of their vegetation, whether because of drought or some other reason. It is a tool that is available beyond everything else that has been discussed. >To call this lot challenging is an understatement in a lot of different ways. I want to commend the applicant and their team; it is a very clever design. I am impressed with the due diligence. We’ve seen the opposite and it is challenging to the neighborhood, especially when they don ’t feel like there is a neighborhood outreach. I am happy to see that. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, the Senior Civil Engineer is on it, so you have everything going in your favor to make sure that this is going to be designed properly. As a builder, I can tell you countless times that I ’ve installed pavers and turf with permeable surface like they have designed here. You have 14 inches of subterranean drainage under these pavers. It will absolutely affect the pooling. I’ve seen so many times where people have just dirt like you have there and it acts almost like a full sponge when it rains. The water just pools and the dirt does not allow any sort of natural drainage. By excavation down, 14 inches per the drawings, you allow for disbursement. Per my experience, that disbursement is a big deal. It allows the water to find other ways that it hasn ’t utilized over the years. The catch basin for their own water is a great solution. They are not going to add to the problem. As far as under the house, it is a little out of our purview to even comment on it. But as a builder, rat slabs are there for a reason. Not just for rats, but it creates a better area for a crawl space if ever they need to service anything. With regards to water going in and out, as what my fellow commissioner said, you want that water away from the foundation and away from under the house. You don’t want it to sit there and saturate. As far as the percentage of the lot versus crawl space, in my opinion, it is insignificant. I would want the water to flow out of it then deal with the water after it flows out . Again, it is a job for civil engineers, which appears that you have. Regarding the Fence Variance, if the neighbors are on board with it, for that reason, I am fine with it. I will be in favor of that. I could see this project moving forward. >A very minor comment on aesthetics, I noticed that there is currently a strip between the siding and the stucco and some knee braces on the ADU. Consider adding those features to the new main structure, they will look good. I’m impartial as to whether moving the wood siding down or staying as proposed would necessarily look better. I wouldn ’t know unless I saw it. But if the same details from the ADU were applied, it will be alright where it is. >It sounds like everything that can be done reasonably is being done here. Generally, Burlingame has Page 6City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes done a really good job on sea level rise in terms of climate change, maybe not so well in other places, I am not sure. I would love to see something like this as future discussion item for the Planning Commission. I think that would do really well. As far as this project goes, it ’s doing the best it can. I would be happy to see it move forward. >I really think that adding knee braces is a good idea. It would be nice because it almost starts to be prairie-looking, it gives some definition. It might be something to consider. Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >(Raduenz: I can come back as an FYI with the siding changes and knee braces.) >(Hurin: Staff would recommend that if the commission is agreeable to having the applicant add the knee braces and change the siding, that you put that in the motion as an added condition of approval. If you put that in the motion, we can make it clear to add that as a condition of approval and then staff will ensure that it gets put into place when the plans are submitted for a building permit.) >Michael Barber, 1316 Palm Drive: It’s too bad there’s all that water there. There’s a reason why all the water is there and why nobody built there before. If you look at the neighbors’ houses, that area is a seasonal pond. They didn ’t build in seasonal ponds, but we are building in seasonal ponds now. That’s the point I was trying to make. >Jonathan Friedman, 1312 Edgehill Drive: I want to thank all the commissioners for listening. It seems like a good idea to plant the kind of trees that suck up more water rather than less water. That would be a good idea on the whole property. I think the engineer must deal with the question of should the water go under, permeate or not? Finally, I ’d like to ask if there is a channel or anything to protect our properties from the water coming from 900 Paloma Avenue going to our properties? It is my experience, at least in my property and our neighbors at Edgehill Drive, that the water comes to us, sluices down to Edgehill Drive and comes onto the front of our houses. We all have several sump pumps to deal with that. I’ve never seen it reaching across the fence to the neighbor ’s property. So, I am concerned that excess water from the hardscape and all the other factors, all things being equal if it ’s going to flow, it’s going to flow into our property. In the future, can we sue if that ’s the case? Another thing is I don ’t see any water being diverted from the fence line onto that underground pipe. Between the ADU and my fence, is there any channel taking water into that storage place? (Raduenz: There is, that is part of the building permit approval with Travis Lutz and the property. We’ll review that.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that on the new two-story single-unit building, the height of the stucco siding shall be reduced and replaced with horizontal cedar siding shown on the upper floor; and that the knee brace and horizontal trim (between the stucco and horizontal siding) design elements on the accessory dwelling unit structures be incorporated into to the single-unit building; Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1522 La Mesa 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 and an expansion of the attached garage (considered to be substantial construction ). Page 7City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Jeff Guinta, Innovative Concepts, applicant and designer; Steve Seyedin, property owner) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1522 La Mesa Dr - Staff Report 1522 La Mesa Dr - Attachments 1522 La Mesa Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a conversation with the neighbor at 1530 La Mesa Drive. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item since she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jeff Guinta, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Ms. Seyedin, 1522 La Mesa Drive: Currently we are proposing wrought iron railings on the deck . However, I'd like to ask permission to change that to glass railings, if possible. The front windows have grids. If the Commissioners allow it, I would like to keep the shape of the windows but make them solid so they would be the same as the ones at the rear of the house. They will still have the arches, but they will not have grids; I'd like to have a clear view if that is allowed. Currently, that's what we have, but we wanted to change them based on the Commission's recommendation to make it more architectural. If you would allow it, we would like that. If not, we'll just keep it as is. >Charles Verlinden, 1517 La Mesa Drive: Based on the story poles, is that the height of the proposed roof? Is a Variance required? (Chair: No, I don’t think so. The height is within the restrictions. It is just to give you an idea of what the bulk is going to look like.) >Public comment sent via email by occupants of 1521 La Mesa Drive: Ahead of the public meeting on Monday, March 25, 2024, regarding the project site at 1522 La Mesa Drive, I would like to reiterate my disapproval of the proposed height extension. Per the proposed building, as illustrated by the shared photos, the increased height of the roof would partially obstruct the current skyline view from our residence. Further, per conversation with our other neighbor, they have also expressed dissatisfaction with the project citing similar unfavorable implications. I hope members of the Board and the owner of the 1522 La Mesa Drive understand that we cherish our skyline view as an asset of our residences and hope they reconsider advancing plans for elevation. (The Commissioners were provided copies of the attached photos from the public comment email.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the project a lot; it looks really nice. It's a big house, but it's also a big lot. Everything seems to be within all of the code requirements; there are no requests for variances for height or other exceptions. I certainly am sensitive to the views. It was hard to see this from the street level, but the photos are very helpful. Regarding the window grids at the front of the house, based on the other houses on the street I actually don't have a problem not having grids. In general, I think windows look a lot better with the grids, but the surrounding houses all are without them. So, it seems to be okay. Regarding the glass on the rear railing, I also think that that's fine for me. All in all, I'd be okay with this moving forward to action. >I feel compelled to read the view preservation code every time we have this, because the photos were really helpful, but I don't think they block the view that's covered by the Hillside Overlay view preservation . It states that “Hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views of the bay, the airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor Page 8City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes living areas, that is living rooms and family rooms .” The house does not get in the way of those views as far as I can see. This style is not my personal favorite, but it's an improvement from the first round. There are a few details that look a little bit off to me that might need to be refined. The faux stonework (quoins) at the corners of the house look a little bit off where they hit the roof eaves. They're meant to look like they're supporting something, and it just goes right to a roof eave. Regarding the two dormers at the front of the house, the overhangs look unnaturally large because it's the same as the larger main roof. There's something off in the proportions of the dormer roof. Unfortunately, this house looks better with grids in the windows because otherwise it starts morphing towards a modern home and the glass on the deck would do the same. I'm not opposed to glass on the deck. I actually don't like wrought iron, but that's a subjective view on my part. Consider revisiting the dormer overhangs and the quoins, they just look a little bit off to me. >You decided this is the architectural style that you want, so, the commitment must be there. If you commit to the style, then you commit to the grids which are part of this style. Therefore, I don ’t understand why the rear windows do not have any grids. I would love to be able to say that the project looks great without window grids, but it will look very strange with this house. The back would look better with some grids, so the design holds together. If you had the grids in there, the glass railing wouldn't bother me so much, but it is a more modern look. I guess it'd be fine with the glass if there were grids in the back. You would want to have the majority of something being in the character of the home that you've chosen . Regarding the comments my colleague had about the quoins and such are hopefully just a little detailing issue. I really appreciate you retaining the oak trees. This is the first time I saw the trees in the plan set; that's a great tree and helps it all set in. It's a big house. I commend all your landscaping, that's great that you did that. > I'm fine with the glass railing in the back given the fact that this is a view home. I'm okay with no grids on the lower, larger windows in the living areas. I could see having the grids on the upper floor windows, but I'm not that worried about it. The grids at the front really are going to make a big difference in the style of this home, it's a positive feature. I agree with my fellow commissioner about the proportion of the dormer. It just needs a little work. Otherwise, it's come a long way from where we saw it the first time and it has now an architectural style to it. It will add value to that street. >I really like the design; it's a great improvement. The expression of the style is generally well done . Because of that, I would definitely like to see the grids in the windows remain. If they weren't there, I would probably be asking about them. To really lean into this design, having grids on the windows is necessary . I don't think that's the same for the rear of the house. Although I do think that wrought iron railing will look nice, I'm also totally fine with glass if the other commissioners are all right with that. I agree with my fellow commissioner's comments about the dormers. In terms of blending the quoins, the stonework on the corners, I don't see that being a big issue up in the eave. But between the front door and the garage door, some of those corners and the quoining just stops and it looks like they're overhanging a little bit. It's not necessary to continue those all the way down into the earth because there's a slope there. But in the same way some attention might be needed to blend those quoinings in with the eaves. A little attention into blending those at the bottom between the entrance and the garage is also needed. >This project has gone a long way; I appreciate all the changes. A glass railing is fine. I agree with my fellow commissioners that if you're going to do grids, you must be committed to the grids. I like the grids on the front of the house and would ask that you continue that to the rear of the house. I'm not opposed to not having grids under the deck because that's kind of a dark area anyway. So having more grids under that deck might feel a little tight and dark under there. Having just clear glass windows and doors there, I'm totally okay if my fellow commissioners agree with me, but I would do grids up at the top. >I just want to thank my fellow commissioner for teaching me the word “quoining”. Being more specific on sheet A10, I'm having difficulty with the one that seems to just come out of the roof of the garage and go into the middle of the eaves. So, the quoining that's truly in the corners, I'm okay with, but that one just looks off to me. With respect to the grids, I do like them. I think there's a compromise there somewhere . Maybe there are some windows on the back facade that we could agree don ’t require grids, but the two sides and the front should really have them. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Lowenthal, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 9City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Recused:Tse1 - b.14 Channing Road, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition (major renovation) to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer; Arjun Dutt and Ritu Vohra, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 14 Channing Rd - Staff Report 14 Channing Rd - Attachments 14 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao 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: >Planning Manager Hurin clarified that the removal of 50% of exterior walls only has to do with determining whether the project triggers an application for Design Review, not whether it's considered to be a new house.) >I can appreciate the request for the variance on the second floor and the fact that the existing house is towards the front of the lot. The number that is used for that average setback is skewed by another house that is significantly further back and doesn't reflect the rhythm of that street. This house is slightly in front of its neighbor, but not much and its neighbor to the other side is pointing the other direction. I don't have any qualms with the request for the variance on it because I think that it does do a good job of leveraging a compact design and it doesn't lack articulation because of it. Many times, designs just look like a two-story box. The designer has done a good job of breaking this up, making it look a little smaller than it is and not accentuating the higher plate heights. So I'm in favor of this project; I like it quite a bit . My one request is that we note that the second story wall on the left side is two feet back from the front wall. I'd like it to stay that way and not come forward and square out because then it would look like a bad second story addition. So, if that's maintained at the front and rear, then that will accomplish what you intended it to. Otherwise support the project >I agree with my fellow commissioner on the variance. The first floor makes perfect sense as an existing home. Unless we make them tear the whole thing down, that makes sense. The second story would be a struggle to meet code. It would look odd to try to set back the second story to comply with code requirements. Of course, it could be less than what it is, but I like the way the house looks. My question about the standing seam metal roof is because the house is dark; we're not supposed to comment on color, it doesn't bother me architecturally. You have a lot of interest going on with this house . You have three different types of exterior siding, plus the belly bands and large moldings. There's a lot to look at. I don't think you need a standing seam metal roof. As a contractor, the less changes, the less moneym so you could save some money on the roof. I do like the changes in materials. The stucco to the siding is very nice. It's a well thought-out design, so I could see this moving forward. Page 10City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Variances are very special. We don't give them out all the time, very rarely. Usually, it's because there's something special underneath and you're keeping a lot of it, or there's a tree, or there's something architectural that you're trying to save. That's not the case here; this is a new house. I feel that everyone has the same problem in this neighborhood. Nobody wants the neighbor to do a project. It's really what it is. Too much bulk, they want their privacy, I totally get it. If everyone came up here and said,” the remnants of my house are already here, so I want to stay here ”, then they should just leave the first floor where it is and build a second story at the proper setback. You're a good architect, you could do it. You haven't looked into it, but you could do it. It wouldn't necessarily look like that, but it would be nice. I'm not in agreement with the two commissioners who have spoken. At the most I could see a variance for the first floor if a significant amount was saved and there ’s a different design for the second floor. It's not a bad house, but it looks very flat. It's so flat to the front and it's so close to the street. I believe it is not in the pattern of the streetscape at all. >I'm reacting to the applicant making the statement that the current front setback of the house is much in character with the street. When we're looking at a setback table, this property is 9.8 feet from the front property line where most of the others are in double digits; 14, 15, and 18 feet away. When we see front setback variance requests, we're talking about a couple of feet; very close and most houses are along the same line, that makes a lot of sense. As my fellow commissioner was saying, variances are a special item to grant. At the very best, the first floor could be granted that variance. The first thing I look at is the floor plan. I'm looking at the spaces and at the dimensions of the rooms. For all intents and purposes, this is a new home. The front bedroom, at over 15 feet front to back dimension, seems large for a guest space. That could be reduced easily. The mudroom is very generous, it's a large mudroom; that could be reduced in dimension. Very easily you can at least come closer to some of the 14 feet setbacks on the street. I realize a lot of your neighbors are happy. They don't want to see the massing of the house grow in terms of the footprint, but I'm not sure if everyone's really getting the feel of how the second story is going to look when that's just a flat face and it being less than 10 feet away from the front property line, moving up and being a two -story face flat along that facade. The second story floor plan, again, has several ways that could be arranged to not lose any spaces or rooms, but be able to meet that second story front setback and still be able to provide all the generous spaces that you're looking to accomplish. I agree with some of my fellow commissioners, the design is very nice; I like the back elevation a lot. There are some interesting things happening on the design of the front as well, but I don't support the front setback variance on both the first and the second story. >I do feel like it's a little flat at the front; I'm not opposed to the setback. We've seen a number of projects that have come in front of us requesting setback variances, but maybe not front setbacks. I have one on the side of my house where they kept the existing foundation, and that house is right up against my master bedroom. We've had one on Burlingame Avenue where they kept that existing house, remodeled it and they kept the setbacks, especially the side and the front. If you look at it, it doesn't fit the neighborhood, but it's a very pretty Spanish style home and they've done a nice job. So, we have done it. We've had nice projects come before us. Maybe it's the proposed colors, I'm not sure, but it feels like the front just needs a little bit of work on the second floor. I don't know if it's the setback or the material, but it feels very large and forward to me. I really like this house and I could see moving forward, but I do want to see a little bit more work on the second floor top part of that house. I don't know if it's just stepping it back a little bit, I feel like it's just something that's right in our faces. So, I'm not opposed to leaving where the first floor is. If the house is where it's at and we can work with it, we've done it on a lot of other projects in our city. I don't like the narrow door on the side and the roof on the side either, but I'm sure you can figure something out. >On the front façade, the main gable does feel a little bit flat. Most of the ways I've seen houses with prominent steep gables like this on the second story is they actually have it project out a little bit on the second story and maybe a little bit more in the peak of the gable end, but this is already so projected out in the front. I'm not sure if that would be agreeable or even work well in this case. At the very least, it might help to use the belly band at the top of the first story. If that was projecting out maybe a few inches just so that it was flush with the top of those projecting windows, that might add a little bit of definition between there, but I'm not sure. I know that the elevation drawing shows different types of wood siding being used on the second story and then the peak of the gable end on the rendering, it looks all the same. It's hard to recommend anything that wouldn't exacerbate the problem that my fellow Page 11City of Burlingame March 25, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes commissioners have had on this. >The round window on the front elevation is out of proportion; it looks a bit big to me. It looks like there is too much going on. For me, that's the least of the problems. >I don't have a problem with the variance because of the existing footprint and location right off Peninsula Avenue. On the first house off Peninsula Avenue, the side yard is almost reading as a front yard and it's very close to the road. It'll be fine in the context of this immediate neighborhood. I do find the ground floor front windows to be large, especially for a bedroom and that it's only nine feet from the street . From a privacy and noise perspective, that probably is just not practical, and they look a little bit oversized. I like the suggestion of my fellow commissioner about the side awning. The side door needs to be wider. Even if you must move the gas meter, that's not going to be a practical door to go in and out of . Consider adding some more interest on the front facade. I could find support for the variance either way. >If privacy is the issue, consider applying for a fence variance. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, 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 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.34 Dwight Road - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 34 Dwight Rd - Memorandum 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame