Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.07.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, July 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: Interim Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, 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 June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not present at the June 24, 2024 meeting, but has read the meeting minutes and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vice-Chair Horan, 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 on non-agenda items. 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 July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1588 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Vincent Ko, property owner ) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Jack Shish and Vincent Ko, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Confirm if the new entry door will be recessed from the stucco as was previously approved. The new entry door looks like it is on the same plane as the stucco. >Provide additional details to show how the door will sit in the doorway. We want to know if the new door will continue to have the relief as previously approved or will it be flush with the stucco. >I remember the house from the previous meeting, and it was unclear from the beginning if it will have a textured or smooth stucco finish. I love rough stucco, but I understand the reasoning behind wanting to go smooth. I also understand wanting a larger door, but it ’s kind of a loss because it will look very flat and plain. Consider adding some type of molding to give it depth. The recess door is really attractive with the current design. >I agree, the door needs to be in the same plane as it is now. It needs to be set back from the face of the stucco. I would like to see the splay come back. I have no problem with the larger door, but there is an angled splay on the stucco, so the relief shows up. We don ’t need to have a trim anymore because we are building the relief. It will be more representative of the home that is there and the home that we are hoping will be there. Without the floor plan, we really can ’t see that detail here. We need something which explains that you are going to do that so we can approve this. >I have no problems with the changes to the garage door, the size of the front door or the stucco. We just need the detail of the front door. >I definitely agree with the comments on the front door. I don ’t have any issues with the garage door. I am not sure if I am on board with the stucco. Looking at the Google Street View, it had a lot more pronounced textured stucco than the other homes in the area. However, taking a walk on that block, every Page 2City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes home of that style does have some kind of texture. Even some houses of different style have texturing. If this was a new project, I would like to see some kind of texturing on the stucco, it doesn ’t have to be the existing texture, just something to help it blend a little bit more with other existing homes of that style . Personally, I am not in favor of a completely smooth stucco finish. I am fine with all the other changes. >I agree with my fellow commissioner regarding the stucco texture. I also agree that the texture at the home right now is excessive, but looking at Google Street View, two or three of the homes have a much lighter texture relief which helps make that look nice and fit in contextually. I would be more in support of a light texture but not a completely smooth stucco finish. >We should propose a continuance and allow the applicants to take our feedbacks and update their drawings to what they truly want and we can make a decision from there. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group, designer; Tan Tseng, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Debo Sodipo, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Rich Sargent: Thank you for considering my comments on this project when it was considered as a study item. I appreciate the changes that the applicant made to the project. I’d like to make additional comments to help make sure that the project is built in the way the applicant has intended and the Planning Commission approved because I think there are several details missing. First, I appreciate the applicant ’s commitment to divided lite windows. I’m not sure what Fibrex windows are, but they appear to refer to Anderson Windows of which there are many grill types offered . The only option that matches the traditional detailing the commission has approved in the past is what Anderson Windows calls as "full divided lite” and the commission often refers to as simulated true divided lite. Would the commission consider adding this as a condition of approval or request a sample of the specified window? I would also request that the front elevation include more measurement callouts to ensure what is built matches what was drawn. In particular, the front door scales to 7’-0”. Typically, for 9’-0” plate heights the door is 8’-0” and the windows have 8’-0” head height. Additionally, I would request that the two wide, short windows on the left elevation be revisited. Wouldn’t they look better as a pair of casement or awning windows? The 2’x5’ windows don’t seem consistent with either the design or the neighborhood . Thank you for considering my input. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >One of the things that caught my attention was the exterior lights. I want to make sure that they comply with the code, that it is angled down and not shine out. Some of the bright white lights shine into the windows of other homes in the neighborhood. Consider using soft white lights and angled down so we have less light pollution. >The upper floor windows on the street -facing side seem to be quite wide. They almost overpower the windows in the living room. Consider a narrower size that meets egress requirements. >In the rendering, the corbels look a bit small for its location, especially in proportion to the rest of the house and the columns at the front porch, but they look a little larger in the elevation. Since there are no dimensions called out, make sure the corbel size is proportionate to the rest of the house. They need to be about 50% bigger in my opinion. >The improvements are nice. I appreciate the attention to the gable ends, the change in finishes and the column detailing. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I was trying to figure out how much overhang there is on the roof to support the larger corbels. I don ’t know how that goes together, but something is a little off. I very much appreciate that the applicant took the comments to heart. This is substantially better than what we saw the first time. >I too feel that this project has come a long way. I like the rendering. The scale of the windows looks better with the front windows being a little bit shorter and more compact. The trim and the head piece makes that a lot better feature. The gable end is a lot better. >I agree with my fellow commissioner that the corbel might be undersized in the rendering. I would recommend using a 6” x 6” instead of a 4” x 4” because the smaller size will look wimpy in that spot. >We have a light regulation that you need to follow. You have a lot of lights, which look great in the rendering, but you need to really consider who those lights are shining on. I’m more worried about the lights on the side because of the often unintended consequences that light shines into somebody ’s bedroom which disrupts their sleep. That needs to be considered. The front tends to shine out on the street a little bit and more forgiving, but the exterior lights on the side are not because somebody ’s windows are a short distance away. Follow the ordinance and try to minimize the impact on the neighbors. >I agree with Mr. Sargent regarding the Fibrex window. I don ’t have a problem with that line of windows, but you want to make sure that the dividers are attractive and not just a single line like the rendering shows. That is an important detail because those dividers are a big deal to us, and they really do add to the home. >Make sure that the renderings are the most up to date, aligned with the one that you showed us today and not the one submitted with the packet we received. That those renderings match sheets A 3.2 and A3.3 because those were slightly different too. To have a consistent package going to building permit, all those things need to align. >I like the design a lot more. It definitely has come a long way. I am happy with the treatments to the gables and the columns. I wasn ’t sure about the stucco on the first floor when I first saw the renderings, but it has grown on me. I like the idea of a light but still textured stucco. It will look well. >The addition of divided lites helps a lot. There are a lot of much older homes on that street and a lot of them have very small divided lites on their windows. Right now, in isolation, the divided lites look good and Page 4City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they compliment the rest of the house. I’m not sure if making them a more traditional divided lites would make the project better, worse or if it adds any value to the project. >Per the comment we received from Mr. Sargent, he mentioned that the front door should be an 8’-0” door. Suggest making the size adjustment to an 8’-0” door. >In the rendering, it looks great as a single line divided lite. But what Mr. Sargent mentioned is that we need to make sure that the divider is the right width because we can overdo it for sure. A thinner line has a nice contemporary look to it, but if it is too thin it is negligent and goes away. So, it is finding that right balance, probably a little under an inch and making sure they use the right grid pattern from Anderson windows and make that work. >Please provide the window grid and profile details. >All of us are saying that the project has come a long way, and it is looking really good. There are a few details that we would like to see so we know that what will be built is what we have discussed here and the efforts put in by the applicant. We want to make sure that those get captured. Hopefully we don ’t get additional comments. I just see us validating these and we are going to get a good project out of this. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - c.114 Bayswater 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. (Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development LLC, applicant and designer; Rockwood Home Development LLC, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Quinn Ye, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Suggest adding false gable vents as a decorative element on the front elevation. They look good on the rear, but they are a little bit short, consider adjusting the height. Everything about Tudor homes is about steep roofs and tall elements to create that sense of height. The gable vents on the rear elevation look a bit squat, consider changing to a narrower and taller vent. If applicable, it would be nice to add Page 5City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes false vents at the front as a decorative element since you have vaulted ceilings. >Regarding the steps at the front porch, it is a nice detail when you can approach a home and not have to step up and over into the house. >I like the comments that were made with regards to the vent and doing the false gable vent on the right side of the front elevation. The fact that you have a window on the left side, you have an opportunity to match it in size and proportion with a vent on the right side and the other vents on the side if you pick that same proportion, it ’s going to take that all the way around. The proportion you have with the window is in line with most of your other windows. It's a little longer and narrower like the rest of your windows, so if you stay in that proportion with your vent, you have an opportunity to create a really nice element in that gable end. That was what my fellow commissioner was looking for and it will work well. >On the elevations, I noticed some squares that were called out as lights on the exterior. You need to make sure that you understand and comply with our lighting guidelines for the exterior light fixtures because they need to be pointed down. You can ’t point the light out and annoy your neighbors. There’s a specific guideline for it. Especially on the side door where you put a film for privacy, you also have a light outside that door, make sure that you are not shining that light on your neighbor’s bedroom. >Every project needs to be in compliance with the code and local ordinance. I'm not sure if this needs to be called out. >My desire in adding that is because this particular light graphically presented today was shown as a square. It is just a reminder; it will be in the meeting minutes and it will be passed on to the Building Division to ensure compliance downstream. >In this instance, what was rendered is more of a lantern -type fixture and that leads to that comment or clarification. >(Spansail: Staff can confirm that they do meet code requirements, so it does not have to be part of the motion.) >For clarification, the vents don't need to be functional. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to include the following: - false gable vent shall be added on the second floor, right-side gable on the front elevation. - all gable vents shall match the size and proportion of the window on the second floor, left-side gable on the front elevation. Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - d.1241-1251 Whitehorn Way, zoned I /I - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage in an existing warehouse building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301. (Sailesh Mehra c/o Larry Soloman; Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer and Nilmeyer, architect;Whitehorn LLC c /o SC Properties (Kevin Cullinane)) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 6City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Interim Community Development Director Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Sailesh Mehra represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Does this Conditional Use Permit follow the property in its lifetime? (Hurin: Yes, unless it is replaced by a permitted use. The conditions of approval will stay with these tenant spaces. If the applicant ’s vehicle storage use leaves the property, another vehicle storage use can occupy the space. As long as they follow the same conditions, they will still be able to operate here. If they wanted to change the conditions, they have to come back for an amendment, or it can be replaced by a permitted use.) (Spansail: They would have to abandon the use for it to go away as a right for the property for a certain amount of time, usually 6 months to a year.) >Will there be a restriction if the new tenants plan to hold events here? If that ’s what the commission wants, should there be something particular written that it should be as proposed and no events allowed, or is it completely separate than a Conditional Use Permit? (Hurin: There are no restrictions or limits on events in the Zoning Code. The commission has the option to consult the applicant if they were to commit to a certain maximum number of events per year or if there is a reasonable number of events that they think they would have, that can be part of the conditions of approval. It is something that is hard to monitor. It could be on a code enforcement basis. For a future user, staff would discuss the proposed use and if they said they plan to hold monthly events or bi -monthly events, that is something staff has to consider and possibly determine if there is an intensification of use.) >I just want to know what we get ourselves into with the conditional use permit. (Spansail: You can look at the conditions of approval from the staff report. It is not going into much detail with that you have mentioned but it does make sure, for example, that the vehicles are not displayed outdoors or in driveways, it shall only apply to vehicle storage and does not include vehicle sales, repair or detailing . Those conditions will still apply to the next tenant. If they wanted to expand the use, they will have to come back and apply for an expansion of the Conditional Use Permit.) >The event issue did not bother me until I thought we could have 50-60 person gatherings and we only have nine parking spaces available. The gathering itself does not bother me. We know that day in and day out, Mr. Solomon will be the only one parking there and he is the only one who ’s going to be inside. But if we don’t have any restrictions on events, whether it be Mr. Solomon’s or the next user taking this on, then you don’t have an intensification clause. If we started having events or treating it as a museum instead of just vehicle storage, it feels that we under -parked this area. I do remember when we discussed this for the first time that there is some concern amongst all the businesses that share that property and the private street regarding parking. I would hate not to put in a restriction when we should to manage that parking . (Spansail: If you’d like to, that is something that can be discussed with the applicant to determine what applies to the site. We can certainly limit but we cannot put it on the condition that no events take place, Page 7City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes or we can define events as what you have mentioned. Does an event require 10 or 20 people? We can get as specific as we want.) >I don’t want to totally limit the user and it is not that we are being presented that this space will suddenly become a party space. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the fact that we make this a conditional use. If we don ’t’ have any requirements for it, the next user can interpret it differently than Mr . Solomon and we will have created baggage downstream. (Spansail: Understood. One thing that we can keep in mind is that the Conditional Use Permit is for vehicle storage, so it is not considering events or any type of events, just the vehicle storage as a use.) (Hurin: As presented, it is just simply storing vehicles. It can be done commercially, or in this case, it is a private individual. If you want to get more into the details, we can ask the applicant what their intention is and consider adding a condition of approval to limit either the size of the event, the number of events or how often they happen per year. We would need a little more information from the applicant regarding that matter.) (Spansail: From a staff perspective, I don’t think we can consider events based on the definition that we have in here. I don ’t think that an event would be considered a vehicle storage. But if you want to limit the amount of people that can park outside, that is certainly something you can put in place, that no more than 10 individuals will park to access this facility at any one time.) >Mehra: We would be amenable to that condition. I would like to emphasize that the dominant use is vehicle storage. This will not be a venue for events by any means. >I understand that, and I appreciate that it is not really the intent. I am just trying to make sure that we are not creating an open -ended use permit that gets misconstrued because we have an eye contact agreement that is not in the conditions of approval. >Maybe we can put into condition that events are limited to a maximum of nine parking spaces which are within their use. (Spansail: I would not even say that events are allowed in this space because right now, I do not believe events are allowed. Having a private individual or a friend over to look at cars is one thing. Calling it an event, if we say that events are limited, we are giving them a right that they are not applying for at this time. I would be careful in saying that events are limited. I would cap it to the amount of people and/or parking that is allowed to be in this space.) >So, the use would not be allowed to generate more traffic than the nine parking spaces that are allocated. >Isn’t that true for any conditional use? Why is this special? Why are we thinking about this differently than any other permitted or conditional use? >Thinking ahead, that downstream, if it is not in writing the next person who takes over the premises can put their car collections in there and start selling tickets for events. It may not get caught until it becomes an enforcement issue rather than a use issue. >Unfortunately, I can see that happening to any property. Any use that we have approved can be changed by the applicant and misuse or misinterpret it. >If we at least have it in writing and something comes up, then code enforcement can be called. Or a neighbor could ask what the use is because there are 20 cars sitting in front of this building every Friday night. I am not saying that is the intent, but if we have it in the conditions and somebody calls the city, then the city will be able to have something to tell them what was discussed during the entitlement process. >I am not against the idea; I am just wondering where do we stop? Let ’s pretend it is just a regular warehouse, who’s to say I will not do the same thing we’re talking about with any other application? Page 8City of Burlingame July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could it be because it is an application for a conditional use permit? We don ’t require conditional use permits on everything. (Hurin: Assistant City Attorney ’s comments regarding how a vehicle storage is defined do not include any events. I think we are covered. If we get a complaint about lots of cars at the location, then code enforcement has enough basis to take action because the conditional use permit approving that specific use, we have a definition, and it does not include events.) >It will then be the same thing; they still cannot have events. >(Spansail: Now with the legislative history, because we have been talking about it here that no event should be happening at this place, we are covered.) Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, 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 There were no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that Councilmember Emily Beach will be stepping down from the City Council on July 14, 2024. At their meeting on July 1, 2024, the City Council adopted the parklet use fees by resolution and also heard a presentation and recommendation by Seifel Consulting regarding increasing the residential impact fees. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Page 9City of Burlingame