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