HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.08.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 12, 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, Assistant Planner Brittany Xiao, 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.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft July 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft July 8, 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 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
a.1556 Balboa Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
Page 1City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301(e)(2). (Alex Tzang Architects, applicant and architect; Daniel Gage, property
owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Staff Report
Attachments
Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing.
Ricci Wu, 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:
>I appreciate the effort put in since the last time. Our comments were heard and the interpretation has
worked out well. Suggest putting only one beam over the entry door gable because you are losing the
board and batten above which is a great piece in the front that ties all that together. Otherwise, it looks
great.
>As you are selecting the exterior light fixtures, please make sure that you are following Burlingame's
exterior lighting ordinance for shielding against light pollution.
>As my fellow commissioner has commented, I too was thinking that the nested gables could be
improved on as a decorative detail element to carry out the board and batten across all three gables to
add a little bit more interest to the front elevation.
>The question regarding the secondary trim over the front portico was exactly what my fellow
commissioner said. Increasing the height of the board and batten on the gable end would be an
improvement over the front door, rather than squashing it down to a shorter area.
>A couple of window areas can be improved. For example the window sill of the windows over the front
bedroom on the right-hand side, on the plans they scale at 30 inches. If you are to have them at 36
inches, the windows at the front could also be taller. It looks to be somewhat squat right now as an awning
window. It could be an improvement if you increase the height of that window so it could be like the
windows at the right-side of the house. Minimizing any amount of blank wall space can be an improvement
for the front curb appeal. I don’t think it will hinder anything inside in terms of furniture placement.
>On the rear elevation, the large windows in the primary bedroom overlooking the backyard seem to be
out of proportion. Each one is wider than the bi -fold doors down below. They seem large and out of scale .
Consider making it a set of 3’-0” windows or something with a fixed window at the middle. Something to
mimic what we see on the side elevations will look better proportionally and improve the rear elevation .
Otherwise, I appreciate you addressing our comments. This is an improvement of the last version.
>There are a couple of things that I am looking at and one is the details around the windows. I’d love to
see thicker moldings around the exterior windows to give it some depth.
Page 2City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Consider using some brackets at the front and the rear to provide more details to the exterior. One of
the projects that we have tonight have some nice details that you may want to look at.
>The front door is small. Suggests using an 8’-0” tall door instead of doing a transition at the top; that
will give us a nice height and openness instead of breaking it up. Thank you for the changes that have
been made, but I’d like to see a couple more things come in front of us.
>I appreciate the changes and going point -by-point with the suggestions we ’ve made at the previous
meeting. I wouldn’t want to bring the application back again. They have made a lot of progress and the
design looks good. I know it is difficult to put all these riders on it, but it seems that they have listened,
and this is their design.
> I agree with my fellow commissioners, the design has come a long way. Not to disagree with my other
fellow commissioners, but I agree that it is not worth having them come back again. I’ll be more inclined
to move the project this evening, but we can certainly add some caveats to the approval.
>I agree with what has been said. It could be a better project by integrating some of these suggestions
we’ve heard, in particular the height at the front. Everything got a little squished. It could be more generous
and can read better because the entrance is such an important element. It will look better if these small
changes are incorporated into the design. It will be fine the way it is, but we are here to make suggestions
that can make the design more pleasing.
>We are making suggestions to improve the curb appeal and think that these are not expensive
changes.
>I’m concerned about the beam at the front portico because it is showing different dimensions and
different heights from drawing to drawing. It will be helpful if you provide specific information on what it is
intended to be. The front elevation on the first page of the packet and the one on sheet A 3.0 are entirely
different. Just trying to make it look as nice as possible.
>The suggestion regarding the two windows at the front on the second floor and at the rear over the
primary bedroom are again enhancements to the overall design.
>Some brackets will help put it all together.
>In terms of getting more of the board and batten trims, I asked about that because I wasn ’t sure if
they will necessarily look better. Since the architect said that they have explored it and they didn ’t think it
helped the design look better, I am comfortable leaving that out of the conditions.
>Since we are asking for more than just two things, I’m wondering if we can continue this project.
>We need to agree or disagree regarding the board and batten. I didn ’t disagree when it was brought
up, but I can accept it either way. I had nested gables in my house too; it can look good. I think we need
to decide on that so we can move it forward and be specific enough for the staff.
>I thought the architect has a good answer. He is putting it on the ones that are whole gables and the
ones that are not whole gables, they have decided not to put them. It is a rationale that is consistent and I
am okay with that.
Chair Lowenthal re-opened the public hearing.
>Wu: Thank you. I just talked to the homeowners, we have decided to use an 8’-0” tall front door with
more glass and do the same trim that we have for the other windows. One thing I want to clarify regarding
Page 3City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the suggestion to make the front window taller, that is where we plan to locate the bed, so we prefer not to
make the window bigger. Regarding the gable suggestion of using just one beam and make the board and
batten taller or generous, we can definitely do that. In fact, we might not need a beam there. There might
just be two beams where the rafters will sit on and in the middle can just be all board and batten with a
very thin trim. Also, the board and batten at the complete gables make sense. We have tested that out
and it only looks good on the complete gable at the front. Doing it at the other two nested gables certainly
doesn’t make it look better.
>Have you looked at adding some brackets or other details? It feels a little bland. The brackets are no
big deal, but they do add some nice detail. (Wu: If we make the board and batten bigger, we can
definitely incorporate a pair of brackets at the porch, at least. Maybe not at the top. At the back where
there is a big gable, we can also do some brackets.)
>It sounds to me that you will be more comfortable coming back to us with these changes. Do you
have clarity going forward? (Wu: I think we have a good direction and we can work on them with the
planner. If we don’t have to come back, that will be great. We definitely prefer a condition of approval
where we can work with the planner. The comments that we got are very constructive and very clear
directions on what we need to do.)
>Do at least an 8’-0” door with no transition.
Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
application with the following added condition:
>that prior to submitting for a building permit, the following design elements shall be
incorporated into the project plans:
- front door and transom window shall be replaced with a taller front door (at least 8'-0" tall) with
no transom window above it.
- upper horizontal beam on the front porch shall be eliminated (porch shall contain one
horizontal beam).
- roof eave brackets shall be added at front and rear of the house (number and location to be
approved by Planning Division staff).
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 -
b.1508 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
plate height for a first floor addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Una Kinsella, UMK
Architecture, applicant and architect; Kelly Chow, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Staff Report
Attachments
Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff
report.
Page 4City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing.
Una Kinsella, 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:
>This is a really beautiful design that has been incorporated well into the home; it looks seamless. It
has some similar qualities to the neighbor’s house on the right.
>Appreciate the sensibilities with the massing, height and maintaining the elegance of the Tudor style.
>It is within the front setback, so I thought there might be a Front Setback Variance request but there
isn’t. It is very tastefully done.
>I don’t see any issues with the Special Permit request for plate height. It is in line with the style of the
house, as well as with some of the pitches and roof heights of some other houses on the block.
>It is lovely, you did a great job, the design is beautiful.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 -
c.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
Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao 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:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
Page 5City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>In the renderings, there are corner boards at the second level, but they are not shown on the
elevations. If the intent is to put in the corner boards, make sure that when you submit for the building
permit the corner boards are there so that when Planning staff conducts the final inspection, there will be
no surprises.
>Have the width for the muntins on the windows been selected? They look like they are drawn at 5/8
-inch.
>I want to commend the applicant. Seeing how the design started, the current design looks fabulous .
I’m glad my fellow commissioner asked about the windows. They look nice this way. I doubt that those are
7/8-inch muntins. Otherwise, it looks really good. Thank you very much for being responsive and looking
at what we had in mind.
> Thank you so much for listening to our comments. This is a very nicely designed home. The
improvements and enhancements along the way as a team, all of us, has resulted in a nice design. I
asked about the width of the muntin bars because the house has a more modern aesthetic. Often a 5/8
-inch muntin is selected to go with a more modern design. You will have black windows and black frames .
I worry that the 7/8-inch muntins or larger will look very heavy. Maybe you haven ’t selected yet, but please
consider the smaller dimension when you are making the window selection. It looks drawn at 5/8-inch
which looks nicer. Otherwise, thank you for your response to our comments. It is a lovely project.
>There are discrepancies on the renderings and elevations regarding the windows. The elevations show
four divided lites and the renderings show six. I would personally prefer six divided lites, but both are fine
as far as divided lites go. I also want to echo my fellow commissioners; I am very happy with the design
right now. It looks great.
>Please update the drawings to reflect the number of grids the same as the renderings.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
application with the following added condition:
>that prior to submitting for a building permit, the following design elements shall be
incorporated into the project plans:
- windows throughout the house containing a 2x2 grid pattern shall be changed to a 2x3 grid
pattern (like that shown on the renderings).
- all windows shall contain 5/8-inch wide muntin bars.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 -
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
a.2116 Broadway, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
building height and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an
existing single-unit dwelling. (Marcos Vieira, applicant and property owner; Geurse
Conceptual Design Inc., Jesse Geurse, designer) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
Page 6City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Staff Report
Attachments
Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, 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:
>I really like the project; I like it the way it is right now. Changing the front door from a double -door to a
single door with sidelights is easy. I agree that the sidelights can look a little bit more contemporary. With
that said, I don’t have any concerns.
>It is gorgeous; nice job.
>It is a beautiful project and I would approve as well. Suggest that the applicant look at the front
elevation and consider using some pretty light fixtures. I know it is not in our purview, but if you have some
light fixtures by the stairs, it will bring out the beauty of the architectural details that you are doing with
some lights either on the stairs or on either side of the walkway going up. Otherwise, I can approve the
project.
>It is a good comment. I absolutely love the design of the wood pattern of the porch in the front. It is
nicely done. I really appreciate that you are not just putting the house back together but making the
design better.
Commission Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 -
b.223 Anita Road, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variance
for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling located on a
multi-unit lot. (Hector Santizo, Planning & Design Studio, applicant and designer; Fanny
Fang and Clement Lam, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
Staff Report
Attachments
Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview
of the staff report.
Page 7City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing.
Hector Santizo, 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:
>Regarding the Side Setback Variance request for the new addition at the rear and understanding that
it is attached to the house, I am surprised that it is allowed to be so close to the next structure without a
setback. Is it because there is a fire wall? (Kolokihakaufisi: Since the dwelling is now connected or
attached to the carport, it is treated as one structure. As far as we know, it did not have any effect on the
approval of Fire Department at this phase. They could have opted to have the 4’-0” minimum setback
required between structures, but perhaps because they wanted to utilize the area, they opted to have it
connected. That is what’s triggering the Side Setback Variance.)
>I wanted to put in record that the front is being counted as a yard, but is being used as parking; I
know because I live close by to the property. They don ’t have the required parking, but they also use the
front setback as parking. (Kolokihakaufisi : The Commission can offer suggestions on how to make the
landscaping more robust and not be used as parking.)
>There was no declining height envelope information on the elevations. (Kolokihakaufisi: Since this is
in an R-3 zone and part of a multi-unit residence, there is no requirement for a declining height envelope.)
>I don’t think the parts go together and it is a good candidate for a design review consultant. It is
currently a beautiful little bungalow and I am disturbed that parts of it are being taken apart. It has
beautiful pieces on the window corners and I don’t imagine those are going to be remade.
>With regards to the landscaping, you have picked two Toyon bushes. They can turn into small trees
eventually, but those are very hard to get. Consider having a second choice, not a Japanese Maple, but
something that you can agree upon with the Parks Division.
> I too think that this would be a good candidate for a design review consultant. In addition to what my
fellow commissioner has stated, some things need to be addressed. The drafting has done injustice to the
actual beauty of the existing home. There are a lot of nice trim details, accent features, siding and window
grids that were not accurately presented in the drawings. I would like to see those added in the next
version.
>There are window placement issues to be considered, specifically on the rear elevation on the upper
left quadrant. There is a closet up against that one bedroom upstairs, possibly the location of another
closet on another wall would give the opportunity to open some windows on this side and balance out
some of the fenestrations.
>Drafting errors need to be corrected. The window to the right of the carport on the main floor is in the
wrong location on the elevation and is not consistent with the floor plan. The hatching over the egress
windows is not shown properly.
>The right side second story elevation looks flat; there is no window or any details there. There is an
opportunity to improve and provide some daylight infiltration along that portion of the right side of the
house.
Page 8City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I don’t know with the design review consultant if the massing will stay the same. From the front, it
looks like there is some nice balance in massing. The left and right walls go straight up and create a full
view, but on the side elevation, that second story looks like a tower over the rest of the structure .
Consider balancing some of that massing by maybe changing the roof profile. The hip roof at the back
doesn't seem to work so well when there is a second story addition right behind it. Consider continuing the
ridge to intersect the second story. Suggest taking advantage of the space on the second story; there are
some volumes that can be utilized and expand over the first floor where the rear gable is right now.
>The tower does not work in scale or massing; it will take a lot of work to integrate this. The windows
on the second floor will be affected by the roof that needs to change to make it drain. It may not work.
>I am concerned about the addition making the driveway virtually unusable because it will close what is
now a curved corner that allows cars to move. I don ’t know if you will be able to get out of the carport
without a 10-point turn.
>The 9’-0” plate heights on the second floor are too tall and are making this even worse. The fact that it
is already five to six steps above ground level makes it worse.
>The vinyl windows are not acceptable; need to consider a higher quality window material.
>The front porch, as drawn in the rendering, does nothing with the charm of this house.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. I challenge the whole idea of the addition. You are jamming it in
between a very cheap existing carport that is nonconforming anyway. I would recommend demolishing the
carport and re-imagining the rear addition. It just doesn’t work.
>That would also eliminate the Side Setback Variance; I don't see justification for it anyway.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The bio -swales bother me because this is obviously a rental
property. Those do need maintenance or else they become mosquito pits. In addition, the Engineering
Division will require a whole new curb and gutter /driveway approach and there will be a new sewer lateral .
There are some opportunities here to look at some of the impervious surfaces and make them better. You
already have a Frankenstein of a driveway concrete anyway, it ’s not like you are saving some nice work
there. It’s all going to get torn up and re -poured again. If I am on the adjacent property, I don ’t want
bio-swale right by my property line. I don ’t know how you can build the one that is between the building
and the property line that is only 4’-0” as it is.
>I have some problems with the general landscaping as what my fellow commissioner has stated.
>It would be great if Public Works can provide some comments about the retention because I am not
quite understanding why they are asking for this particular property.
>I believe at this stage Public Works has already made initial comments regarding the plans. It could
be that based on this design there are only so many options to address the drainage on the property due
to the extent of impervious surfaces. Maybe when this whole thing is re -looked at there is an opportunity
for Public Works to re-address a new site plan. Hopefully they can come up a new system.
>I would also challenge, when you look at sheet A 01, the open space plan; the 509 SF in the front yard
is not an open space. As what my fellow commissioner had mentioned, it is a concrete parking space. I
don’t think it meets the intent. Now we are adding more units .; if that is the objective, it is a good thing to
add more housing units.
>If the objective is looking for more housing units, then the applicant can look at SB 9 or some other
Page 9City of Burlingame
August 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
option versus just putting in something on top of the existing house. Although there is no kitchen or
bathroom in that unit. If that is what the intent is, then let us call it as it is and try to work within the
system that we have. That can hopefully provide them with what they want.
>I believe the big problem is the carport. It is not in the right place with this idea. They can do
something much more pleasing and effective there.
>This could be an economical approach to add rooms and living space from the applicant ’s point of
view, but it hasn’t really considered the overall site, the massing of the structure, and the beauty of the
front structure and try to incorporate it all.
Commission Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. 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
There were no Director Reports.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
>The Planning Commission requested that the following issue be discussed in the future: review of
projects that include removal of exterior materials as it relates to Design Review.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Page 10City of Burlingame