Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.08.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 26, 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, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, 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 August 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, 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 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. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Marcos Vieira, applicant and property owner; Geurse Conceptual Design Inc ., Jesse Geurse, Page 1City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes designer) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Staff Report Attachments Proposed Plans Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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 Proposed Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment submitted via email by Lynn Israelit, 1560 Columbus Avenue: I'm unable to attend the meeting in person this evening but would like to comment on the project at 1588 Columbus Avenue. I am a resident on Columbus Avenue and I'm very pleased overall with this project. I think it's a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. I appreciate that you've requested the owners retain the 6-inch setback for the front door in order to give more detail to the front of the house. I would, however, like to request that the stucco façade remain textured on this home as opposed to the new request for smooth stucco. Every other home on the street has textured stucco, and it would be more in keeping with all of the older homes in the neighborhood aesthetically. I appreciate your consideration Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Regarding the stucco finish, I do appreciate that the applicant has tried to at least provide some kind of texture in there. I believe it is a loss for not going with the textured stucco. I think the reason why this revival architecture style has texture is to show a presence that goes with that style. It is a perceived thickness of the wall that you get from a pattern, something with a texture rather than something that is completely smooth which is a very modern finish. Otherwise, I like the design. Page 2City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I am not 100% on board with the smooth stucco. Any texture will be better than no texture for this specific building in this specific neighborhood. Everything else have been an improvement. >I understand the comments, but with the addition of wood over the windows, it is still a nice project. I also understand the choice of smooth stucco from a practicality standpoint. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. As a contractor, I know that the wave stucco is a nightmare to match if you must replace a window or something like that. Quite frankly, there are many modern houses that have been built in the neighborhood. I find it hard to restrict someone especially on a revival type home and not a complete tear down. I will be inclined to approve this. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. There are a lot of fine details in the design of this home that bring out the historic and architecturally true details with the style of the home. There is some nice balance, textural interest with some of the details and there is good effort to try to meet halfway what we have been asking for. I do feel that there are a number of projects where it is difficult for people to make a change to window openings or doors, in trying to repair some work later on once there is texture on the stucco. It is difficult to match and becomes more obvious that there are some patchworks completed. I, too, am inclined to let them move forward with the smooth stucco finish. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Nay:Shores1 - b.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variances, Minor Modification for parking space width and Tentative Condominium Map for two new, two-story detached condominium dwellings on each of the two existing lots. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Paul and Neena Goswamy, owners and applicants; Gregg Kawahara, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report Attachments Proposed 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. Gregg Kawahara, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >A public comment was received via email from Suzanne Button with an attachment, however it was unreadable as the file is not supported. Staff reached out to sender but did not heard back from her prior to the meeting. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Is the front setback a block average? (Hurin: Yes.) Do you take every house into consideration? (Hurin: We do not include the corner lots because sometimes those are built differently. We also eliminate the highest and lowest setback on the block. Still in this case, the front setback is 34’-11” given all those considerations.) >A couple of the design elements that were discussed, like the long window by the staircase and some belly bands, are missing between the rendering versus the elevation. The belly bands add character to the home. Make sure to have them in the plans when you submit for permits. The stairway wall can be shortened and suggest adding a belly band across it. You worry about the elevation getting larger, but the long window is an inappropriate one in that location. >It is a nice-looking project. It is definitely missing a few things as noted by my fellow commissioner although those can be clerical. Compared to what it currently is, it is a vast improvement. It offers nice housing. I was more concerned about what the public might think but there were not many comments. I am very much in favor of this project. >One of the things that we hear a lot of times when we do these condominiums is the parking. They have made a good effort to create enough off -street parking where it will not impact the neighborhood in a more negative way than some of the projects we have seen. Appreciate what you have done to not make the neighborhood worse in relationship to that. >Consider reconfiguring the window by the bathtub. It doesn ’t look good as presented. There is just too much wall compared to a very tiny window. It is facing the street and a very important elevation. It needs to be as good as it can be. It is right in that setback where they are asking for the Variance. At least it should look decent. >Suggests making the same window larger since it is not over the toilet or tub. >The rendering does not match the elevation in terms of the placement, size of the window and the relationship of the roof over it. It looks more balanced on the elevation. Chair Lowenthal re-opened the public hearing. >Kawahara: We can certainly add a window over the bathtub. >Regarding the staircase window, the idea is shortening the windows so there is not much light coming out. I understood coming back that you made the window larger, so the elevation is less dull. A way to make the elevation less dull and the window smaller is to add a belly band. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, to approve the application with the following added conditions and to recommend approval of the Tentative Condominium Map by the City Council: >that a window shall be added above the second floor bathroom tub (facing the street) in the dwelling at 1029 Capuchino Avenue; the window shall be the same size as the window next to the bathroom entry door. >that the stairway window at 1029 Capuchino Avenue along the East Elevation (left side) shall be shortened and that a wood belly band shall be added below it; the belly band shall wrap around the corners to the sides of the stairway enclosure. Page 4City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1517 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new attached garage. (Judith Mattingly, applicant and architect; Rupa Bhandari and Sameer Khedekar, property owners) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Staff Report Attachments Proposed Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she lives within 500’ of the subject property. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item for business reasons. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Judith Mattingly, designer, Rupa Bhandari and Sameer Khedekar, 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: >Consider using textured stucco finish. This is a house that has presence. I feel that as soon as you make it smooth stucco, the presence gets diminished in some way from the historical side. >Please provide more information on the window trim details. >Check consistency of window patterns; some are molded together and some are not. Consider using a metal trim to make them look like they are together. >(Keylon: For the demolition calculation, if you go over 50% of the exterior wall removal, substantial construction will be triggered, and the project will be considered a new construction. Then you would have to comply with more code regulations from the Planning and Building Divisions.) >Suggest keeping the post and the opening for the window. The finish piece from the outside matches the color of the windows which will make it look like it is a bigger contiguous window rather than three individual windows to eliminate the wide space. >I do like the project. But as you go for a smoother stucco, like the previous project that we just reviewed, they added more header trims to elaborate the detail of the house to offset what they was losing in texture. When we go for the modern Mediterranean and smooth stucco square corners, it looks too perfect. If we don’t do any trims, it just becomes a modern box lacking interest. There is an opportunity to Page 5City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes leverage space between the windows to create the illusion of trim even if you are not doing real trim everywhere. >Suggest not under-sizing the windows to get more glass because that helps if you are not doing a trim. Having a substantial window size brings some definition to those walls too. >For the exterior lighting, please be cognizant of the Burlingame lighting ordinance where it needs to have a downward lighting effect. >I like the project. I like the direction it is going. The way the second floor is recessed and set back is nice. I am not usually a fan of attached garages, but this lot is very restrictive, and I do buy the benefit to the community of getting cars off the street. I agree with my fellow commissioners’ design comments. It looks good. >I agree with all the comments from my fellow commissioners. It could benefit from additional detailing . The garage looks plain; it needs extra features to add value. The comments about the windows were really helpful. >I agree with my fellow commissioners’ comments. The additional ornamentation will be nice over the garage, maybe under the gable of the garage roof or over the front door portico. >The handling of the two -car attached garage is nicely done. It almost looks like a separate structure . It is very similar in location to the current garage. It does provide the required two covered parking spaces . I can definitely understand the Special Permit request considering the shape of the lot and the restrictions that you have there. >I feel that the rear elevation has a lot of windows. It seems that there are a couple of neighbors who look at the backyard. The applicant should be cognizant of their own privacy. The bedroom with a bay window seems like the primary bedroom; consider raising the sill height to reduce the amount of glass on the rear. Consider the comments about reconfiguring the windows to have a more cohesive look on the back. >Provide more details on how the stucco will die on the window trims for more clarity of intent. >Clean up the drawings to reflect how window trims or casings will look consistently on all the elevations. >It was a nicely designed house. I like how the second floor is nestled into the existing attic space. It has a nice massing and handling of the style of the home. I could see support moving this project forward. >I like this project a lot too. Unlike several of the second story additions that we have been seeing lately that are being stuck on top of the existing home, this one has done a good job to integrate the second level to look like it was part of the house to begin with. It doesn ’t look like a poorly done second floor addition. There are some opportunities for improvement based on what we have heard tonight. >The exterior lighting must be included for the next round because that will add extra detail to the garage. There is an opportunity to hang a cast iron light at the entry area which may help tie the railing together to add more details which will add a lot of character to the home. >I can fully support the attached garage given the circumstances. This is a great use of an odd triangular lot. Great solutions for what you’ve got to work with. >There’s a house that the Planning Commission reviewed about a year ago on Burlingame Avenue and Occidental Avenue. It is Mediterranean style and has very smooth stucco, but they dressed the house up Page 6City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and the character is exuding from it. Consider looking at some of the details they ’ve done to satisfy some of the Commission’s comments if you want to do smooth stucco. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - b.615 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and architect; Faheem Dinath and Urmi Shome -Dinath, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report Attachments Proposed Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, 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: >Consider adding another window to the office at the rear elevation to provide more light, not just at the corner of the house but also by the backyard. >The area over the garage door in the front of the house can benefit from adding an eave that projects and serve as a weather protection, but also can mask the lack of height of the garage door. >Suggests looking into gluing down the gravel in between the concrete slabs in the driveway as they don’t usually stay in place; after the first day it never looks the same. >I like the project. I like the elevation on sheet A 101 where the project is shown in comparison to its neighbors. Even though it is a different architectural style, it actually relates to the neighbors both on the left and the right. I like the prairie style. I also appreciate that the design does not require any Variances or Special Permits. >I agree with my fellow commissioner; it is nicely done. I appreciate that you are looking into possible different options for the piece over the garage that might be interesting and pulls everything together. >I agree. I like the massing, the interests from side to side, and how it relates itself to the neighbors as well as the modern homes across the street. I particularly like the open cutout to the right of the front Page 7City of Burlingame August 26, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes door, even though it seems like a really deep eave, it is actually a light well. That is very clever. It brings nice light into the space especially to the windows in the front elevation. This is a very nice project. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that at the August 19, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council appointed Stephanie Lee as the Interim Councilmember. Interim Community Development Director Hurin also noted that Neda Zayer has been selected as the new Community Development Director; her first day will be on September 9, 2024. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission requested that the following issue be discussed in the future: Review types of exterior stucco finishes; perhaps bring in a stucco contractor to review different finishes and /or provide samples. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Page 8City of Burlingame