Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.09.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, September 9, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and TsePresent6 - SchmidAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 26, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 26, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Schmid1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Public comment from Jim Forbes: I own a piece of property here in Burlingame in the Coyote Point area . It is an industrial property that was built in 1968 and consists of about 15 small units of 1,300 square feet. About three years ago, the zoning was changed to Bayfront Commercial with the emphasis being an office or an R&D (Research and Development) and some commercial /retail that may take advantage of the bayfront and the offices there. This thing is killing me. My building is not designed for that nor any of the 10 buildings that are in this little pocket that were caught up in this Bayfront Commercial zone, which is mostly vacant land before. As I understand the rules, in order for me to maintain industrial use, which is the very best use for the building because they are little warehouses with a small office and a roll -up door, they would be grandfathered in if they continue with the same use. Because the economy is slower and a lot of the other existing buildings are not getting demolished to build more offices, I am starting to accumulate vacancies . Page 1City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes My steady feed of tenants was those getting kicked out of other buildings in Burlingame or nearby, it is not happening. I currently have five vacant lease spaces, and one is approaching the six -month vacancy period. I was told by Planning staff that I would need to ask for another six months to maintain my industrial use. I am not inclined at all to take the risk and try to do an office or commercial because chances are, if there was any demand which I haven ’t seen in the last 20 years I own the property, I would lose the industrial zoning and that is what the building is built for. And so, I am asking for some help. On the other side of Anza Boulevard, it is zoned Innovative Industrial . There is an industrial piece so that the buildings there can continue to do light industrial. In contrast, there is no safety net for me in this area. It is either office, R&D or retail uses. I’m really hoping you can help me or maybe it’s the City Council that does it. I was told by my agent that there is a six -year supply of vacancy for the life science. Office use came and went. COVID crammed it. Maybe in 10-20 years it will come back, but right now there is no demand for this property at all, not even so much for light industrial . I have a local resident here who wants to store their stuff for a year and I told them I can ’t do that. This is going to screw up my zoning. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adoption of Resolution Making Findings and Determining that the County of San Mateo Proposed Acquisition of 849, 863 Mitten Road and 866 Malcolm Road, Burlingame (APNs 024-403-380, 024-403-410 and 024-403-400, respectively), and adjacent parking lots (APNs 026-301-240, 026-301-320 and 026-301-310) for administrative, executive, and professional offices for County programs is in Conformance with the 2019 Burlingame General Plan, in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Government Code Section 65402). This application is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Sections 15301, 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines(County of San Mateo, Real Property Services, applicant; ARE-819/863 Mitten Road, LLC, property owner). Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Attachments Resolution Attachments: Vice-Chair Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Schmid1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.615 Trenton Way, 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. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and architect; Faheem Dinath and Urmi Shome -Dinath, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 2City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit 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: >Public comment sent via email by Yogesh & Jann Hakeem -Jogia, 609 Trenton Way: We are the owners of the property at 609 Trenton Way adjacent to the planned project at 615 Trenton Way. We have reviewed the proposed drawings and are in support of this new home being built. The proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood aesthetic and would be an elegant addition to Trenton Way. Having lived in Burlingame for 37-plus years, we have witnessed many ranch homes replaced by huge multiple -story homes on 5,000-plus square foot lots, including a few on Trenton Way, which had spoiled the character of the neighborhood. In our opinion, it is very commendable that Mr. Faheem Dinath and family made great efforts to take the neighbors’ consensus and has kept the design consistent with other smaller homes on Trenton Way. Kudos to him. We wish the Dinath family all the best in completing their project. Please let us know, if you need additional feedback. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for doing a great job on this. >It looks great; it looked great before. The addition of the overhang on the garage from the comments at last meeting looks great. I am definitely in support of this. >I really like the changes that they ’ve made. Very simple but it works together. I also can find support in approving this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The changes are fine -tuning to an already nice design to the house. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Schmid1 - b.1476 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Special Permit for a new second floor deck 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. (Erik Zang, designer; Xiaoxin Yin, property owner ) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao Page 3City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Eric Zang, 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 that it was very well done. It is modest and everything is hidden. The applicant has done a beautiful job. I am very happy with how much they are retaining of the old home. I’d be happy to see this move along. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Schmid1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.19 El Quanito Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Angelique and Chris Rypinski, property owners) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Staff Report Attachments Plans Renderings Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Ammiel Kamon, 15 El Quanito Way: I am the owner of a single -family home two houses over from the subject property. I am here to express grave concerns that we have with the planned addition of another Page 4City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes floor at 19 El Quanito Way. The proposed addition will eliminate protected water and bay views that we have from both our living room and kitchen. The street is kind of flat and dives down. Our house is right by the bend so it always had that view because houses further down the street are a little lower, so we can actually see the bay from there. These are favored views, and they are integral to quality family time; specifically, morning coffee, breakfast, and in the kitchen, we see the water and trees. I called the 19 El Quanito Way homeowner on August 21st as soon as we received the letter informing us of the project. I have asked if they can consider other expansion options, and she expressed that while some other options may exist, they will be more cost prohibitive. I really sense no desire to modify the plans or to look at different expansion options, I think that was the end of the conversation, so this is my one recourse here. The proposed expansion will also reduce our property value. When you are in our dining room, the entire wall is glass; a big picture window and two narrow side windows. What will happen with the addition of this second floor is why have all these windows just to be looking over our neighbor ’s house. You don’t do that. That is an inviting view bringing light, nature, the bay and so forth. To preserve any water views, I need to do a major remodel myself to build up. We have some plans for building some things inside and maybe pushing the house a little bit back on the other side, but we didn ’t think of adding a second floor . That is very cost prohibitive. It is even impractical because we are getting older. This is where we have lived for 20-plus years. The nice thing about these homes as you get older is you ’ve got everything in one level, and you can go down if you need additional stuff. It is a dramatic change. Yes, we can go build up, but it is a very big change to quality of life. Lastly, in relation to the home that was reviewed earlier where a neighbor wrote that they are glad that the applicant didn ’t build a monstrosity on the lot because the neighborhood used to have a certain design feel. Our neighborhood has a feel where all the homes are consistent with one street level and going down. I believe this will be the first home that will be three levels. I worry that there will be a street warfare, “well you’re going to go up, I ’m going to go up .” Then we now block the canyon views for our neighbors across the street, that’s what I worry about as well. >Angelique Rypinski, 19 El Quanito Way: I am the owner of the subject property. I want to express our excitement about the project. We would like to expand our home because the space is currently tight. My husband works from home remotely next to the washing machine. This will be a really great addition for us. I would like to emphasize that we actually explored other options, even an ADU. The problem is we have an easement at the backyard. The city has an access for sewage, so the backyard is not even an option. Obviously, we have the hill and overlooking canyons, so this is not possible. The commission mentioned the front, again, that will not give us much space to play with. We love the design because it is not overpowering and very considerate of what the neighborhood looks like. The commission also mentioned about doing something modern, but I don ’t want to do that because there is no modern house on our street. That will look like an eyesore. We really like this look and the roof profile. Regarding the neighbor, we really didn ’t suspect that this will be an issue regarding the view. The main view on our street is overlooking the canyon. Their house has huge bay windows overlooking that view. This is an area where nobody is able to build, and we love that view very much. The view that my neighbor has mentioned is on the side of their house and very recessed, so that ’s why we didn’t suspect that this will be an issue. The views that they have are very much dependent on the trees that are growing. Our oak tree has been trimmed. If it grows more, they will actually lose that view. So, it is something to consider. Thank you so much. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please fix drafting inconsistencies of window casings on the elevations and renderings. >Suggest discussing previous mudslide issues with Public Works for future mitigation. >Consider looking at other roof profiles and shapes. >Install story poles for the proposed addition. Page 5City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The story poles are needed. I want to note that I tried to reach out to the homeowner at 15 El Quanito Way but was unsuccessful. While I was there, I did walk to the side of the house towards the view. Though I was not at the level of the kitchen and the dining room, I can see that at least at street level or at grade, that there would be some view blockage with the second story addition over the house. I would like to see story poles installed by the time you get to the height of the dining room and kitchen area that clears that second story roof. But until the story poles are up, it ’s really hard to determine. >From a design perspective, I can understand that there are some limitations on where to build. I do see that there is some space in the front of the property to expand, as well as some space out beyond the living room. >There is a 10’-0” change in ridge height, from the top of the current ridge to the new proposed ridge . That is considerable. We can see on the side elevations that it looks somewhat blocky from a neighbor ’s perspective. The applicant has a great designer and I ’m sure the floor plan is working very nicely for them, but I feel that the massing of the central structure feels flat in relationship to all the other homes on the street, which are more ranch -like, low-lying, and sprawling type of arrangements. If this addition goes forward, it must be a bit low -lying to somehow break up that central portion between the first and second story. >Curious to know why there are no windows on the right -hand side of the second story facing the bay. I would think that they will have a nice bay view from that second floor. There are some corner windows but surprised that there aren’t more windows in that direction letting in some more light and view. >The design is very traditional. It doesn ’t relate to the ranch-style low-slung of the neighborhood. When I mentioned modern design, I didn ’t mean flat. I was envisioning some creative ways like slightly slanted roofs; it doesn’t have to be far out there, just a different way to organize that space. It may not be in the same area. I completely understand the limitations. When I was on the site, it is quite land -locked there. The back is better designed than the front. It doesn ’t hold together with the rest of it. It is almost all by itself. I am inclined to think that when we get the idea of what the story poles tell us, maybe there is another way to organize the space that perhaps hasn’t been thought about. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. Whenever there is a hillside overlay, I read this just to make sure that everyone is clear. The Zoning Code states that protected views only apply to living rooms and family rooms, so it is not kitchens and dining rooms. Please let us know when you have the story poles up so we can actually see the view from your living room. Chair Lowenthal re-opened the public hearing. >Kamon: I’ve sent in an email, and I have attached photos. This is what is confusing, if nothing was sent in then you wouldn ’t have those photos. (Chair Lowenthal: We have the photos, but we want to see the story poles from your perspective.) >Raduenz: Thank you commissioner for bringing that code up. I will read the code and put it in our response letter. We are going to look at other options as well. Story poles will go up. It is very important that you get the whole story and to be on site. This is important for the homeowners and the neighbors. I’d like for it to be per the letter of the law. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. >I struggle with the language of how the code section was written. I read it as somewhat unique to every home’s view, the floor plans of each home and what they are seeing. But when I think of living rooms, I think of dining rooms as part of that, the entertainment spaces. Not necessarily a bathroom or a private Page 6City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bedroom, but the spaces where one would entertain and live in. That’s why I see it as dining rooms to be included, but that depends on the layout. I know we have been provided photos here and it looks like the dining room window is huge and is looking out towards the bay. We would have to see once the story poles are up and get permission to enter the home to understand the layout. That is how I ’ve interpreted living rooms. >The code does not allow for interpretation. For example, it actually names living rooms and family rooms. They might want to reword it in the future, but that is how it is written as of today. >That is a little confusing because nowadays, I don ’t know if that is the case with what we are talking about now, there’s a lot of combining rooms and open floor plans so it could be any of those two. I thought it mainly meant no office. >Spansail: We can certainly provide more clarification in the next staff report to make sure we put in there exactly what can and cannot be considered. >It does not say bedroom, correct? That is an important distinction because bedrooms, bathrooms and things like that do not count. >This commission in the past had rejected a project because there was a tiny bit of view from one ’s corner office window upstairs. That was a bedroom being used as an office. That is why my understanding of the language has transferred into other rooms. >Lewit: We did have a code change in January of 2022 and this language was revised. As the Assistant City Attorney said, we can get back to you with more details. >I’m not as quite opposed to the aesthetics of the design because the nature of the ranch houses in this area is extreme compared to the ones we see in other areas which are almost basically split -level. I’m not as opposed to what the elevation looks like a three -story massing because it will only look that way from a very specific angle. A little bit more work can be done to make the front fa çade less blocky. The correct cladding has been chosen so far. Consider adding more details or moving some things around to make it more cohesive. Overall, I agree with my fellow commissioners. >I don’t have much of an issue with the design itself. I don ’t disagree with what my fellow commissioners have said. If we can go a little laterally with the design, as opposed to vertically, I believe we are at 31’-6” from the lower grade. Maybe we can somehow get closer to 27’ or 28’, it may be easier for the other neighbors. I am also against the idea of handcuffing the entire neighborhood because that just hurts your property values. There’s got to be a middle ground. I wouldn ’t put a dead end for them putting up a second story, that is for sure. There can be work done. I am excited to see the story poles and see what we can go with that. >I agree with everyone. To help get all these parts together, consider using stucco on the first floor and have the wood siding on the upper floor. >Consider a break in materials and increase the horizontal element as opposed to the vertical element. >I also agree with my fellow commissioner about not handcuffing the neighborhood in not being able to add a second story. Driving along that street, because of the low -grade of the slope of the street, it seems that nobody is really affected. There are some second story houses on the other side of the street. If there are any second stories that don ’t block distant bay views per our letter of the law, then that should be allowed. >I do appreciate the attempt to remodel the home as opposes to re -building. I do think that is a nice thing to do. I believe the neighbors will also appreciate that as far as the length of construction and change to the natural state of the hill. Page 7City of Burlingame September 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Schmid1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Page 8City of Burlingame