Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.12.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, December 9, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Michael Guina. 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 November 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft November 25, 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.739 Laurel Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story two-unit dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Antonio Mora, applicant; Richard Terrones, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, architect; Rajiv Gujral, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Page 1City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 739 Laurel Ave - Staff Report 739 Laurel Ave - Attachments 739 Laurel Ave - Proposed Plans 739 Laurel Ave - Previous Plans Attachments: b.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2025 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Memorandum 2025 Planning Commission Calendar Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Horan, 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.475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Brad Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 475 1/2 Rolllins Rd - Staff Report 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Attachments 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - 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. Brad Gunkel, 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: >We spent a lot of time talking about it when it first came before us. The changes reflect the minutes that we had from that meeting. I do like the fins; they do add depth on the second floor. I understand the maintenance issue on that side window. The smooth stucco in concrete color probably solves the ground floor issue that we had. I am ok with the changes as proposed. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I appreciate the team taking the extra steps to push that through. It will make a better product. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Page 2City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.1317 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved 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.(Ardalan Djalali, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner ) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1317 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1317 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1317 Paloma Ave - Proposed Plans 1317 Paloma Ave - Previous Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Ardalan Djalali, 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: >We discussed this project at length. I appreciate that this is where we landed. I am okay with removing the gable end trusses from the garage and the rear elevation of the house. I am okay with the changes as proposed. > I agree, I am also okay with removing the shutters as previously discussed. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Horan, to approve the application with the following amendment to condition #1: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped November 26, 2024, sheets A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.5, A3.6, and AX.1 through AX.4; except that the gable end trusses at the rear of the house and on the detached garage do not need to be installed. Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.30 Ingold Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously approved mixed use residential development (increasing units from 302 to 320). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Page 3City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant and property owner; Chris Lee, Studio T Square, architect) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 30 Ingold Rd - Staff Report 30 Ingold Rd - Attachments 30 Ingold Rd - Second Supplemental Memorandum 30 Ingold Rd - Proposed Plans 30 Ingold Rd - Previous Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she communicated with the applicant via email regarding the landscape plan. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Richard Norris, applicant, and Brenna Weaver, 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: >It continues to be a beautiful project. I look forward to seeing it built. It was a creative area to add the extra units. It is more than meeting the open space and parking requirements. All other requirements have been met completely. I am in support of this project moving forward. 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 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1519 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Byoung Choi, applicant and architect; Jee Yu and Jihoon Kim, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1519 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1519 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1519 Bernal Ave - 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. Byoung Choi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Page 4City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Existing elevations on sheet A 7 are showing windows without divided mullions, but in reality, they do have divided windows, so you are changing the elevation. >You are planning to install vinyl windows; we don ’t traditionally agree with vinyl windows unless you use a composite one. Please provide the manufacturer information. >On the proposed lower floor plan, the large front window is shown as a bay and projects out about two feet. It is not reflected on the elevation. Please fix drafting errors to match the floor plan and elevations. >All of the openings look very large. That is exasperated by the lack of mullions on the windows. I love that you are using as much of the building as possible, but it still needs some work. I’m wondering if it can benefit from working with a design review consultant. >I agree that this can benefit from a design review consultant. None of the windows are working; the scale, the lack of trims make it look flat. The standing seam metal roof doesn ’t work. The fact that it is extending that much in the back to create that situation is not a good design. The pop -out at the front does not work. The flat roof over the entry is going to leak. I see a lot of things that are going sideways on this. I am concerned that this will come back as an Amendment with a lot of items changed. There needs to be some considerable work done on this to make it passable. The colored elevation does not help it at all. I highly recommend, before coming back to us, that you look at the many examples that we are getting for 3D renderings because you have a complicated house and it ’s not going to show up well with just elevations. >I agree. I would like the design review consultant to look at the types of windows that they are proposing. This particular block in Bernal Avenue has newer houses on it with good charm. It is a really pretty block, and it does not quite fit that block. >I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. I appreciate how a lot of the front and the massing of the house have been retained. At the back, I am particularly concerned from looking at the Google maps, there seems to be some extensive views from neighbors behind into the side of this property. It is important that the side and the back of the house looks cohesive with the existing home at the front of the house. I agree that the standing seam metal roof does not serve its purposes. It’s not an accent, it looks more functional. I would also like to note that there are four different slopes in the roof plan. It is a good indicator that it is not an ideal roof design for this proposed project. I agree that it should go to a design review consultant. >The house has decorative rafter tails and trims which have been totally eliminated. I don ’t know how you are able to keep the rafters and not have the decorations. This new design does not match the design of the house at all. A decision needs to be made, are we saving anything or are we not? It needs to be a cohesive design. >What is happening to those rafter tails? Houses like these don ’t have a lot of details to begin with because of how they are designed and the purpose of the design. For instance, in addition to just having lights, both windows in the front fa çade, as depicted in the drawings is different from the actual buildings, they both have sills which are not found throughout the rest of the drawings. I don ’t have a problem with this project conceptually, but there needs to be more attention to details especially on the Page 5City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes primary façade. >I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said. I encourage the applicant to look at the windows carefully, they are too big, and they make no sense. The biggest windows are in the bedrooms . Suggests picking an architectural style. It looks like it is trying to be modern, but the design is all over the place. I don’t think it is cohesive. The roof slope was one of the telltales of not having a good design as called out by my fellow commissioner. I do like that the building is being saved. I like that the street elevation is largely intact, with the exception to the changes to the windows. The big window on top of the entrance does not look to scale. The original entrance looks a lot more appropriate. There is work to be done. I don’t like the shed standing seam metal roof, it is too long, and the slope is too shallow. I don ’t mind the massing of the building, but the roof and the windows need a lot of attention. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would echo the suggestion to walk around this block of Bernal Avenue because, unfortunately, those beautiful homes do not do any favors to this house. You can’t have white vinyl windows with no mullions on this block and nearly almost anywhere in Burlingame. 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 - b.2319 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variances, and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for second and third story additions to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Alex Voldarsky, applicant and designer; Jacob Chudnovsky, property owner) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2319 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2319 Easton Dr - Attachments 2319 Easton Dr - Proposed Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Shores noted that he spoke with the applicant on site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Alex Voldarsky, 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 understand if the goal is to call more attention to itself by using the gable roof. It is a beautiful house whether it has additions or not. Our goal as a commission is to make sure that the project hangs together. Not sure that the proposed roof is complementary. A three -story home is very unusual unless it is in a steeper sloped lot. The new windows don ’t seem to work with the existing windows. This could be improved by re-looking at the roofs and the mullion patterns to make it hold together with the house. >Reading the staff report, I was shocked about the number of requests being made on this property until I start diving into the drawings. I can understand the complexity of the lot. The various and wide-ranging front setbacks and the varying heights of structures along the street I can understand where these requests were being made from declining height envelope to height and setbacks. All-in-all, Page 6City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the massing feels nice on the house and goes with the style of the home. I also don ’t see the new gabled roof area tying in with adding to or complementing the beauty of the existing home. The roof over the garage would be just as voluminous inside the room with a hipped roof and will complement the front of the house better. The addition at the rear looks like adding a ranch -style home as an extra layer on top of the house. Those rooflines would benefit following the hipped style that we see around the house, especially in the rear since they have the nice bay window with a pretty roof line around it. It will be embellished by adding such roof lines at the rear of the house. >It is really hard to follow the set of drawings from sheet to sheet. There were scale changes. One floor will be on one sheet and several sheets later before you see another plan of another floor. It will be very helpful to organize the set of drawings, so it is easier to view and read. There are a lot of line weight issues going on, not sure if it was the printing or the actual line weights used on CAD. It is hard to see where some of the new construction and existing conditions are. It is also hard to tell what is happening with the window profiles, trims, casings and details. It is a very pretty home. There are a lot of details to show. They have done a nice job showing the tile roof on the elevations. We can see from window to window that there are single -line representations and other times there are double -line representations and other times there are three lines. It becomes unclear what the desired window casing or finish would be around each of those window’s sashes. >There is an existing built -out stucco trim that is wrapped around a stair window at the front elevation, that detail can be replicated at the additional large window by the staircase to have a similar design. That can be something to help tie the two together. >Having trouble seeing consistency of details, the design intent around the house and I don ’t feel that the gable roofs work. I can support the front setback variance and declining height envelope requests . With the height variance, there are at least three homes within the vicinity that were definitely taller than this house, they might have been set back a little more. With the third -floor unit being centralized and with a low-profile hipped roof, that can fit nicely in the center of the structure. I can see supporting that. >I think the design will be generally improved by having more hip roofs because that seems like the design they are going for. I don ’t think they are completely incompatible or like it is a random butterfly roof sticking from the side. I have specific concerns on the wood cladding in the gable ends at the rear, but that is the only concern that stuck out to me. The design would be improved without those. Wood corbels would be a great addition underneath the third story overhang over the existing balcony. They are already on the second story overhang at the rear. >I was impressed with the selection of windows. I am very happy to see a lot of wood true divided lites. They look very high quality. I do appreciate the intent to match with the existing windows which keeps the flow going. I am also appreciative of the other very large window by the staircase that faces out the street, that is nice to see. Generally, I am also in favor of all the variance requests. I am happy to see that the demolition is very focused and was very intent not to touch parts of the house that doesn ’t need to be touched. I would like to see a different approach at the gable ends. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would prefer a hipped roof especially at the front, but it ’s not a deal breaker for me. I lived in Switzerland for three years; the rear upper addition looks like a Swiss chalet which is not in keeping with the Spanish style of the house. I agree that the wood trim doesn ’t go with the current architectural style. The massing is good. Typically, I would be concerned about a third story, but it works in this house. I am supportive of the variance requests. >I feel that the third floor at the back looks like a little hat that sits on top of the house. I’d like to see it become more cohesive with the second floor. The windows need to be more consistent with the rest of the house. They don ’t need to be matching but needs to be cohesive throughout. I can see approving the variance requests. I would just like another go around on the third floor. >I like the project overall. I like the concept of what is going to be saved, and I like the architecture. It is a nice-looking property. I can support the variance requests, none of them seem unreasonable to me . Page 7City of Burlingame December 9, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes I am leaning towards the hipped roof design. I like gable ends, and I use them all the time with my designs, but I am not seeing it for this particular style. Having a hipped roof will actually help bring down the scale on the rear and front elevations. Otherwise, this is a good project. >To comment on the letter that was received from a neighbor regarding concerns about structural failure, the creek bed and where things are built, I wanted to note that we are here to speak on the design review aspects of the home, but all the numerous city departments would be addressing all the issues to ensure the safe and sound construction of the home. >We are here for design review. I find the design to be complementary to the way the house was originally built. I walk this street everyday with my dog and this would be a lovely addition to my walk. It is a really attractive home as it is, and the proposed design improves it. I don ’t disagree with my fellow commissioners’ comments, what were said will also improve the look of the house as well. I am in favor of moving this forward to Regular Action. I can also find support for the different variance requests. I understand where they are coming from and I don’t find them outlandish. Chair Lowenthal 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 Planning Manager Hurin noted that the ADU Ordinance Update was introduced at the December 2, 2024 City Council meeting. It is going forward for adoption at the next City Council meeting on December 16, 2024. The Ordinance will become effective 30 days after that, which is on January 15, 2025. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Page 8City of Burlingame